Anchoring Climate Cooperation in an Evolving International Order

Download Article

A decade after the Paris Agreement entered into force, international climate action faces existential pressure. There is no way to sugarcoat it: climate has been deprioritized on government agendas, global climate gatherings command far less attention, and major powers that once treated climate change as a domain of cooperation now see it as a source of economic tension.

Featured Expert: 

Jennifer Morgan Senior Fellow, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University

The world order as we’ve known it for decades is changing in fundamental ways before our eyes. Some are calling it a complete break or even a collapse. Others are trying to hold on to the past international rules and norms as if little is changing.

Many of the institutions created after World War II such as the United Nations and the World Bank are being weakened by the withdrawal or destructive behavior of the United States. However, these institutions have not disappeared and still provide important functions for the international order.

As we look toward the future, it is important to consider whether the U.S. will ever return to its previous role, and how China now sees itself as a “torchbearer” for multilateralism. This shifting power balance also include the rise of BRICS+, the emerging “Middle Powers” concept and the role of China in clean technology development and export. Additionally, the stunning, intense and rapid climate impacts occurring across the globe are putting even more pressure on global institutions to act faster, particularly while keeping the vulnerabilities of least developed countries and small island developing states front of mind.

A crystal ball isn’t necessary to see into the future. Underneath the extreme views of the international order collapsing, or the viewpoint that everything is fine, some countries are beginning to take steps to build a new international order, one that uses existing norms in international agreements or applies them in plurilateral or bilateral agreements. While these efforts are less visible and still developing, they can provide lessons on international cooperation for the future.

Many of the countries currently participating in this reordering process understand that worldwide economic changes are needed. One major driving geoeconomic force is decarbonization. China’s success and dominance in green technology such as electric vehicles and solar power — and in rare earths and critical raw material supply chains — are forcing countries to forge new alliances that create both economic and energy security. These new alliances are likely, due to shifting geopolitics, to be built on a different paradigm from North-South collaboration, moving away from extractivism toward a paradigm that combines shared values, national self-interest and coalitions that counteract dismantling efforts.

The combination of a changed current international order combined with the need to rapidly decarbonize and build a more climate resilient economy is creating the conditions for an evolution in that international order. This could form the basis for a longer-term architecture for international climate cooperation. There are of course many potential conflicts and choices that will need to be navigated, while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid even more dangerous impacts.

However, to uphold the defining principles and values of the United Nations, it will be vital to look beyond the Middle Powers that hold or need critical resources. The most vulnerable and poorest countries which are experiencing intensifying climate impacts must be actively included in this evolving order, as many are unlikely to benefit from new economic and trade partnerships. Keeping equity and solidarity front and center when prioritizing funding to build resilience and pay for loss and damage will be a defining indicator of whether the future will disintegrate further into transactionalism or whether a large group of countries reshapes the system together.

While the elements of a new international order are not yet fully in place nor are they adequately addressing the climate crisis, there is much to build upon. And, as the recent United Nations Environment Programme Overshoot report states, international cooperation will need to increase not decrease, in an increasingly chaotic world with more intense climate impacts and shifting geoeconomics that require new types of economic partnerships. Thus, efforts by some countries to focus on building up national assets to becoming more nationally independent or even isolated may seem beneficial in the short-term but do not match likely trends and growing needs.

Elements of the Evolving International Climate Cooperation Ecosystem

The elements of this evolving new order include multilateral agreements, such as the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the various aligned initiatives, including its Global Climate Action Agenda. Additionally, some of the bilateral trade agreements among countries, particularly the European Union and others (e.g., India, Mercosur, etc.) include provisions regarding the Paris Agreement mechanisms to align countries with its goals and implement national climate commitments (known as nationally determined contributions or NDCs). In some cases, there is a specific focus on a key sector, like incentivizing clean energy or reducing deforestation. While these efforts cannot adequately drive the amount of emissions reductions needed, they can provide a starting point for identifying further action. Agreements around natural resources are also emerging which may offer lessons for international cooperation.

Each of these efforts provides different functions in international cooperation and lays the groundwork to accelerate the transition to a decarbonized resilient economy.

The main functions that the Paris Agreement needs to continue to fulfill include: collective goal-setting and direction-setting, universal participation and legitimacy, ambition cycles and progression, transparency and accountability, collective assessment through the Global Stocktake, and norm development and political signaling. Focusing efforts on an effective United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that can perform these functions should be a future priority.

There are other essential functions that are shared and performed by a number of institutions and initiatives, inter alia the UNFCCC. These include finance (e.g., multilateral development banks, private sector) as a central shared function but also sectoral decarbonization initiatives, adaptation and resilience partnerships, corporation and subnational initiatives.

Whether it be the role of the multilateral development banks, or initiatives that are part of the Action Agenda, it would be more effective if there was a growing directional functional role of the conference of the parties (COPs), creating clearer mandates for the focus of such institutions. Additionally, there should be greater transparency and accountability on how such institutions and initiatives are progressing in implementation, particularly for the Action Agenda. This would assist in building greater trust in the evolving international system.

It is also likely that new coalitions of like-minded countries working to achieve common goals will emerge that fulfill some of these functions. The Global Solidarity Levy Taskforce or the countries working to Transition Away from Fossil Fuels are just two examples of initiatives focused on meeting Paris Agreement goals with groups of countries ready to intensify collaboration.

Finally, there are functions that operate in parallel with the Paris Agreement but should be aligned in meeting its goals. These include economic agreements such bilateral trade agreements or plurilateral agreements on critical minerals. Many of these efforts are being utilized to implement the Paris Agreement in a sectoral or economy-wide manner.

Mapping Governance Functions: Essential vs. Shared Roles

To ensure parallel initiatives reinforce rather than undermine the Paris Agreement architecture, policymakers must distinguish between governance functions that must remain strictly centralized and those that can be distributed across broader networks.

Overall, this range of activities is welcoming. It is a magnification of effort that demonstrates the polycentric architecture of international climate action and the integration of decarbonization across the economy. In the context of climate governance, polycentricity describes a system where multiple governing authorities interact at different scales — from local municipalities to international bodies — rather than relying on a single, centralized global authority.

This expansion reflects the reality that no single institution can execute every dimension of the economic and resilience transition. However, as governance decentralizes, significant coherence challenges emerge:

• Fragmentation and Duplication: Uncoordinated parallel tracks risk creating overlapping reporting burdens and conflicting standards.
• Accountability Deficits: Unlike formal Paris Agreement mechanisms, many external initiatives lack rigorous reporting requirements, making it difficult to verify whether they deliver real emissions reductions.
• Equity Gaps: Exclusive economic clubs and plurilateral deals often leave out Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs), threatening overall system legitimacy.

As the future architecture of international cooperation evolves and emerges, it will be important to assess which of these need some kind of formal link to the Paris Agreement through existing provisions for cooperation among countries such as Article 6.8 of the Paris Agreement or Article 7.2c of the Framework Convention and which do not.

By protecting the essential functions of the Paris Agreement while building robust alignment mechanisms for parallel initiatives, the international community can harness the economic engines of trade, finance and industry to accelerate global implementation — delivering action at scale.

To keep a focus on shared values and collective action, maintain trust and equity, more than that will be needed. It is clear that public funding for the poorest and most vulnerable countries must continue and increase. It is also clear that new and innovative financial mechanisms are needed, particularly in the fields of building resilience and loss and damage. Governments can use various types of solidarity levies to fulfill responsibilities and maintain an international order that places humanity at its core.

The COPs

Although climate issues are being integrated into agreements and meetings, it is no longer a main topic at forums like the G7 and G20, due to U.S. opposition. While those fora should find a way to continue to discuss and commit to climate action now and long into the future, it is quite clear that there is only one gathering per year where addressing the existential risk of climate change occurs, the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties. This platform should also evolve and become the platform of solutions where those interested in working to curb climate change and build resilience come together.

All Elements Moving Together

The evolving new international order is already occurring, but it will require a deliberate effort to ensure that shared values are maintained, and various types of efforts are aligned to the goals of the Paris Agreement at the scale and speed required to avoid even greater and more frequent loss and damage.

By protecting the essential functions of the Paris Agreement while building robust alignment mechanisms for parallel ambitious and equitable initiatives, the international community can harness the economic engines of trade, finance and industry to accelerate global implementation — delivering action at scale. While this should create positive benefits for countries in the decarbonization process, the building of resilience and addressing loss and damage particularly in the most vulnerable and poor countries must be a priority. Without all elements moving forward together, destabilization and even chaos are likely.  

Thank you to Bethany Tietjen of the Climate Policy Lab at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, for the collaborative thinking that informed this piece.