The Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (L&D) associated with Climate Change Impacts (WIM) was established in 2013 to advance i) knowledge generation; ii) coordination and iii) support to address losses and damages under the UNFCCC. So far, the work undertaken by the WIM Executive Committee (ExCom) has focused on enhancing understanding and awareness of the issue and promoting collaboration with relevant stakeholders. Delivering on the WIM’s third function on action and support has lagged behind, and ‘the political’ nature of L&D has often been blamed for this. Key terrains of contention among Parties have included the positioning of L&D governance vis-à-vis the adaptation space and struggles around state liability and compensation. As a way to facilitate discussion on implementation options, recent research has suggested de-politicising aspects of the L&D debate; yet we have very little insight into how the politics are understood within the realm of international L&D governance. This paper brings an analysis of ‘the political’ into the picture by identifying the complex and underlying issues that fuel contention within UNFCCC L&D negotiations. It gives centre stage to the way different framings of norms and material interests affect the debate, and challenges the tendency in current L&D literature to overlook the socio-historical and political underpinnings of this area of policy-making. We employ a qualitative multi-methods research design which draws on content analysis of 138 official Parties’ submissions and statements, 14 elite interviews with key current and former L&D negotiators and is built on a foundation of 3 years of participant observation at COPs and WIM meetings. We approach this data with a political ethnographic sensibility that seeks to explore how meanings are constructed within and across different sources of data. Our empirical results show that, rather than being a monolithic dispute, L&D catalyses different yet intertwined unresolved discussions. We identify five areas of contention, including continued disputes around compensation; conflicts on the legitimacy of L&D as a third pillar of climate action; tensions between the technical and political dimension of the debate; debates over accountability for losses and damages incurred; and the connection of L&D with other unresolved issues under the Convention.

与气候变化影响有关的华沙国际损失和损害机制（L＆D）于2013年建立，以促进以下方面的发展：ii）协调和iii）支持解决《联合国气候变化框架公约》下的损失和损害。到目前为止，WIM执行委员会（ExCom）所做的工作集中在增强对该问题的理解和认识以及促进与相关利益相关者的合作。履行WIM在行动和支持方面的第三项职能已经滞后了，为此经常将L＆D的“政治”性质归咎于此。缔约方之间争执的主要领域包括将L＆D治理相对于适应空间的定位以及围绕国家责任和赔偿的斗争。为了便于讨论实施方案，最近的研究表明，将L＆D辩论中的政治问题去政治化。但是，我们对国际L＆D治理领域如何理解政治的了解很少。本文通过确定在UNFCCC L＆D谈判中引发争议的复杂和潜在问题，对“政治”进行了分析。它为规范和物质利益的不同构架影响辩论的方式提供了中心舞台，并挑战了当前L＆D文献忽视这一决策领域的社会历史和政治基础的趋势。我们采用了定性的多方法研究设计，该设计基于对138个正式缔约方的陈述和声明的内容分析，对当前和以前的主要L＆D谈判者，是在COP和WIM会议上参与者观察了3年的基础上建立的。我们以人种学上的政治敏感性来处理这些数据，以探索在不同数据源之内和之间如何构造意义。我们的实证结果表明，L＆D并非是一个完整的争论，而是催生了不同但纠结在一起的未解决的讨论。我们确定了五个争议领域，包括围绕赔偿金的持续争议；在L＆D作为气候行动第三支柱的合法性上存在冲突；辩论的技术和政治层面之间的紧张关系；关于产生的损失和损害的责任的辩论；以及L＆D与《公约》中其他未解决问题的联系。我们以人种学上的政治敏感性来处理这些数据，以探索在不同数据源之内和之间如何构造意义。我们的实证结果表明，L＆D并非是一个完整的争论，而是催生了不同但相互交织的未解决的讨论。我们确定了五个争议领域，包括围绕赔偿金的持续争议；在L＆D作为气候行动第三支柱的合法性上存在冲突；辩论的技术和政治层面之间的紧张关系；关于产生的损失和损害的责任的辩论；以及L＆D与《公约》下其他未解决问题的联系。我们以人种学上的政治敏感性来处理这些数据，以探索在不同数据源之内和之间如何构造意义。我们的实证结果表明，L＆D并非是一个完整的争论，而是催生了不同但相互交织的未解决的讨论。我们确定了五个争议领域，包括围绕赔偿金的持续争议；在L＆D作为气候行动第三支柱的合法性上存在冲突；辩论的技术和政治层面之间的紧张关系；关于产生的损失和损害的责任的辩论；以及L＆D与《公约》下其他未解决问题的联系。L＆D并非是一个整体的争端，而是催生了不同但纠结在一起的未解决的讨论。我们确定了五个争议领域，包括围绕赔偿金的持续争议；在L＆D作为气候行动第三支柱的合法性上存在冲突；辩论的技术和政治层面之间的紧张关系；关于产生的损失和损害的责任的辩论；以及L＆D与《公约》中其他未解决问题的联系。L＆D并不是一个整体的争端，而是催生了不同但纠结在一起的未解决的讨论。我们确定了五个争议领域，包括围绕赔偿金的持续争议；在L＆D作为气候行动第三支柱的合法性上存在冲突；辩论的技术和政治层面之间的紧张关系；关于产生的损失和损害的责任的辩论；以及L＆D与《公约》中其他未解决问题的联系。关于产生的损失和损害的责任的辩论；以及L＆D与《公约》中其他未解决问题的联系。关于产生的损失和损害的责任的辩论；以及L＆D与《公约》中其他未解决问题的联系。