The Paris Agreement (2015) and the Rulebook (2018) introduce the terms ‘fair’ and ‘climate justice’ for burden-sharing and differentiation. The article analyses to what extent these terms amend the existing term ‘equity’ and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR).The principle of CBDR is an open balancing concept with one clear requirement: Contracting parties contribute to climate protection to a different extent. The terms which appear to have normative weight (‘equity’ and ‘climate justice’), in international climate agreements, are limited to their procedural relevance. They aim at an equal participation in sub-institutions of the Paris Agreement or at making arguments for differentiation transparent. The term ‘fair’ focuses on the discourse on individual concepts of differentiation and on narrowing down common criteria in the long-run.Considering the operationalization of differentiation beyond the terms, it becomes clear that criteria are hardly specified, not weighted against each other and that self-differentiation dominates pre-defined criteria, in particular within the central rules on mitigation and financial transfers. However, the Paris Agreement still specifies criteria with different relevance: Capabilities are followed by vulnerability and the responsibility for emissions.After all, the prevailing procedural terms and rules of differentiation might give orientation, inspire subsequent decisions and the nationally determined contributions (NDCs). The more transparent the various specifications of differentiation are, the more the rules of differentiation can be narrowed. If the reference of criteria to individual states is possible, the Paris Agreement might be implemented effectively which allows for better compliance with the Agreement.

中文翻译：

---

《巴黎协定》中的公平、公正和正义：差异化的条款和可操作化

《巴黎协定》（2015 年）和《规则手册》（2018 年）引入了“公平”和“气候正义”的术语，用于分担和区分责任。文章分析了这些条款在多大程度上修改了现有的“公平”一词和共同但有区别的责任原则（CBDR）。程度。在国际气候协定中，似乎具有规范重要性的术语（“公平”和“气候正义”）仅限于它们的程序相关性。他们的目标是平等参与《巴黎协定》的附属机构或使差异化的论点变得透明。“公平”一词侧重于关于差异化的个别概念的讨论，以及从长远来看缩小共同标准。考虑到差异化在术语之外的操作化，很明显，标准几乎没有指定，没有相互权衡，而且这种自我差异化主导了预先定义的标准，特别是在关于缓解和资金转移的中央规则中。但是，《巴黎协定》仍然规定了具有不同相关性的标准：能力之后是脆弱性和排放责任。毕竟，现行的程序条款和差异化规则可能会给出方向，激发后续决策和国家自主贡献（NDCs）。各种规格的差异化越透明，区分规则越能缩小。如果可以将标准引用到各个国家，则《巴黎协定》可能会得到有效实施，从而可以更好地遵守该协定。