概要

为了确保联合国可持续发展会议（RIO +20）会产生有意义的成果，政府和其他利益相关者越来越多地支持会议宣布具体和时间有限的承诺，并使用“承诺汇编”来持有每个人其他负责结果。该工作论文描述了WRI对六个过去和当前基于承诺的伙伴关系的评论，其中一些人认为比其他合作伙伴更成功，并提出建议以提高纲要概念的信誉。

执行摘要

In an effort to ensure that the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio +20) generates meaningful outcomes, governments and other stakeholders increasingly support using the Conference to announce specific and time-bound commitments, and to agree on a “framework” to hold each other accountable for results. This so-called “Compendium of Commitments” has been criticized as suggesting a “bottom up”, “pledge-and-review” approach that will lead to business-as-usual outcomes that don’t meet the sustainable development challenges ahead of us. In the few months remaining, proponents of the Compendium of Commitments will have to demonstrate that this approach will lead to ambitious actions and that the accountability framework is sufficiently robust to incentivize and track performance. Rio+20 participants can learn from the range of experiences with past pledge-and-review initiatives and focus on ways to improve the quality of the content of pledges and of the institutions and procedures designed to review them.

背景

Rio +20 takes place in the context of a wider debate on the future of multilateralism and on the role of international law and international institutions in addressing global environment and development challenges. The 1992 Rio Earth Summit generated a variety of internationally agreed guidance and principles (Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development), spurred the adoption of three major, binding multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) (the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)).

The 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) focused on “implementation and compliance” rather than the development of new binding rules and obligations. To this end, it provided a platform for announcing “public private partnerships,” negotiated “bottom up” among interested parties (Brack 2000; Speth 2002; WRI 2004). But few of the more than 300 partnerships launched at WSSD have survived and the vast majority never resulted in significant change, due, at least in part, to the lack of any meaningful process for monitoring and review of performance.

直到最近，国际气候变化谈判都标志着1必威官网是真的吗997年京都议定书中包含的“自上而下”条约义务的类似趋势，朝着2010年坎昆协议中各方提出的“承诺”。其他人则认为，德班气候谈判者最新的（2011年）协议旨在朝着“协议，另一种法律文书或法律武力的结果”迈进，这意味必威官网是真的吗着对谈判，有约束力的承诺的兴趣仍然存在。他们还指出了最近关于与CBD的新约束力方案的国际协议，并取得了一项条约，以减少汞排放。

In any case, it has been clear from the onset of the current negotiations that this Rio process is unlikely to lead to a new set of legally binding treaties. Until recently, it has, however, been unclear what alternative form of outcome would justify holding a global conference on sustainable development at time of heightened concern about the future of the planet.

然而，承诺的概念有一些希望。“我们想要的未来 - 结果文件零草稿”的第128段指出：

我们欢迎Rio+20所做的自愿承诺，并邀请秘书长将其编译为注册表/汇编，该注册表将作为问责制框架。

邀请参与者提出“自愿承诺”而不是集体谈判的过程提出了一系列设计挑战，这将面临着里约热内卢汇编的支持者：

  1. How do we ensure a common level of quality of commitments to be specific, time-bound, measurable, and ambitious beyond business as usual?
  2. 我们如何确保承诺与需要集体行动，涉及跨界污染，全球公共损害的挑战相关的承诺，公平地获得稀缺资源，在总体上足够雄心勃勃，以使所需的差异？
  3. How do we ensure that commitments that address fundamental rights and basic needs, such as information, participation and justice, and clean water, food, shelter, and health, are ambitious enough to respect individual human dignity?
  4. 我们如何确保在缺乏法律武力的情况下，有一个足够强大的责任框架以使参与者对他们的选区和彼此履行承诺负责？