Second, China may be particularly interested in “blocking” an agreement that stabilizes the U.S. contribution as quickly as possible, to ensure that the diminished power carries the greatest possible burden, even if it is a voluntary agreement. The United States has always been an important but unpredictable participant in the negotiations (Depledge Reference Depledge2005). Periods of cautious engagement (Bush sr.) or even withdrawal (Bush Jr., Trump) have been interrupted by leadership efforts (Clinton, Obama). Scholars provided the third (Sunstein Reference Sunstein2007), the second (Bang, Tjernshaugen, and Andresen Reference Bang, Tjernshaugen and Andresen2005) and the first image (Lisowski reference Lisowski2002) explanations for this growth and the decrease of the engagement of the United States. It is important that all major climate agreements have been concluded with strong American participation, but then have lost the support of the United States. U.S. domestic policy is therefore essential for international climate negotiations in the direction of Putnam`s two-tiered game. It also raises the question of whether American leaders are a necessary (but insufficient) condition for the success of the climate regime – is the US a hegemony in the climate negotiations? First, it could be said that there are significant differences in the comparison between the Palestinian Authority and the KP between the entry into force and the global dynamic towards implementation. The Palestinian Authority came into force surprisingly quickly in November 2016, after being ratified by the United States (as an executive agreement) and by China.
To maintain this momentum, countries have already taken implementation measures, including the development of decarbonization strategies by the middle of the century (Galik, DeCarolis and Fell Reference Galik, DeCarolis and Harrison2017). After President Trump announced his intention to withdraw from the treaty in June 2016, many countries, particularly members of the k group, publicly reaffirmed their commitment to the Palestinian Authority. The situation was quite different for the KP, which went through a slow and difficult ratification process over an eight-year period. Given the weight of the United States in Group K, the lack of ratification by the United States has drained all post-Kyoto momentum towards implementation. Given the structure of the treaty, it made sense: commitments agreed upon by a limited number of countries that would only bring benefits if enough parties fulfilled their obligations – a standard challenge for collective action in international relations. Obama`s efforts to reach an agreement with BASIC countries have been a clear indicator of the evolution of the composition of Group K since Kyoto. The United States considered at least some emerging economies to be future members of Group K – it had to support the new agreement to make it work. Some of the core interests of the BASIC Group, particularly those of China, have been consistent with those of the United States.B, for example by avoiding legally binding and costly mitigation commitments, but not with those of the EU and high-risk developing countries. On other issues such as transparency (i.e. revision) and finance, positions in the United States and the United States differed considerably. Resolving these differences would take another five years and would also involve sustainable bilateral efforts towards China`s integration. To support the deposit and verification system among Group K members, the United States first had to engage China and perhaps obtain a significant but voluntary mitigation obligation – an NDC planned before Paris – and thus a signal of support for the deposit and verification system.
Bilateral efforts were successful and on 11 November 2014 resulted in a widely visible announcement of cooperation between the United States and China on climate change. According to a White House statement, the event was aimed at Obama`s Level I audience: “relaunching global climate negotiations and inspiring other countries to take ambitious action as quickly as possible” (White House 2014).