I’m adding some nuances from the ICJ advisory decision yesterday.

See this section of the full decision.

There are several references to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities in the Agreement, indicating the key role that the principle plays in the interpretation of the provisions of the Agreement (see third preambular paragraph, and Article 2, paragraph 2, Article 4, paragraph 3, and Article 4, paragraph 19). However, it is observed that this principle, which also features in the Framework Convention and COP
decisions, has been formulated differently in the Paris Agreement through the addition of the phrase “in the light of different national circumstances”.

In the view of the Court, the additional phrase does not change the core of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities; rather, it adds nuance to the principle by recognizing that the status of a State as developed or developing is not static. It depends on an assessment of the current circumstances of the State concerned. The use of the terms “will be implemented to reflect” in Article 2 generates an expectation that the Paris Agreement will be implemented by the parties in a manner that will reflect their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities in the light of different national circumstances.

CarrZee: In my opinion, this reading by the court increases the chance that both the USA and China will boost finance toward climate action at UN climate talks in November. The US will more likely come back into the Paris Agreement if China boosts finance, so there is a deal to be done there. China is already taking a bigger role at the UN level.