国際法の下での炭素市場規制：実効性、法的課題、国内執行の役割
Regulating Carbon Markets Under International Law: Effectiveness, Legal Challenges, and the Role of National Enforcement (原題)
Shivangi Viju
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文は、京都議定書およびパリ協定第6条が制度化した国際炭素市場の法的枠組みの実効性を評価する。透明性の欠如、監視・検証の不均衡、二重計上、執行体制の不在が市場の価値を損なってきたと指摘し、CDMの環境完全性の低さ（欧州委員会向け調査では85%の案件で追加性が疑わしい）を批判する。構造的・規制的欠陥を特定し、法的整合性・説明責任・執行強化の必要性を論じる。
English
This study evaluates the effectiveness of international legal frameworks governing carbon markets under the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement Article 6. It identifies persistent problems—weak transparency, uneven monitoring and verification, double counting, and absent enforcement—and critiques the CDM's poor environmental integrity (an EC-commissioned study found 85% of surveyed projects had low additionality likelihood). It argues for greater legal consistency, sharper accountability, and stronger national enforcement.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本はGX-ETSとJCM（二国間クレジット制度）を通じてパリ協定6条の実施主体であり、本論文が指摘する二重計上・追加性・執行の課題は、JCM案件の品質保証や国内炭素市場設計に直接示唆を与える。SSBJ開示と炭素クレジットの会計・報告の整合性を検討する際の法的論点として有用。
In the global GX context
As Article 6 rules operationalise (PACMs, bilateral agreements like Japan's JCM), this paper's focus on double counting, additionality, and enforcement gaps speaks directly to the integrity debates shaping ISSB/CSRD disclosure of carbon credits and transition finance credibility. It adds a legal-accountability lens often missing from disclosure-centric scholarship.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:国際炭素市場の法的執行ギャップと環境完全性を、実証・規範の両面から整理する枠組みを提供する。
🏢実務担当者:JCMやボランタリークレジット調達時の追加性・二重計上リスク評価と、開示上のクレジット取扱いの留意点に使える。
🏛政策担当者:GX-ETSやJCMの品質保証・執行制度設計において、透明性と説明責任の強化策を検討する根拠となる。
📄 Abstract（原文）
Carbon markets have become one of the principal market-based responses of international environmental law to climate change, because they allow emission reductions to be priced, traded and counted across borders. The Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, particularly Article 6 of the latter, institutionalised carbon trading on a global scale, with the aim of securing cost-effective mitigation while supporting sustainable development. Their implementation, however, has raised persistent legal and regulatory difficulties. Weak transparency, uneven monitoring and verification, the double counting of reductions and the absence of effective enforcement have all diminished their practical value. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) in particular has been criticised for inefficiency, poor environmental integrity and inadequate regulatory supervision. A study prepared for the European Commission concluded that eighty-five per cent of the projects it surveyed had a low likelihood of ensuring that reductions were additional and were not over-estimated. This study evaluates the effectiveness of the international legal frameworks governing carbon markets, examines how those frameworks attempt to reconcile economic efficiency with environmental protection, and considers how problems such as phantom credits and over-crediting bear on the legitimacy of carbon markets. It seeks to identify the structural and regulatory shortcomings of the present regime and to argue for greater legal consistency, sharper accountability and stronger enforcement.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.63108/ijlmh.12873first seen 2026-09-21 04:57:56
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。