Q.(a) In what ways has the principle of 'common but differentiated responsibilities' helped in addressing and overcoming the differences between the 'Global North' and 'Global South' over environmental issues ? Explain.

The Kyoto Protocol emerged from a growing global recognition in the 1990s that climate change was not a distant threat but an unfolding crisis. Scientists had already established that rising concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases were trapping heat in the atmosphere, driving up average global temperatures. The question was no longer whether action was needed, but how to design an international framework that could actually compel countries to cut their emissions.

Adopted in 1997 at the third Conference of the Parties (COP3) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol was the first treaty to set legally binding emission reduction targets. Its core mechanism was straightforward: developed countries — listed in Annex I of the convention — were required to reduce their collective greenhouse gas emissions by about 5% below 1990 levels during the first commitment period (2008–2012). This was not a voluntary pledge or a vague aspiration; it was a treaty obligation with compliance procedures.

The idea of sustainable development emerged from a growing recognition that unchecked economic growth was depleting natural resources and degrading ecosystems at an alarming rate. By the late twentieth century, it became clear that development could not be measured solely by rising incomes or industrial output. A new framework was needed, one that acknowledged the interdependence of human prosperity and environmental health.

At its heart, sustainable development rejects the false choice between growth and conservation. It does not ask us to abandon economic progress, nor does it permit us to sacrifice the environment for short-term gain. Instead, it insists that the two must advance together. Economic activities should be designed so that they do not exhaust resources or poison the systems—air, water, soil, biodiversity—on which all life depends. This is ecological responsibility woven into the fabric of growth itself.

The other options miss this balance. Utilizing maximum resources for human development (option A) is precisely the extractive mindset that sustainable development seeks to replace; it treats nature as an infinite storehouse, ignoring limits and regeneration rates. Increasing GDP (option B) is a narrow economic metric that says nothing about how that wealth is generated or distributed, and whether it leaves behind polluted rivers and barren land. Maximizing efforts for environmental conservation (option D) sounds appealing but, taken alone, can neglect the legitimate development needs of communities—particularly in countries where millions still lack basic services. …

The phenomenon of displacement, where individuals or communities are forced to leave their homes, is a significant global humanitarian challenge. People become displaced for a variety of reasons, including armed conflict, widespread violence, persecution, human rights violations, and natural disasters, often exacerbated by climate change. These displaced individuals can be either internally displaced persons (IDPs), who remain within their own country, or refugees, who cross international borders seeking safety.

Africa consistently hosts the largest number of displaced people globally. This is a consequence of several complex and often interconnected factors:

• Protracted Conflicts and Violence: Many regions across Africa have experienced long-standing armed conflicts, civil wars, and insurgencies. Countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, and those in the Sahel region (such as Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger) have seen millions uprooted due to ongoing violence, ethnic tensions, and the activities of armed groups.
• Political Instability and Persecution: Political crises, coups, and governance issues often lead to widespread human rights abuses and persecution, forcing people to flee their homes to escape violence or discrimination.
• Climate Change Impacts: Africa is highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, including severe droughts, floods, and desertification. These environmental disasters destroy livelihoods, create food insecurity, and displace communities, often leading to competition over scarce resources and exacerbating existing conflicts.
• Economic Hardship: While not always the primary driver, severe economic hardship and lack of opportunities can also contribute to displacement, especially when combined with other factors like conflict or environmental degradation.

The World Trade Organization operates on the principle that all member states, regardless of economic strength, must follow the same trade liberalization rules. This "one-size-fits-all" approach creates profound difficulties for developing nations. When a country with fragile industries and limited technological capacity is forced to open its markets at the same pace as wealthy industrialized economies, the results are predictable: domestic producers cannot compete with cheaper or higher-quality imports, unemployment rises, and entire sectors collapse before they have had a chance to mature.

The most effective reform would be to institutionalize special and differential treatment in a meaningful way—not as vague language in agreements, but as concrete, enforceable provisions. Developing countries need substantially longer timeframes to reduce tariffs, phase out subsidies, and comply with intellectual property standards. A textile manufacturer in Bangladesh or a pharmaceutical company in India requires breathing room to build capacity, invest in technology, and achieve economies of scale before facing the full force of global competition. Without that space, trade liberalization becomes a mechanism for entrenching inequality rather than spreading prosperity.

This measure addresses the core grievance that the WTO serves the interests of developed nations. Rich countries built their own industries behind high tariff walls during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; they achieved industrialization precisely because they protected their markets. Demanding that today's developing countries abandon those same tools while their economies are still vulnerable strikes many as hypocritical. Flexible timelines would acknowledge historical context and economic reality. …

The New International Economic Order was not a single treaty or organisation — it was a declaration and a programme of action adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1974, pushed by the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of 77. Its core demand was simple: restructure the world economy so that developing countries got fair prices for their raw materials, better access to Western markets, more control over their own resources, and a bigger say in institutions like the IMF and World Bank. For a brief moment in the 1970s, it looked like the Global South had the numbers and the oil-power to force change.

But by the late 1980s, the NIEO was effectively dead. Why?

First, the West never genuinely engaged. The United States and its allies saw the NIEO as a direct challenge to the liberal capitalist order. They blocked every concrete proposal — whether it was a common fund for commodity prices, a code of conduct for multinational corporations, or debt relief. Without the cooperation of the countries that controlled the world's finance, technology, and markets, the NIEO had no mechanism to enforce its demands. It remained a set of resolutions, not a binding reality.

Second, the developing world itself fractured. The NIEO assumed a unified "Third World" with shared interests. But by the 1980s, that unity was gone. Oil-exporting countries like Saudi Arabia and Nigeria had very different interests from oil-importing countries like India or Tanzania. Newly industrialising economies in East Asia were beginning to benefit from the existing system and had less incentive to overturn it. And many African and Latin American countries were sinking into debt — they needed loans from the IMF and World Bank, not confrontation with them. The solidarity that had made the NIEO possible in 1974 could not survive the debt crisis of 1982.

Third, the intellectual climate shifted. The 1970s had been a time when dependency theory and Third Worldism carried weight in universities and UN agencies. By the late 1980s, the rise of Reaganomics and Thatcherism had made free-market thinking dominant. The very idea that states should intervene to fix prices or control multinationals was now dismissed as outdated or harmful. Developing countries themselves began to abandon import-substitution and adopt export-oriented policies. The NIEO's vision of a planned, regulated global economy no longer matched the direction of policy anywhere. …