COP26 Climate Governance: Outcomes, Gaps, Consequences

1. Introduction

COP26 marked a decisive shift in how international climate law operates, not because it amended treaty text, but because it recalibrated the governance logic of the Paris Agreement system. The Glasgow Climate Pact did not create new binding obligations under the UNFCCC, yet it reshaped the practical meaning of existing ones by tightening expectations around near-term mitigation, elevating adaptation urgency, and openly confronting the credibility gap created by unmet financial commitments. The significance of COP26, therefore, lies in how it altered the interpretive, political, and institutional environment in which climate obligations are implemented.

The first reason COP26 constitutes a governance turning point is its explicit anchoring of legal and policy expectations to contemporary climate science. The conference foregrounded findings that global warming has already reached approximately 1.1°C above pre-industrial levels and that pathways compatible with limiting warming to 1.5°C require rapid, deep, and sustained emissions reductions within this decade. This emphasis matters legally because the Paris Agreement is structured around nationally determined contributions and an obligation of progression. By sharpening the scientific benchmark, COP26 narrowed the margin within which states can plausibly claim that incremental or delayed action satisfies the requirement of the highest possible ambition (Bodansky, 2016; Rajamani, 2016).

A second turning point lies in the way COP26 shifted the normative baseline of energy transition governance. For the first time in the history of the climate regime, a COP decision explicitly addressed coal power and fossil fuel subsidies. Even though the language was politically qualified, its inclusion altered the justificatory burden placed on states. Policies that prolong reliance on unabated coal or maintain inefficient fossil fuel subsidies now sit in visible tension with an agreed multilateral signal calling for their decline. This development does not operate as a prohibition, but it strengthens the relevance of climate commitments in domestic regulatory review, strategic litigation, and investment decision-making, where governments are increasingly required to justify energy choices against their international climate positions (Voigt, 2016; Peel and Osofsky, 2020).

The third reason COP26 represents a governance inflection point concerns legitimacy and trust within the climate regime. The Glasgow process acknowledged, in unusually direct terms, the failure of developed countries to meet the long-standing collective commitment to mobilise climate finance at scale. By placing this failure at the centre of the political outcome, COP26 framed finance not as a peripheral implementation issue but as a condition for the credibility of the entire mitigation and adaptation architecture. This framing reinforced the structural link between ambition and equity while simultaneously exposing the limits of consensus-based governance in a system marked by deep asymmetries of responsibility, capacity, and vulnerability (Okereke and Coventry, 2016; CIP, 2021).

For these reasons, COP26 should be understood less as a moment of doctrinal legal change and more as a decisive stage in the evolution of climate governance. It consolidated the shift toward a regime governed by scientific benchmarks, political signalling, and transparency-driven accountability, while clarifying where unresolved distributive conflicts continue to constrain collective action.

2. Baseline legal architecture before COP26 (what COPs can—and cannot—do)

Understanding why COP26 mattered requires clarity about the legal architecture that existed before Glasgow and, crucially, about the limits of what Conferences of the Parties are empowered to do under international law. COPs do not legislate in the classical treaty sense. Their authority lies instead in interpretation, operationalisation, coordination, and political steering within an already agreed legal framework.

2.1 Treaties, COP decisions, and legal effect

The backbone of the climate regime consists of three binding instruments: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992), the Kyoto Protocol (1997), and the Paris Agreement (2015). These treaties create legal obligations for states, but they do so at a high level of abstraction. The UNFCCC establishes objectives and principles, the Kyoto Protocol imposed quantified targets on a limited group of states, and the Paris Agreement introduced a universal but flexible system centred on nationally determined contributions.

COP decisions, by contrast, are not treaties and do not create new binding obligations per se. Their legal force is indirect. They can (i) interpret treaty provisions, (ii) specify procedures and methodologies necessary for implementation, and (iii) generate authoritative expectations regarding compliant behaviour. This distinction is fundamental. When COPs adopt decisions, they operate within the mandate conferred by the underlying treaty and cannot lawfully contradict or amend it without formal amendment procedures (Bodansky, Brunnée and Rajamani, 2017).

Despite this formal limitation, COP decisions exert substantial normative influence. They shape reporting obligations, define accounting rules, structure review mechanisms, and condition access to finance and market mechanisms. Over time, repeated COP decisions can harden expectations and reduce discretion, especially where procedural obligations and transparency requirements are involved (Brunnée, 2021).

2.2 The Paris Agreement as a governance framework

Before COP26, the Paris Agreement had already transformed climate law into a governance-oriented regime. Instead of prescribing outcomes, it relies on iterative cycles of pledge, review, and enhancement. States are legally obliged to prepare, communicate, and maintain successive NDCs, to pursue domestic mitigation measures, and to report transparently on implementation. The content of ambition, however, is largely self-determined.

This design reflects a deliberate trade-off. Flexibility enabled universal participation, but it also shifted enforcement away from sanctions toward transparency, peer pressure, and reputational costs. The effectiveness of the system, therefore, depends heavily on COP decisions that operationalise reporting formats, review processes, and accounting standards. Before COP26, large parts of this “rulebook” remained incomplete or politically contested, particularly with regard to carbon markets, finance reporting, and adaptation metrics (Rajamani, 2016).

2.3 What COPs can do: operationalisation and interpretation

Within this architecture, COPs possess significant authority to make the Paris Agreement functional. They can define how emissions are counted, how progress is assessed, how flexibility is applied to developing countries, and how collective goals are tracked. These decisions influence domestic law by setting benchmarks against which national policies are evaluated by regulators, courts, investors, and civil society.

COPs also play an interpretive role. By repeatedly affirming certain readings of treaty objectives—such as the centrality of the 1.5°C temperature limit or the urgency of near-term action—they shape the context in which obligations of conduct, good faith, and progression are understood. While not legally binding in isolation, such interpretations carry weight under the general rules of treaty interpretation and practice (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 31(3)).

2.4 What COPs cannot do: limits of authority

Equally important are the limits. COPs cannot impose new quantified obligations, allocate liability for climate harm, or create compulsory financial transfers without explicit treaty mandates. They cannot convert political commitments into enforceable reparations, nor can they override the principle of consent that underpins international law. This constraint explains the recurring tensions around finance, loss and damage, and enforcement.

Before COP26, these limits produced a persistent governance gap. Ambition could be encouraged but not compelled; equity concerns could be acknowledged but not resolved through binding redistribution. COPs therefore functioned as arenas of managed disagreement, where progress depended on balancing legal restraint with political signalling.

2.5 Why this baseline matters for COP26

This pre-COP26 legal architecture is essential to understanding Glasgow’s significance. COP26 did not transcend the structural limits of the climate regime, but it exploited its available tools more assertively. By sharpening scientific benchmarks, closing parts of the rulebook, and issuing clearer political signals, it pushed the governance system closer to its functional limits without formally crossing them. The question after COP26 is not whether a new law was made, but whether governance was tightened enough to change behaviour within an unchanged legal shell.

3. What COP26 decided: the Glasgow Climate Pact as governance text

The Glasgow Climate Pact represents the most consequential COP outcome since Paris, not because it rewrote treaty obligations, but because it recalibrated how the existing legal framework is expected to function. Its significance lies in how it blends scientific authority, political signalling, and procedural tightening to shape state behaviour within the limits of consent-based international law.

3.1 Science and urgency as a governance accelerator

A defining feature of the Glasgow Climate Pact is the central role accorded to contemporary climate science. The decision explicitly recognises the findings of the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, including the conclusion that human activity has already caused approximately 1.1°C of global warming and that every increment of additional warming substantially increases risks and impacts. This explicit acknowledgment is not merely declaratory. It functions as a governance accelerator by narrowing the range of interpretations available to states when assessing compliance with the Paris Agreement’s objectives.

By linking scientific findings directly to the need for enhanced ambition in mitigation, adaptation, and finance “in this critical decade,” the Pact reframes temporal expectations. Long-term net-zero pledges are no longer sufficient markers of good faith if they are not accompanied by credible near-term pathways. This shift strengthens the interpretive weight of the Paris obligation to pursue domestic mitigation measures and successive NDC progression, making delay increasingly difficult to justify within the regime’s own logic (Bodansky, 2016; IPCC, 2021).

3.2 Mitigation signals and the redefinition of ambition

The mitigation section of the Glasgow Climate Pact introduced language that had previously been politically untouchable at the multilateral level. Parties agreed to accelerate efforts towards the phasedown of unabated coal power and the phase-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. While carefully qualified, this language marks the first time that specific energy sources and fiscal practices were named in a COP cover decision.

Legally, this does not create prohibitions. Governance-wise, it shifts the normative baseline. Energy policies that expand coal capacity or perpetuate fossil fuel subsidies now operate against an explicit multilateral expectation of decline. The qualifiers “unabated” and “inefficient” invite contestation, but they also create space for regulatory and judicial scrutiny of how states define and apply these terms domestically. This development strengthens the argumentative relevance of climate commitments in administrative decision-making and climate-related litigation, particularly where governments claim consistency between international pledges and national energy strategies (Peel and Osofsky, 2020; Voigt, 2016).

3.3 Near-term ambition and the credibility problem

The Pact’s emphasis on revisiting and strengthening 2030 targets reflects a recognition that the Paris architecture faces a credibility problem. Existing NDCs, even when fully implemented, were widely acknowledged as insufficient to align with the 1.5°C goal. COP26, therefore, encouraged Parties to revisit and strengthen their 2030 targets within a compressed timeframe.

This move does not alter the voluntary character of NDC content, but it intensifies political and reputational pressure. It also enhances the relevance of transparency mechanisms and peer review processes, as earlier target revision cycles allow scrutiny to operate sooner. In governance terms, COP26 tightened the feedback loop between scientific assessment, political expectation, and national policy response (Rajamani, 2016).

3.4 Finance, trust, and institutional credibility

The Glasgow Climate Pact addressed climate finance in unusually direct terms. It acknowledged with concern that the collective goal of mobilising climate finance at scale had not yet been met and urged developed countries to deliver on existing commitments while scaling up support for adaptation. This acknowledgment matters because trust is a functional precondition of the Paris system. Without credible finance flows, mitigation ambition and adaptation planning in developing countries lack political and practical feasibility.

While COP26 did not resolve longstanding disputes over the adequacy, accessibility, or composition of climate finance, it repositioned finance as a central governance issue rather than a peripheral implementation detail. By linking ambition explicitly to delivery, the Pact reinforced the understanding that the effectiveness of the climate regime depends as much on distributive justice as on emissions accounting (Okereke and Coventry, 2016).

3.5 The Glasgow Climate Pact as governance text

Viewed as a whole, the Glasgow Climate Pact operates as a governance text rather than a legislative instrument. It clarifies expectations, sharpens interpretive benchmarks, and recalibrates political costs without exceeding the formal limits of COP authority. Its legal significance lies not in creating new obligations, but in reshaping how existing ones are understood, evaluated, and contested across multiple levels of governance.

4. Closing the Paris “rulebook”: Article 6 carbon market governance

Article 6 was the most technically complex and politically sensitive element of the Paris Agreement left unresolved after 2015. Its purpose is not to mandate carbon markets, but to regulate cooperation when states choose to use them. By finalising Article 6 guidance, COP26 transformed an indeterminate treaty clause into an operational governance framework, while embedding safeguards designed to protect environmental integrity and equity. This section explains what was decided, why it mattered, and how the resulting rules reshape incentives and accountability.

4.1 What Article 6 is designed to do—and what it is not

Article 6 enables voluntary cooperation among Parties to achieve mitigation outcomes, including through market-based approaches. It serves three distinct functions: (i) facilitating cooperation to raise ambition, (ii) preventing double counting of emissions reductions, and (iii) channeling a share of benefits toward adaptation. It does not impose an obligation to use markets, nor does it authorise the outsourcing of mitigation without consequences for national accounting.

Before Glasgow, Article 6 remained stalled because Parties disagreed on whether cooperation should primarily maximise flexibility and cost-efficiency or prioritise integrity and ambition. COP26 resolved this deadlock by privileging integrity through accounting rules and oversight, while preserving flexibility through differentiated pathways (Bodansky, Brunnée and Rajamani, 2017).

4.2 Article 6.2: cooperative approaches and accounting discipline

Article 6.2 governs decentralised cooperation among states using internationally transferred mitigation outcomes (ITMOs). The central governance innovation agreed at Glasgow is the requirement for corresponding adjustments. In practical terms, this means that when a mitigation outcome is transferred from one country to another, the seller must add the transferred amount back into its emissions balance, while the buyer subtracts it. This double-entry logic prevents two states from counting the same reduction toward their NDCs.

The legal significance lies in transparency and review. Parties must authorise transfers, report them in a standardised manner, and submit information to technical expert review. While no sanction follows automatically from non-compliance, reputational and diplomatic costs increase substantially when discrepancies are visible. This mechanism converts accounting into a form of indirect enforcement, aligning market activity with the Paris obligation of integrity (Brunnée, 2021).

4.3 Article 6.4: a centralised mechanism with supervisory governance

Article 6.4 establishes a centrally governed crediting mechanism under the authority of a supervisory body. Unlike 6.2, it introduces international oversight of methodologies, baselines, and verification. The Glasgow decisions clarified governance structures, eligibility criteria, and the requirement that activities contribute to overall mitigation in global emissions rather than merely offsetting.

The inclusion of this concept reflects a normative shift. Markets are no longer framed as neutral tools for reallocating reductions, but as instruments expected to raise collective ambition. This expectation differentiates the Paris mechanism from its Kyoto predecessor and responds directly to criticisms that earlier markets enabled compliance without climate benefit (Schneider et al., 2019).

4.4 Avoiding double-counting and safeguarding environmental integrity

Double-counting was the central technical obstacle to Article 6 implementation. COP26 addressed this by applying corresponding adjustments not only to NDC targets but also to other international mitigation purposes. This decision matters because it prevents states from selling reductions to external schemes while simultaneously claiming progress toward their own targets.

Beyond accounting, Glasgow introduced limits on the carryover of credits generated under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism. Only a narrow subset of credits may be used, and only under specific conditions. This constraint aims to prevent an influx of low-integrity units that would dilute ambition and undermine confidence in the Paris system (Newell, Pizer and Raimi, 2014).

4.5 Share of proceeds and adaptation finance embedded in market design

A further governance innovation concerns finance. Article 6.4 includes a mandatory share of proceeds to support adaptation in vulnerable countries. The extension of similar expectations to cooperative approaches under Article 6.2 was politically contentious, but COP26 ensured that adaptation finance remains embedded within the market architecture.

This design choice reflects an attempt to reconcile efficiency with equity. Carbon markets are framed not only as cost-reduction tools, but as contributors to distributive objectives within the climate regime. While the scale of finance generated remains uncertain, the legal symbolism is significant: cooperation that benefits some states must also support those facing the greatest climate risks (Okereke and Coventry, 2016).

4.6 Practical consequences: how Article 6 now operates

The operationalisation of Article 6 changes state behaviour in concrete ways. A country selling ITMOs must now weigh immediate financial gains against the long-term impact on its own emissions balance. A buyer relying on credits must ensure that transfers are properly authorised and adjusted, or risk challenges to the credibility of its reported progress. Private actors engaging in crediting activities face clearer, though more demanding, governance standards.

By closing the Paris rulebook, COP26 converted Article 6 from a theoretical option into a regulated space. Markets remain voluntary, but once used, they are subject to a governance framework that prioritises integrity, transparency, and ambition. The outcome illustrates how COP decisions can reshape incentives without exceeding the formal limits of international law-making.

5. Adaptation governance after COP26: elevating, but not equalizing

Adaptation occupied a more prominent position at COP26 than at any previous climate conference, reflecting growing recognition that climate impacts are already occurring and will intensify regardless of mitigation trajectories. The Glasgow Climate Pact elevated adaptation within the governance architecture of the Paris Agreement, but it did not place it on an equal footing with mitigation. The outcome strengthened political visibility and procedural attention while leaving core asymmetries in measurement, finance, and accountability largely intact.

5.1 Adaptation as a legal objective within the Paris framework

Under the Paris Agreement, adaptation is articulated as a global goal alongside mitigation, framed around enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience, and reducing vulnerability. Before Glasgow, however, adaptation governance remained comparatively underdeveloped. Unlike mitigation, adaptation lacks a single quantifiable metric, operates across diverse socio-ecological contexts, and resists standardised comparison. These characteristics have constrained the ability of COPs to translate adaptation commitments into enforceable or reviewable obligations (Klein et al., 2017).

The Glasgow Climate Pact reinforced adaptation’s legal and political status by repeatedly linking it to best available science and by urging Parties to integrate adaptation into national, regional, and local planning. This emphasis matters because it clarifies that adaptation is not a discretionary policy choice, but an integral component of treaty implementation. Even so, the legal nature of adaptation obligations remains one of conduct rather than result, making accountability dependent on process quality rather than outcomes achieved.

5.2 The Global Goal on Adaptation and its structural limits

COP26 reaffirmed the Global Goal on Adaptation, but did not resolve the long-standing challenge of operationalisation. The absence of agreed indicators or benchmarks continues to limit collective assessment. While mitigation benefits from emissions inventories and common accounting rules, adaptation progress is assessed through narratives, plans, and qualitative indicators.

This asymmetry has legal consequences. Without shared metrics, peer review and transparency mechanisms exert weaker disciplining effects. States can comply procedurally by submitting plans and reports while substantive vulnerability gaps persist. COP26 acknowledged this limitation indirectly by calling for enhanced understanding and support, but it stopped short of endorsing binding indicators or timelines, reflecting political resistance to comparative scrutiny in areas closely tied to development policy and sovereignty (Persson and Remling, 2014).

5.3 Adaptation finance: urgency without parity

Finance represents the most visible fault line in post-Glasgow adaptation governance. The Glasgow Climate Pact recognised with concern that adaptation finance remains insufficient and urged developed countries to significantly scale up support. This language elevated adaptation within the climate finance discourse, but it did not establish enforceable allocation ratios or predictable funding pathways.

The legal imbalance between mitigation and adaptation finance persists. Mitigation finance is often easier to mobilise through market mechanisms and investment returns, while adaptation relies more heavily on public funds, grants, and concessional instruments. COP26 highlighted the urgency of addressing this imbalance, yet the governance response remained aspirational. As a result, adaptation continues to depend on political goodwill rather than legally structured redistribution, reinforcing inequities between states with differing capacities and exposure to climate risks (Okereke, 2018).

5.4 Planning, implementation, and procedural accountability

One area where COP26 did strengthen adaptation governance is procedural integration. The Pact welcomed the submission of national adaptation plans and encouraged their incorporation into broader development and climate strategies. This procedural emphasis aligns adaptation more closely with domestic administrative law, where planning obligations can trigger review, coordination, and budgetary prioritisation.

However, proceduralisation has limits. Planning requirements do not guarantee implementation, nor do they ensure that resources reach the most vulnerable communities. Without stronger links between plans, finance, and measurable outcomes, adaptation governance risks becoming a compliance exercise focused on documentation rather than resilience-building (Fisher and Nasiritousi, 2016).

5.5 Elevation without equalization

The post-Glasgow adaptation landscape can be described as elevated but not equalized. COP26 succeeded in moving adaptation higher on the political agenda, embedding it more firmly in the language of urgency and science. Yet it did not close the structural gap between adaptation and mitigation in terms of metrics, finance, and accountability. This outcome reflects the broader dynamics of climate governance: while impacts are increasingly unavoidable, the distribution of responsibility for responding to them remains contested. Adaptation governance after COP26 thus illustrates both progress in recognition and persistence in inequality.

6. Loss and damage: the core unresolved distributional conflict

Loss and damage sit at the heart of the climate regime’s most intractable conflict: how to address harms that occur despite mitigation and adaptation, and how to do so without converting political solidarity into legally enforceable liability. COP26 did not resolve this conflict. Instead, it clarified the boundaries of what the current legal architecture can accommodate and why distributional questions remain the regime’s principal stress point.

6.1 Conceptual foundations and legal sensitivity

Loss and damage refer to climate-related harms that cannot be avoided through mitigation or adaptation, including irreversible losses such as territory, ecosystems, cultural heritage, and lives, as well as severe economic disruption from extreme events. While the Paris Agreement recognises the importance of averting, minimising, and addressing loss and damage, it carefully avoids language of liability or compensation. This drafting choice reflects persistent resistance by developed states to any formulation that could be construed as accepting legal responsibility for climate harm (Mayer, 2016; Verheyen and Roderick, 2018).

The legal sensitivity is structural. A regime built on consent, voluntary contributions, and differentiated responsibilities struggles to accommodate claims that resemble reparations. As a result, loss and damage governance has evolved through institutional mechanisms and procedural commitments rather than enforceable obligations.

6.2 Institutional outcomes at COP26

At Glasgow, Parties advanced loss and damage governance through two principal moves. First, they operationalised the Santiago Network, intended to provide technical assistance for countries facing loss and damage. Second, they launched the Glasgow Dialogue to discuss arrangements for funding activities related to loss and damage.

Both outcomes elevated visibility and institutional presence, but neither delivered dedicated finance. The Santiago Network focuses on coordination and expertise, not resource mobilisation. The Glasgow Dialogue created a structured conversation rather than a financial mechanism. These outcomes reflect the outer limit of consensus at COP26: recognition without redistribution (Roberts and Pelling, 2020).

6.3 The finance impasse

Finance is the decisive fault line. Vulnerable states have consistently argued that loss and damage require predictable, additional funding beyond mitigation and adaptation finance. Developed states have maintained that existing channels, humanitarian aid, insurance schemes, and development assistance should suffice. COP26 did not reconcile these positions.

From a legal–policy perspective, the absence of finance is not a technical oversight but a manifestation of distributional conflict. Establishing a dedicated fund would imply acceptance of a collective responsibility to address climate harm, even if framed without formal liability. The refusal to do so at Glasgow underscores the limits of soft governance when distributive stakes are high (Okereke, 2018).

6.4 Accountability without liability

The post-Glasgow configuration frames loss and damage as an issue of cooperation and support rather than responsibility and remedy. This approach relies on dialogue, institutional learning, and incremental norm development. While this avoids immediate legal confrontation, it weakens accountability. States can acknowledge the reality of climate harm while deferring material response.

This governance choice has consequences. It fuels frustration among vulnerable countries, erodes trust in the regime, and increases pressure on alternative fora, including courts and advisory bodies. The absence of binding remedies at the multilateral level has contributed to a growing turn toward litigation and quasi-judicial processes seeking clarification of state obligations in relation to climate harm (Peel and Osofsky, 2020).

6.5 Why loss and damage remain unresolved

Loss and damage remain unresolved because they expose the regime’s foundational compromise. The Paris system can coordinate ambition and transparency, but it cannot compel redistribution without reopening questions of responsibility, causation, and compensation. COP26 made this constraint explicit. By strengthening institutions without committing finance, it acknowledged harm while postponing the political reckoning over who should pay, how much, and on what basis.

As a result, loss and damage continue to function as the climate regime’s distributional frontier: the point at which governance tools designed to encourage cooperation confront demands for justice that exceed their legal design.

Also read

• The Kyoto Protocol Explained

• Geopolitics in the 21st Century

• What Is International Relations?

• Global Financial Institutions

7. Accountability and implementation: where “non-binding” becomes constraining

The Paris system, as clarified and intensified by COP26, demonstrates how formally non-binding instruments can exert real constraints on state behaviour. Accountability in this regime does not arise from sanctions or adjudication alone, but from the cumulative effects of transparency, peer scrutiny, institutional review, and domestic legal uptake. Glasgow sharpened these mechanisms, increasing the costs of inconsistency between international commitments and national action.

7.1 Transparency as discipline rather than disclosure

At the core of Paris implementation lies the enhanced transparency framework. States are required to report on emissions, policies, and progress using agreed formats, subject to technical expert review and multilateral consideration. These processes do not impose penalties, yet they function as discipline by exposing gaps, inconsistencies, and implausible trajectories to sustained scrutiny.

COP26 strengthened this dynamic by tightening expectations around near-term action. When scientific urgency and 2030 pathways are foregrounded, reporting becomes more than retrospective disclosure; it becomes an assessment of credibility. A state that reports rising emissions or weak policies against a declared commitment to align with 1.5°C faces reputational consequences that translate into diplomatic pressure, reduced negotiating leverage, and heightened domestic contestation (Brunnée, 2021).

7.2 Peer review, reputation, and the politics of credibility

Peer review under the Paris framework is formally facilitative, but it is politically consequential. Reviews identify methodological weaknesses, policy gaps, and unexplained deviations from stated goals. Over time, these findings accumulate into a public record that shapes perceptions of compliance and good faith.

The Glasgow Climate Pact intensified this effect by signalling that delay is no longer neutral. States that fail to strengthen or implement their commitments are increasingly portrayed as outliers, while those that do are positioned as leaders. This reputational economy matters in a regime where influence, coalition-building, and access to finance often depend on perceived credibility (Bodansky, 2016).

7.3 Domestic law as an enforcement multiplier

A critical pathway through which non-binding commitments become constraining is domestic legal incorporation. National courts and regulators increasingly reference international climate commitments when assessing the adequacy of policies, permits, and legislative frameworks. While COP decisions are not binding in domestic law, they inform the interpretation of statutory duties, constitutional principles, and standards of reasonableness.

After COP26, references to 1.5°C alignment, coal phase-down expectations, and near-term ambition gained greater normative weight. Governments defending carbon-intensive projects or weak regulatory frameworks face a higher burden of justification, as international positions adopted at Glasgow are invoked to test consistency between stated objectives and actual policies (Peel and Osofsky, 2020).

7.4 Markets, finance, and conditionality

Implementation pressure also arises through markets and finance. Investors, lenders, and insurers increasingly rely on international climate signals to assess transition risk. The clarity provided by COP26 on mitigation urgency and carbon market governance feeds into financial decision-making, affecting capital allocation and project viability.

States that fail to align domestic frameworks with their international climate positions may encounter higher borrowing costs, reduced investment, or conditionality in climate-related finance. In this way, governance signals translate into material constraints without formal legal compulsion (Newell, Pizer and Raimi, 2014).

7.5 From soft law to practical constraint

The cumulative effect of transparency, peer review, domestic uptake, and market response explains how non-binding outcomes become constraining. COP26 did not create new enforcement mechanisms, but it increased the coherence and intensity of existing ones. By sharpening benchmarks and timelines, it reduced the space for rhetorical compliance and increased the visibility of non-performance.

Accountability after Glasgow is therefore not judicial in the classical sense, but systemic. States remain legally free to choose their policies, yet the political, economic, and reputational costs of divergence have risen. This transformation illustrates a central feature of contemporary climate governance: constraint emerges not from coercion, but from the alignment of information, expectation, and consequence.

8. Consequences for climate governance: what COP26 changed structurally

COP26 produced structural consequences for climate governance that extend beyond its discrete decisions. These consequences are best understood as shifts in how the Paris system operates, how expectations are generated, and how costs are allocated when states diverge from agreed trajectories. Glasgow did not overcome the legal limits of consent-based multilateralism, but it reconfigured the balance between flexibility and constraint within those limits.

8.1 From distant targets to near-term governance

The most consequential structural change concerns time. Prior to Glasgow, climate governance was dominated by long-horizon pledges—mid-century net-zero targets with weak intermediate discipline. COP26 reoriented the regime toward the present decade. By elevating 2030 pathways as the central test of credibility, it tightened the feedback loop between science, policy, and review.

This temporal shift alters governance incentives. Governments can no longer rely on distant promises to offset short-term inaction without reputational and political cost. The Paris obligation of progression now operates on a compressed timeline, increasing the frequency with which ambition and implementation are scrutinised (Rajamani, 2016). Structurally, the regime moved closer to continuous assessment rather than episodic evaluation.

8.2 Normalisation of energy transition language

Another structural change lies in the normalisation of explicit energy transition references within multilateral climate governance. By naming coal power and fossil fuel subsidies, COP26 reset the negotiating baseline. Future COPs are unlikely to revert to silence on energy sources that are central to emissions trajectories.

This matters because governance evolves through precedent. Once certain practices are named as inconsistent with climate goals, defending them requires increasingly elaborate justification. Over time, this can influence regulatory standards, planning decisions, and investment norms, even in the absence of binding prohibitions (Voigt, 2016). Glasgow thus shifted climate governance from abstract emissions management toward sectorally grounded expectations.

8.3 Operationalisation of cooperation under tighter integrity rules

The closure of the Paris rulebook through Article 6 decisions produced a structural change in how cooperation is governed. Carbon markets moved from a theoretical possibility to a regulated option. States choosing to cooperate now operate within a framework that prioritises accounting integrity, transparency, and ambition.

This change limits opportunistic behaviour. Transfers of mitigation outcomes are no longer politically neutral transactions; they carry accounting consequences that directly affect national progress toward NDCs. Structurally, cooperation became a governance choice with trade-offs rather than a loophole for cost avoidance (Schneider et al., 2019).

8.4 Entrenchment of distributive conflict

At the same time, COP26 entrenched, rather than resolved, the regime’s distributive conflict. Finance, adaptation parity, and loss and damage remained governed by political exhortation rather than enforceable allocation. This outcome clarifies the boundary of what the current climate architecture can deliver.

The structural consequence is dual. On the one hand, mitigation governance became more precise and demanding. On the other hand, questions of responsibility for harm and resource transfer were deferred. This asymmetry increases pressure on alternative venues—courts, advisory opinions, and regional mechanisms—to address issues that multilateral negotiations continue to postpone (Peel and Osofsky, 2020).

8.5 A governance regime with higher stakes

Taken as a whole, COP26 transformed climate governance into a higher-stakes system. Transparency now exposes near-term failure; political signals influence markets; and inconsistency between words and action carries escalating costs. Yet redistribution remains politically constrained, leaving the regime vulnerable to legitimacy challenges.

Structurally, Glasgow marked the point at which the Paris system became more demanding without becoming more coercive. The result is a governance framework that relies increasingly on pressure, precedent, and consequence rather than consent alone. This recalibration explains both the regime’s enhanced capacity to shape behaviour and its continuing fragility when confronting questions of equity and justice.

9. Conclusion: a sober legal–policy verdict on COP26

The legal–policy record of COP26 is neither transformative in the classical sense nor merely symbolic. Glasgow did not rewrite the UNFCCC or the Paris Agreement, and it did not overcome the foundational constraints of consent-based international law. What it did accomplish was a recalibration of climate governance: tightening expectations, accelerating timelines, and increasing the practical costs of non-alignment between international commitments and domestic action.

From a legal perspective, COP26 strengthened the operational meaning of existing obligations without creating new ones. By anchoring governance to contemporary science, emphasising near-term pathways, and closing the Paris rulebook on cooperative approaches, it reduced interpretive ambiguity around ambition and integrity. This matters because the Paris system relies on interpretation, procedure, and transparency to function. Glasgow made those levers more precise and more consequential.

From a policy perspective, COP26 shifted the regime’s centre of gravity. Energy transition language entered the core political text; carbon markets became regulated choices rather than abstract options; and transparency moved closer to continuous assessment. These changes increase pressure on governments, markets, and institutions to justify decisions against clearer multilateral expectations. Constraint now emerges less from formal legal enforcement than from the alignment of information, reputation, and material consequence.

At the same time, COP26 confirmed the regime’s enduring limitations. Adaptation was elevated but not equalised. Finance was acknowledged as central but not secured through binding mechanisms. Loss and damage remained institutionally recognised yet materially unresolved. These outcomes reveal a persistent asymmetry: mitigation governance has become increasingly structured and demanding, while distributive justice remains politically deferred.

The sober verdict, therefore, is mixed but clear. COP26 did not solve the climate problem, nor did it resolve the equity conflicts at the heart of global climate politics. It did, however, harden the Paris governance framework into a system with higher stakes and lower tolerance for delay. The effectiveness of this recalibration will depend not on further textual innovation, but on whether states accept the rising costs of inconsistency and act accordingly within their own legal and policy systems.

References

1. Bodansky, D. (2016) ‘The legal character of the Paris Agreement’, Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law, 25(2), pp. 142–150.

2. Bodansky, D., Brunnée, J. and Rajamani, L. (2017) International Climate Change Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

3. Brunnée, J. (2021) ‘COPing with consent: law-making under multilateral environmental agreements’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 34(1), pp. 1–24.

4. Fisher, S. and Nasiritousi, N. (2016) ‘Political adaptation to climate change’, Nature Climate Change, 6(3), pp. 223–228.

5. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2021) Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

6. Klein, R.J.T., Midgley, G.F., Preston, B.L., Alam, M., Berkhout, F.G.H., Dow, K. and Shaw, M.R. (2017) ‘Adaptation opportunities, constraints, and limits’, Global Environmental Change, 14, pp. 227–238.

7. Mayer, B. (2016) ‘Climate change, insurance, and the law of loss and damage’, Climate Policy, 16(6), pp. 715–732.

8. Newell, R.G., Pizer, W.A. and Raimi, D. (2014) ‘Carbon market design, stability, and reform’, Energy Policy, 75, pp. 28–34.

9. Okereke, C. (2018) ‘Equity norms in global climate governance’, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 18(4), pp. 481–500.

10. Okereke, C. and Coventry, P. (2016) ‘Climate justice and the international regime: before, during and after Paris’, WIREs Climate Change, 7(6), pp. 834–851.

11. Peel, J. and Osofsky, H.M. (2020) Climate Change Litigation: Regulatory Pathways to Cleaner Energy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

12. Persson, Å. and Remling, E. (2014) ‘Equity and efficiency in adaptation finance’, Climate Policy, 14(4), pp. 488–506.

13. Rajamani, L. (2016) ‘Ambition and differentiation in the Paris Agreement’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 65(2), pp. 493–514.

14. Roberts, E. and Pelling, M. (2020) ‘Climate change-related loss and damage: framing and responses’, WIREs Climate Change, 11(4), e641.

15. Schneider, L., La Hoz Theuer, S., Broekhoff, D., Füssler, J. and Kohli, A. (2019) ‘Environmental integrity of international carbon market mechanisms under the Paris Agreement’, Climate Policy, 19(3), pp. 386–400.

16. United Nations (1992) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

17. United Nations (2015) Paris Agreement.

18. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2021) Decision -/CP.26: Glasgow Climate Pact.

19. Voigt, C. (2016) ‘The Paris Agreement: what is the standard of conduct for Parties?’, Questions of International Law, 26, pp. 17–28.

20. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969).