HOW INTERNATIONAL LAW SUSTAINS CLIMATE ACTION FOLLOWING U.S. WITHDRAWAL PARIS AGREEMENT CAN STILL FUNCTION IN FULL COOPERATION OF OTHER MEMBERS

In a move emblematic of his administration’s climate scepticism, President Trump signed the Executive Order Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements, signalling the United States’
withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. While the procedural realities delay full disengagement until early 2026, the symbolic impact is immediate, as the decision signals a retreat from global cooperation on climate action. This withdrawal raises critical questions about the stability of international climate
agreements when major emitters disengage.

The implications are profound. The U.S., one of the world’s largest historical emitters, has shifted the burden of climate mitigation to other states, particularly the European Union and China, which now face the
dual challenge of scaling up their commitments while encouraging global solidarity. The leadership
vacuum created by the U.S. disengagement risks undermining collective action at a time when urgent and coordinated responses to the climate crisis are necessary.

Despite these challenges, the resilience of international law offers a pathway forward. The Paris Agreement’s decentralized and flexible structure has enabled a diverse range of actors—state and non-state alike, to drive progress independently of federal commitments. Subnational governments, private sector initiatives, and transnational partnerships have increasingly taken on the mantle of leadership,
demonstrating that international cooperation extends beyond traditional state-centric frameworks.

This blogpost argues that the U.S. withdrawal highlights the adaptability of international legal frameworks to sustain climate action in the face of political setbacks. By examining the roles of diverse actors and mechanisms within the international legal order, this piece explores how international law continues to
drive climate action, ensuring progress even when political commitments falter.

The Paris Agreement represents a significant shift from the rigid, top-down obligations of the Kyoto Protocol, allowing states to define their own Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) tailored to their unique circumstances. This flexible, bottom-up approach has been instrumental in encouraging widespread participation, even among nations previously hesitant to commit to climate action. Transparency and periodic reporting mechanisms further bolster accountability, providing a framework for monitoring progress and fostering trust among parties.

However, this flexibility also exposes the Agreement’s vulnerabilities. The voluntary nature of NDCs makes the Paris Agreement particularly susceptible to political shifts, as demonstrated by the Trump administration’s withdrawal. Without binding enforcement mechanisms, the effectiveness of the Agreement depends on the sustained political will of its parties, leaving it vulnerable to the changing priorities of governments. This reliance on voluntary commitments creates an inherent fragility in the system, especially when major emitters disengage, threatening global progress.

Despite these challenges, the Agreement’s resilience lies in its ability to mobilize a diverse range of actors and mechanisms. The private sector, for instance, has increasingly aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement, driven by economic incentives and consumer demand for sustainability. Companies investing in renewable energy and low-carbon technologies are unlikely to reverse course, as these actions are
now integral to competitiveness in global markets.

Additionally, subnational governments and transnational networks have stepped up to fill the gaps left by federal inaction.

Local governments, regional coalitions, and international partnerships have demonstrated a capacity to adopt and implement Paris-aligned policies, reinforcing the decentralized and adaptive nature of the Agreement. This multi-actor approach ensures that progress toward the Agreement’s goals continues, even in the face of political setbacks, highlighting the dynamic interplay between state and non-state actors in the evolving landscape of international climate governance.

The U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement underscores the shifting dynamics of international climate governance. While this disengagement weakens multilateral cooperation, it also creates opportunities for other actors to take on leadership roles.

The European Union’s Green Deal, which aims for carbon neutrality by 2050, exemplifies how international law can drive ambitious policies even without universal participation. Similarly, China’s investments in renewable energy and green technology underscore the potential for emerging powers to fill the leadership vacuum.

This redistribution of responsibility highlights the adaptability of international law. The Paris Agreement’s flexible structure enables states to scale up their commitments in response to collective challenges. It also
accommodates diverse capacities among states, ensuring that the global momentum for climate action continues despite political setbacks.

Furthermore, global climate standards embedded in international law are reinforced by market forces and non-state actors. Multinational corporations are increasingly aligning their strategies with the Paris goals,
driven by consumer demand and economic incentives. Global supply chains prioritize lowcarbon solutions, creating ripple effects that bolster climate commitments across borders.

This dynamic interaction between global standards, economic forces, and local action ensures resilience
within the international legal framework. Despite major political shifts, the decentralized and market-driven nature of the Paris Agreement supports progress toward its goals.

The U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement highlights the vulnerabilities of frameworks reliant on political goodwill. Yet, it also underscores the resilience of international law in sustaining climate commitments. The adaptability of global standards, the influence of market forces, and the proactive engagement of nonstate actors demonstrate that progress is possible even amid political instability.

As climate challenges intensify, strengthening international legal frameworks, empowering transnational networks, and embedding climate priorities across global institutions will be critical. The resilience of these mechanisms ensures that the Paris Agreement’s principles endure, fostering global cooperation in the fight against climate change.