To ensure effective and secure participation, a global agreement on climate change must be considered fair by the countries concerned. The Paris Agreement moved closer to differentiating countries` climate change competences, derogating from the rigid distinction between developed and developing countries by including a “subtle differentiation” of certain subgroups of countries (e.g. B least developed countries) for certain substantive issues (e.g.B. climate finance) and/or for certain procedures (e.g.B. timetables and reports). In this article, we analyze whether the countries of self-differentiation pursued in the formulation of their own climate plans or national contributions (NDCs) correspond to the subtle differentiation of the Paris Agreement. We find that there is coherence for reduction and adaptation, but not for aid (climate finance, technology transfer and capacity building). As DNNs are the most important instrument for achieving the long-term objectives of the Paris Agreement, this inconsistency needs to be addressed in order to make subsequent rounds of DND more ambitious. Under the Paris Agreement, adopted in December 2015, the INDC will be the first defined national contribution (NDC) if a country ratifies the agreement, unless it decides to simultaneously file a new NCP. Once the Paris Agreement is ratified, the NDC will be the first greenhouse gas target under the UNFCCC, which will apply to both developed and developing countries.  On August 3, 2016, China and the United States ratified the agreement.
Together, they contribute 38% of total global emissions, with China alone emitting 20%.  With 4.1% of emissions, India ratified the Paris Agreement on 2 October 2016 by depositing the instrument of ratification at the UN.  INDCs combine the top-down system of a UN climate agreement and bottom-up system elements by which countries present their agreements within their own national circumstances, capacities and priorities, with the aim of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions so as to limit the increase in global temperature to 2 degrees Celsius.  A dichotomistic interpretation of the CBDR-CR has led to an international agreement on the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol. Industrialized countries (Annex I) committed themselves to achieving absolute emission reduction or limitation targets, while all other countries (excluding Annex I) did not have such obligations. However, this rigid distinction does not reflect the dynamic diversification among developing countries since 1992, which has resulted in divergent contributions to global emissions and patterns of economic growth (Deleuil, 2012); Dubash, 2009). This led Depledge and Yamin (2009, 443) to describe the dichotomy between Annex I and non-Annex I as “dysfunctional” and “greater weakness of the regime” introduced by the UNFCCC. . . .