 Hello and thank you for being with me today I will now have the pleasure to present my paper the specification of rules of differentiation in the NDCs to the Paris Agreement. I wanted to find out who had to do how much on the Paris Agreement and as the Paris Agreement itself is not so clear about the details I thought in the NDC specifying the individual commitments that I might find more specific criteria for differentiation there too and that I will be able to have a better answer to the question how the different contracting parties complied with the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement defines terms and criteria for operationalization of differentiation. The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities is a very general framework where the other terms can be more specific however the way they are used in the Paris Agreement they only have the function of contributing to the discourse on differentiation rather than pre-defining specific criteria. The criteria for operationalization such as capabilities, vulnerability, responsibility, equality or open criteria such as circumstances or priorities are not very detailed they are categories and no parameters the respective weight is not defined in detail and there are no thresholds defined that means that how to fill these criteria is defined by the contracting parties. Hence the Paris Agreement cannot answer the question who comply to what extent at least not at the moment. How is it with the NDCs? One of the rules of the Paris Agreement specifying criteria for the NDCs is Article 4 however the requirements to be clear transparent and understandable are not very specific. Two subsequent decisions to the Paris Agreement specify the criteria for NDCs. First the decision one of CP21 which is directly related to the Paris Agreement and then the decisions of the Paris Rulebook that started in Katowice in 2018 and continues to be negotiated. Both decisions only make suggestions what the contracting parties might include into the NDCs so none of these criteria is really binding that leads to the situation where the NDCs are rather unstructured. The empirical analysis of the NDCs is based on Article 31 paragraph 3 Literary B of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It says that any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of parties regarding its interpretation shall be taken into account. The agreement of the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty depends on uniformity, frequency and duration. Frequency and duration cannot be proven with the first NDCs so everything depends on the uniformity requirement. The criterion must be sufficiently determined and supported by many states. The sample I analyzed consists of 51 out of 186 NDCs. These represent different groups. You can see the criteria according to which the sample is representative on the right. Only those criteria of differentiation that are at least supported by 50% will be analyzed further. The sample is an intermediate step to get closer to the criteria that are dominant. All the terms of differentiation could be found in the NDCs. Fairness is the term the most represented, followed by equity, the principle of CBR and justice. This table shows how the NDCs specify the terms of differentiation. Of the broad criteria, responsibility and capability are dominant criteria. Of the more specific criteria, emissions per capita are a dominant trend. However, they don't pass a 50% threshold so they are not representative enough to be further analyzed. Fairness is considered to depend mainly on criteria of responsibility and not so much on criteria of capability. Of the criteria, operationalizing differentiation without referring to any specific term of differentiation, the broad categories are broadly recognized. Responsibility, capability and vulnerability of the detailed criteria expectations are recognized such as capacity building, financial transfers, technology transfers, but also categories of development such as developed and developing countries or the criterion of sustainable development. Apart from that, the NDCs focus on the own vulnerability but without specifying in detail. The most recognized quantifiable parameters are the emissions intensity, the GDP and emissions per capita, but they are still below the threshold of 50%. As findings of the terms of differentiation and also of the criteria for operationalization are very general, I want to make a suggestion on how to structure them better. This is a proposal for the standardized form. I filled it out for the fictive example of a developing country. The criteria that might be specified here are the details needed to define the target, but also the general expectations towards those states or criteria of differentiation that might be quantified or not. These might also include the specification of terms of differentiation. It might be a good idea to include options for open criteria but also for refusals of criteria. This would make the whole discussion about criteria of differentiation and more transparent. The NDCs focus on the broad categories we already know from the Paris Agreement capability, responsibility and vulnerability, but they also do specify categories that are more detailed, such as categories of development, sustainable development, expectations of capacity-building financial transfers and technology transfers. This means that the criteria found dominant basically confirm what we already knew from the Paris Agreement. They don't lead to additional criteria. Quantifiable parameters are only partly recognized so far, such as emissions intensity, GDP and emissions per capita, but the emissions per capita are a criterion that is linked to fairness quite often, even though it is not beyond the 50%. The problem is now that the weight of all these criteria is not specified so far and that means that we cannot answer the initial question. We cannot say that selective state did not comply with its concrete targets it had under the Paris Agreement, not only because the NDCs are not binding but also because the rules of differentiation are not sufficiently specified. The standardized form I suggest above means that this discourse on the rules of differentiation can be more profound in the future maybe and that we can structure the criteria even if we refuse this or that criteria on this might help to make the discourse more transparent in the future. So thank you for listening. I hope you enjoyed the presentation and I'm looking forward for your questions or comments.