29 May 2025, NIICE Commentary 11069
Anurag Paul
The chasm between the industrial North and the developing South has been a defining feature of global politics for centuries. This division is often viewed through the lens of economic disparity: the North is wealthy, technologically advanced, and resource-rich, while the South struggles with poverty, underdevelopment, and environmental degradation. At the heart of this complex relationship lies a fundamental and urgent issue: the global commons and the governance of shared resources, particularly the atmosphere. Climate change, driven by unsustainable economic growth and unequal resource consumption, has exacerbated the North-South divide, leading to an urgent need for new paradigms of international cooperation.
This essay explores the deep-rooted tensions in global climate negotiations and offers a fresh perspective on how international relations theory can evolve to accommodate the realities of climate change. Drawing from both traditional theories and the contributions of scholars like Elinor Ostrom, this essay proposes a new framework for bridging the North-South divide in climate governance, advocating for a cooperative, equitable, and sustainable future for all nations.
The North-South Divide and Climate Change
The South’s vulnerability to climate change is inextricably linked to its historical and ongoing economic exploitation. Colonialism left the global South with fragile economies, depleted ecosystems, and social structures weakened by years of resource extraction and land degradation. The industrial North, in contrast, rose to power by exploiting the South's resources, both human and environmental. The environmental problems faced by the South today—such as deforestation, desertification, and loss of biodiversity—are a direct consequence of this colonial legacy.
While the North has built its prosperity by exploiting the global commons, it has also become the chief polluter, emitting disproportionate levels of greenhouse gases. The developing world, on the other hand, while contributing far less to global emissions, is disproportionately affected by the consequences of climate change. This discrepancy highlights the injustice embedded in the current global climate governance framework, which imposes emissions reduction targets on developing countries without accounting for their historical role in environmental degradation.
The Kyoto Protocol (1997) and subsequent climate agreements have faced significant challenges in addressing these inequalities. The developing South has rightly argued that the historical emissions of the North must be considered in setting climate targets, as the industrialized nations have already consumed a significant portion of the atmosphere’s carbon-absorbing capacity. However, the North's position often focuses solely on current emissions, disregarding the past actions that have caused the current crisis.
The growing economic power of emerging economies like China, India, and Brazil has further complicated climate negotiations. These countries, now large emitters themselves, are being called upon to share the burden of emissions reductions, despite their historical disadvantage. The result is a stalemate in climate negotiations, with each side defending its own interests and blaming the other for the crisis at hand.
The Concept of Global Commons and the Tragedy of the Commons
The concept of the global commons is central to understanding the climate change crisis. The atmosphere, oceans, and other shared resources are finite and belong to no one, yet they are being exploited by all. This creates what Garrett Hardin described as the "tragedy of the commons," where individual nations, in the absence of regulation, exploit shared resources to the point of exhaustion. As Hardin argues, when resources are freely available to all, each actor is incentivized to maximize their own benefit, leading to depletion and environmental collapse.
Climate change, driven by the unsustainable consumption of fossil fuels, is a direct manifestation of this tragedy. The overexploitation of the global commons by industrialized nations has led to rising global temperatures, extreme weather events, and a rapidly changing climate that disproportionately affects the poor. The developing world, already grappling with poverty and environmental degradation, is now facing the added burden of climate-induced disasters. This imbalance calls for a fundamental rethinking of how global resources are shared and governed.
Elinor Ostrom’s Contribution to Governing the Commons
Elinor Ostrom’s work on the governance of the commons offers valuable insights into how global climate change can be addressed. Ostrom argued that the tragedy of the commons does not inevitably lead to ruin, as Hardin suggested. Rather, communities can successfully manage shared resources through collective action and self-regulation. Ostrom’s framework for the governance of common-pool resources emphasizes the importance of defining boundaries, creating compatible operational rules, and establishing mechanisms for conflict resolution and enforcement. These principles are particularly relevant for managing the global commons in the context of climate change.
Ostrom’s approach challenges the traditional view that only state-centric, top-down regulation can address global environmental challenges. Instead, she advocates for a polycentric approach, where multiple levels of governance—local, regional, and global—work together to address common challenges. In the case of climate change, this would mean not only government action but also cooperation between civil society, international organizations, and private sector actors to develop and implement solutions.
Towards a New Framework for North-South Cooperation
In light of the historical context, the tragic dynamics of the commons, and the work of scholars like Ostrom, it is clear that the future of global climate governance must rest on new foundations of equity, cooperation, and shared responsibility. The current approach, dominated by the North’s economic power and technological superiority, must give way to a more inclusive and cooperative system that takes into account the historical context and the differing capacities of countries to address climate change.
One potential solution is the implementation of the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR), which was enshrined in the Rio Declaration of 1992. CBDR acknowledges that while all countries are responsible for addressing climate change, developed nations bear a greater responsibility due to their historical emissions and wealth. Under this principle, the North must provide financial and technological support to the South, enabling developing countries to transition to cleaner energy sources and implement climate adaptation strategies.
However, CBDR must go beyond mere financial compensation. It should encompass a more holistic approach to international relations, recognizing that the future of the planet depends on the cooperation of all nations, regardless of their economic standing. This requires a fundamental shift in how global governance structures are conceived, moving away from zero-sum competition to a vision of collective global stewardship.
Conclusion: A Cooperative Future
The climate change crisis is a defining issue of our time, and it cannot be solved through the same divisive, competitive frameworks that have governed international relations in the past. The North-South divide, long characterized by economic exploitation and inequality, must give way to a new paradigm of global cooperation. This paradigm must recognize the historical injustices faced by the developing world, while also acknowledging the need for all nations to contribute to the solution. By integrating the principles of equity, collective responsibility, and sustainable governance, we can create a new framework for climate change. As global citizens, it is our duty to ensure that the lessons of the past—of exploitation, inequality, and short-term thinking—are not repeated. The survival of our planet depends on the collective action of all nations, and only through mutual cooperation, trust, and shared sacrifice can we hope to secure a sustainable future for generations to come.
Anurag Paul is a Research Intern at NIICE and is currently pursuing his Master of Arts in Political Science at Indira Gandhi National Open University, India.
