A/77/549 a collective approach to address environmental issues while emphasizing the need for appreciating power inequities and historical domination. 126 At the Stockholm Conference, global South States raised concerns about environmental degradation and human rights impacts caused by industrial activities of global North transnational corporations. Some negotiators consistently argued that environmental issues must be considered in light of historical and geopolitical structures, 127 and even at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit), held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992, the Prime Minister of Malaysia highlighted the emergence of climate colonialism perpetuated by States in the global North. 128 However, the global climate framework offers no real path forward for climate justice, which entails racial justice. 70. At the Rio Summit, the Conference secretariat estimated that developing countries required $100 billion per year in external assistance to meet the Summit action plan, Agenda 21. 129 Notwithstanding their role in creating the climate crisis, some powerful States in the global North refused to contribute the requisite aid to global South States. 130 At the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), held in 2012, the twentieth anniversary of the Rio Summit, global North States refused requests from the Group of 77 and China to increase financial assistance to meet their environmental commitments. 131 71. The framing of climate change within international forums frequently elides the historical responsibility borne by some States and transnational corporations. Although the common but differentiated responsibility principle has been enshrined in the Rio Declaration and carried through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, global North States have accepted the language on the basis of differential or superior capacity, rather than as an indication of State responsibility for historical harm. 132 72. Questions of reparation and remediation for loss and damage caused by climate change and environmental degradation have purposefully been excluded from relevant frameworks by the powerful countries most responsible for the harm. 133 The eventual inclusion of loss and damage within the Paris Agreement was due to a compromise that shields wealthy countries from accountability. 134 The trajectory of the loss and damage framework after the Paris Agreement has thus continued its transition away from confronting historical responsibility and reparation. 135 __________________ 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 22-24043 Malavika Rao, “A TWAIL perspective on loss and damage from climate change: reflections from Indira Gandhi’s speech at Stockholm”, Asian Journal of International Law, vol 12, No. 1 (January 2022). Ibid. Mcmichael, “Contemporary contradictions”. Martin Khor, “An assessment of the Rio Summit on sustainable development”, Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 47, No. 28 (July 2012). John Vogler and Hannes R. Stephan, “The European Union in global environmental governance: leadership in the making?”, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, vol. 7, No. 4 (December 2007). Khor, “An assessment of the Rio Summit”. See also, submission from the Centre for Economic and Social Rights. Sumudu Atapattu and Carmen G. Gonzalez, “The North –South divide in international environmental law: framing the issues”, in International Environmental Law and the Global South, Alam and others, eds. Submission from Dehm. Maxine Burkett, “Reading between the red lines: loss and damage and the Paris o utcome”, Climate Law, vol. 6, Nos. 1–2 (May 2016), p. 124. Julia Dehm, “Climate change, ‘slow violence’ and the indefinite deferral of responsibility for ‘loss and damage’”, Griffith Law Review, vol. 29, No. 2 (2020). 21/24