Article

Exploring the Reform and Development Pathways of AIIB's Climate Accountability Mechanism in the Context of Global Climate Governance

Yedong Zhang^1,*

¹School of Law, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

^*Correspondence: Yedong Zhang, E-mail: zyedong1422@163.com

Received: 2024-07-08Revised: 2024-07-19Accepted: 2024-07-30Published: 2024-08-30

J. Int. Eco. Glo. Gov., 2024, 1(3), 4-15; https://doi.org/10.12414/jiegg.240245

Abstract:

Abstract: After the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) revised its Environmental and Social Framework, it has committed to certain climate-related objectives, yet an independent climate accountability mechanism has not been established. The absence of clear evaluation principles and procedural rules presents challenges in[...] Read More.

Keywords: AIIB, Climate Accountability Mechanism, Development Path

Keywords: AIIB, Climate Accountability Mechanism, Development Path

Abstract

Abstract

After the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) revised its Environmental and Social Framework, it has committed to certain climate-related objectives, yet an independent climate accountability mechanism has not been established. The absence of clear evaluation principles and procedural rules presents challenges in effectively addressing environmental investment disputes. This article reviews both domestic and international literature related to AIIB's climate accountability mechanism, identifying that the current Environmental and Social Framework's principled content and reliance on traditional approaches have resulted in issues of enforceability and the absence of an independent accountability institution. To enhance the effectiveness of AIIB's climate accountability mechanism, a reassessment of its development path is necessary. Future developments should transition from an additive path to a substitutive path, focusing on the application of international environmental and social standards, increasing stakeholder recognition and participation, promoting comprehensive reforms within AIIB, and establishing a coordinated independent accountability system. These measures aim to support the robust development of AIIB's climate accountability mechanism.

Keywords: AIIB, Climate Accountability Mechanism, Development Path

Download the full text PDF for viewing and using it according to the license of this paper.

Funding

Funding

This research was funded by National Social Science Fund of China General Project: "Legal Framework for Green Governance of Listed Companies under the 'Dual Carbon' Goals" (No. 23BX102).

Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts of Interest:

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to report regarding the present study.

References

References

People's Daily. (2021). "Reflecting AIIB's High Standard Commitment to Environmental Protection and Social Security" - Interview with Zheng Quan, Director of AIIB's Policy Strategy and Budget Department. Retrieved from http://world.people.com.cn/n1/2021/0527/c1002-32114839.html
Zhu, J. J., & Hu, X. Y. (2022). Analysis of the Convergence of AIIB's Operational System with Traditional Multilateral Development Banks. Northeast Asia Forum, 31(02).
Zhu, J. J. (2018). The Choice of Operational System for New Multilateral Development Banks: An Analysis Based on Historical Institutionalism. World Economy and Politics, (08).
Gan, P. Z., & Cai, Z. (2016). Reflections on AIIB's Environmental and Social Protection Policies: Focus on Consultation Procedures and Accountability Mechanisms. Law Journal, 37(06).
Wang, P. (2019). Research on the Loan Conditional Accountability Mechanism of AIIB under the Framework of the Belt and Road Initiative. Social Scientist, (04).
Yang, B. W. (2020). Complaint and Accountability Mechanism for Investment Disputes Involving Environmental Issues in AIIB. International Business (Journal of the University of International Business and Economics), (03).
Zhang, W. B., & Xu, J. W. (2017). Innovation in Investment Dispute Resolution Mechanism under the Belt and Road Initiative: The Role and Function of AIIB. Nanyang Issues Research, (04).
Zhu, J. J., & Sun, Y. X. (2022). Path Selection for International Institutional Reform in Emerging Fields. Pacific Journal, 30(05).
Equator Principles III. (2013). Retrieved from https://equator-principles.com/app/uploads/The_Equator_Principles_III_June2013.pdf
Hey, E. (2013). The World Bank Inspection Panel and the Development of International Law. In International Courts and the Development of International Law.
AIIB. (2015). Draft Environmental and Social Framework. Retrieved from https://www.docin.com/p-1414223621.html
AIIB. (2021). AIIB Environmental and Social Framework. Retrieved from https://www.aiib.org/en/policies-strategies/framework-agreements/environmental-social-framework.html
Kellerman, M. (2018). The Proliferation of Multilateral Development Banks. The Review of International Organizations, 13(1).
Gabusi, G. (2019). Global Standards in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: The Contribution of the European Members. Global Policy, 10(4).
Gransow, B., & Price, S. (2018). Social Risk Management at AIIB: Chinese or International Characteristics? Journal of Chinese Political Science, 23(2).
Humphrey, C. (2019). Three Years Into Operations: Moving from Concept to Reality at the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and New Development Bank. Working Paper of the Inter-Governmental Group of 24 and the Global Development Policy Center of Boston University.
Evans, J. (2016). The Record of International Financial Institutions on Business and Human Rights. Business and Human Rights Journal, 1(2).