The Promise of a Just Transition?The road to Antalya and beyond
By Linnéa Hansen
2025 was a decisive year for the international climate regime. Not only was the landmark decision reached at COP30 in Belém[1], but regional as well as international courts clarified States ' obligations in relation to climate change.[2]
While advisory jurisprudence is by nature non-binding, it is important guidance, as it clarifies the binding law and thus allows for a deeper understanding of state obligations. At the same time, 2025 and 2026 were marked by extreme weather occurrences such as floods and droughts. According to numbers of the WHO an average 546,000 deaths per year are caused by extreme heat.[3] The numbers are expected to increase by 250,000 additional deaths per year between 2030 and 2050.[4] Rapid temperature increase, extreme rainfall and droughts force the international community to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.
Having this in mind, the United Nations Climate Action Weeks were designed in their current format two years ago. The aim was to create a space where the international community, as well as regional stakeholders, would come together to exchange knowledge and capacity building to allow finding solutions to the rapidly increasing climate change.
While geopolitical tensions are straining international cooperation and relations globally, one of the strong suits of the Just Transition Movement is its local rooting. While the local circumstances and conditions differ, the need to transition the existing economies to more sustainable and fairer environments for all is imminent everywhere. All over the world, these transformations happen on a small scale. The Just Transition Movement has the power to bring opposites together. Other traditional negotiations on climate change such as climate finance face difficulties through its highly contentious agenda, causing the negotiations to get stuck or as seen in previous year failing.[5] Furthermore, it allows to finally sense accomplishment, as seen in Belém. On the contrary, this also creates pressure within the negotiation rooms to agree on an ambitious outcome and could consequently hinder an outcome altogether. Through its rooting in civil society, the global movement feels empowered and able to rise.
UN Climate Week 2- Baku, Azerbaijan
Prior to the negotiations happening in Antalya this November, the second UN Climate Week of 2026 took place in Baku, Azerbaijan.[6] For the second time, negotiators and civil society returned to Baku to discuss various aspects of climate change and the international response to it. Compared to the twice-yearly meetings of the subsidiary bodies (SB) as well as meetings serving as meetings of the Parties (COP), the Climate Week is not a space for formal negotiations. Climate weeks rather allow room for UNFCCC-mandated events, training and capacity building of relevant stakeholders, as well as policy and high-impact dialogues, thus fostering relevant exchange on climate implementation.
One of the topics on the calendar of the Baku Climate Week was the United Arab Emirates Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP)[7] in its current format.
Two events were hosted: On the first two days, a regional peer- to- peer exchange of parties took place, elaborating on the planning and implementation of just transition policies within the region of Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East to allow for the promotion and creation of decent work opportunities. To maximise productivity within the exchange, the meeting was scheduled as a closed meeting, meaning that only invited parties and participants were allowed into the room.
6th Dialogue under the UAE JTWP
The sixth dialogue under the United Arab Emirates Just Transition Work Programme took place from 10 to 11 September.[8]
Under the mandate of the Just Transition Work Programme, two dialogues are hosted yearly, where specific aspects of Just Transition are discussed. While the fifth dialogue focused on aspects of food and agriculture in relation to just transition, the sixth dialogue explored holistic, nationally determined just transition pathways for the industry sector, including (a) technology, (b) innovation, as well as (c) equitable value chains.[9]
Equitable and just industrial transition
As a key driver for the exchange of both practical approaches and national experiences to overcome perceived barriers, the sixth dialogue tried to foster common understanding on key issues.
Human Rights dimension
While the Just Transition Movement is historically rooted in the workers' rights movement, the inclusion of a human rights dimension is common understanding. Hence, it only made sense that the first day of the dialogue took the social dimension into account. People and their participation are at the core of the transition of industries.
The sixth dialogue discussions turned around the (a) transition of the workforce and livelihoods, (b) human rights, gender and social inclusion, and (c) Indigenous Peoples' and locally led approaches including traditional knowledge.
Only with social dialogue and the respect of human rights, fossil-fuel dependent industries can transform into green and renewable industries. If the focus, however, solely lies on initial transformation, already affected communities and vulnerable groups, who already bear the costs of the transition, will be even more disproportionately affected. Socioeconomic considerations, as well as the respect and promotion of human rights and meaningful participation opportunities during the decision-making process, need to be put at the core of a just transition.
The inclusion of the voices of those affected is not only an add-on but needs to be at the core of the just transition. Meaningful participation is not solely achieved if civil society is allowed into the room, but they need to have a say, and their individual expertise needs to be seen as a possible solution.
Vulnerable groups such as women and youth, indigenous people, local communities and people with disabilities are not only to be considered as passive recipients of rights but as the ones who hold the power to bring about change. With their empowerment, societies can thrive. Subsequently, the respect and promotion of human rights should not be seen as granting a favour but as something that is necessary to build future resilient societies.
National independence vs. international interdependence
The international order is in a state of tension between national independence on the one side and international interdependence on the other. While the international order cannot exist without international cooperation and compromise, the sovereignty of States is one of the fundamental assumptions of international law. A tendency towards nationalism and a renunciation of international cooperation was visible in recent years, with the withdrawal of the United States of America from various international treaties and organisations, e.g. the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.[10] At the same time, negotiation outcomes need to consider climate change effects, be ambitious and lead to a change of current patterns towards more sustainable practices. Some countries, in particular developing countries, voice concerns against international dictates and call for nationally determined transition pathways.
Access to means of finance and technology allows for enhanced climate action and more ambitious climate goals. Furthermore, it allows for an alignment of individual development priorities and respective climate action agendas. Similarly, responsibility along the whole value chain, through its inherent nature, needs to be considered. National regulatory practices and norms regarding the extraction of minerals or trade restrictions have a necessary impact on development prospects along the whole value chain. Therefore, international standards need to be considered within national and regional norm-setting.
Let’s talk about finance
For the second day, the discussions moved towards the all-time contentious issues of financing, technology transfer and capacity building as well as enabling conditions.
The means of financing, e.g. public financing vs. private financing models, were discussed. Substantial upfront investment is especially due to limited fiscal space indispensable for developing countries. Climate financing needs to be accessible. Barriers such as limited terms and conditions complicate effective financial streams to affected communities. Only if the existing barriers can be overcome do small communities have the opportunity to pursue a just transition.
Without adequate financing, sectoral transformations will only replicate pre-existing inequalities and aggravate them. The same applies in light of technology transfer. Solely, if necessary, capacity-building and knowledge sharing is made accessible, the technologies can be deployed and maintained meaningfully. The conversation needs to go beyond simple availability.
What will be the future for the JTWP?
In the end, discussions turned to the prospects of the Just Transition Mechanism (JTM). Decision 2/CMA.7 paved the way for the development and operationalisation of a Just Transition Mechanism, aimed at the enhancement of international cooperation, capacity building, and technical assistance to allow for equitable and inclusive transitions. Broader cooperation that extends beyond the UNFCCC with other key institutions and stakeholders would allow the use of existing structures and further institutional alignment.
Secondly, a possible renewal of the existing JTWP and its relation to the JTM was part of the discussion. While both tools offer distinct purposes and functions, the concrete development of the operationalisation was in question. While the JTWP is by nature non-prescriptive, the JTM should go beyond the current mandate of the JTWP. However, state parties reiterated the need for diverse national circumstances to be reflected when talking about JT pathways.
While the JTM cannot risk being limited in scope, there is a need to allow for international support while similarly not limiting national ownership. The scope of the JTM must go beyond another dialogue format but needs to be party-driven by nature. Discussion on just transition needs to move from being predominantly normative towards implementation. However, distributive equality is interconnected with implementation efforts. While new opportunities and markets will be created, historic inequalities and distributions threaten investment, market access, as well as economic development for all. Developing countries and stakeholders made clear that benefits and opportunities need to be accessible across State parties and within societies- without it, the transition cannot be just.
Outcome and Road ahead
The COP31 negotiations will focus on the future of the JTWP and its possible renewal and the operationalisation of the JTM. While Baku did not answer the remaining open questions, it contrasted the status quo and what needs to be done to achieve an ambitious legal text. Similarly, Baku allowed to explore important aspects of a just transition and their social dimension. Key messages that derive from the dialogue could highlight prospects that allow for better legal protection of, inter alia, women, children, workers and indigenous communities by maintaining and strengthening legal liability along the value chain.
Looking ahead to the upcoming negotiation rounds in Antalya, state parties need to build on the momentum created at COP31. A fair and non-repressive participation of civil society activists and human rights defenders will also be essential. While global leaders have remained silent until now, it is their duty to hold the governments of Türkiye and Australia, as a dual presidency, accountable to guarantee the internationally recognised freedom of speech, protected under Article 19 of the IPPCPR and Article 19 of the UDHR, and the right to peaceful assembly, protected under Article 21 of the IPPCPR as well as Article 20 of the UDHR, in Antalya.
Only if the power of civil society is present and consequently represented in the negotiation outcome, a truly just and fair transition is possible.
[1] At COP30, State Parties adopted Decision 2/CMA.7, where they decided to develop the Just Transition Mechanism to advance just transition through capacity-building, knowledge sharing, technical assistance and international cooperation.
[2] The Advisory Opinion of the IACHR can be found here https://jurisprudencia.corteidh.or.cr/en/vid/1084981967; the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ can be found here https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-adv-01-00-en.pdf; See further the Advisory Opinion of the ITLOS https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/31/Advisory_Opinion/C31_Adv_Op_21.05.2024_orig.pdf; the African Court on Human and People´s Rights is still considering an Advisory Opinion requested by PALU on 2.5.2025, see https://www.african-court.org/cpmt/details-advisory/0012025.
[3] WHO, climate inaction is claiming millions of lives every year, https://www.who.int/news/item/29-10-2025-climate-inaction-is-claiming-millions-of-lives-every-year--warns-new-lancet-countdown-report.
[4] WHO, climate change and health, https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health.
[5] See e.g. the media coverage during COP29: The Guardian, Backroom deals and betrayal: how Cop29´s late $300bn deal left nobody happy, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/26/how-late-deal-left-a-sense-of-dissatisfaction-and-betrayal-at-cop29-baku, or a recent publication of the Wuppertal Institute, COP30-Report, pp. 14, https://wupperinst.org/fileadmin/redaktion/downloads/publications/COP30-Report_en.pdf.
[6] https://unfccc.int/climate-week-baku/events.
[7] UNFCCC, United Arab Emirates Just Transition Work Programme, https://unfccc.int/topics/just-transition/united-arab-emirates-just-transition-work-programme.
[8] UNFCCC, Sixth dialogue under the United Arab Emirates Just Transition Work Programme, https://unfccc.int/event/sixth-dialogue-under-the-united-arab-emirates-just-transition-work-programme.
[9] UNFCCC, Fifth dialogue under the United Arab Emirates Just Transition Work Programme, https://unfccc.int/event/fifth-dialogue-under-the-united-arab-emirates-just-transition-work-programme.
[10] The White House, Putting America First in International Environmental Agreement, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/putting-america-first-in-international-environmental-agreements/.
Author:
Linnéa Hansen
Linnéa is a student assistant to Prof. Dr. h.c. Anne Peters at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg. She studies law at Ruprecht-Karls University Heidelberg with a focus on public international law. Linnéa was a visiting master's student in Aberystwyth, Wales, where she studied International Human Rights. Her recent publications are focused on International Environmental Law and International Humanitarian Law.
