The Paris Agreement has an “upward” structure unlike most international environmental treaties, which are “top down”, characterized by internationally defined standards and objectives that states must implement.  Unlike its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, which sets legal commitment targets, the Paris Agreement, which focuses on consensual training, allows for voluntary and national objectives.  Specific climate targets are therefore politically promoted and not legally binding. Only the processes governing reporting and revision of these objectives are imposed by international law. This structure is particularly noteworthy for the United States – in the absence of legal mitigation or funding objectives, the agreement is seen as an “executive agreement, not a treaty.” Since the 1992 UNFCCC treaty was approved by the Senate, this new agreement does not require further legislation from Congress for it to enter into force.  The level of NCC defined by each country will determine the objectives of that country. However, the “contributions” themselves are not binding under international law because of the lack of specificity, normative nature or language necessary to establish binding standards.  In addition, there will be no mechanism to compel a country to set a target in its NDC on a specified date and not for an application if a defined target is not achieved in an NDC.   There will be only a “Name and Shame” system  or as UN Deputy Secretary General for Climate Change, J.
Pésztor, CBS News (US), a “Name and Encouragement” plan.  Since the agreement has no consequences if countries do not live up to their commitments, such a consensus is fragile. A cattle of nations withdrawing from the agreement could trigger the withdrawal of other governments and lead to the total collapse of the agreement.  The negotiators of the agreement stated that the INDCs presented at the time of the Paris conference were insufficient and found that “the estimates of aggregate greenhouse gas emissions in 2025 and 2030, resulting from planned contributions at the national level, do not fall into scenarios at 2oC at the lowest cost, but lead to a projected level of 55 gigatonnes in 2030.” and acknowledges that “much greater efforts to reduce emissions will be needed to keep the increase in the global average temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, by reducing emissions to 40 gigatonnes or 1.5 degrees Celsius.”  [Clarification needed] The EU and its Member States are individually responsible for ratifying the Paris Agreement. There was a strong preference for the EU and its 28 Member States to simultaneously table their ratification instruments to ensure that neither the EU nor its Member States commit to commitments that belong exclusively to the other and there was concern that there was a disagreement on each Member State`s share of the EU-wide reduction target. just as Britain`s vote to leave the EU could delay the Paris pact.  However, on 4 October 2016, the European Parliament approved the ratification of the Paris Agreement and the EU tabled its ratification instruments on 5 October 2016 with several EU Member States.  Adaptation issues were at the forefront of the paris agreement.