PAKISTAN IN GLOBAL CLIMATE DIPLOMACY: STRATEGIC ENGAGEMENT, CLIMATE JUSTICE AND IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES

Abstract

Climate diplomacy has emerged as one of the key spaces of international relations for the negotiation of the sharing of mitigation responsibilities, adaptation support, climate finance and loss and damage. Pakistan is a specific case as the contribution of the country in global GHG emission is comparatively small but the exposure to the flood, heat, water stress, glacial hazards etc. is quite large. The article explores the role played by multilateral institutions, claims of climate justice and coalition diplomacy in promoting Pakistan's interests in global climate governance and the lack of correlation between international visibility and domestic resilience. The study uses a qualitative documentary analysis of the official Pakistani submissions to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), such as the updated Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) 2021, the Biennial Transparency Report (BTR) 2024, the Third National Communication, NDC 3.0 submitted in 2025, climate-finance and implementation instruments published in 2026, COP decisions, multilateral assessments, and peer-reviewed scholarship. The issue of institutional access and access through repeated negotiation, transparency and coalition building is explored under the lens of liberal institutionalism, while differentiated responsibility, vulnerability, finance and loss and damage are explored under the climate-justice framework. The analysis suggests that Pakistan has become a more visible player on the international stage via its engagements with G77 and China, climate-justice advocacy, and the salience of the 2022 floods, especially in discussions on loss and damage. Institutional fragmentation and limited technical and fiscal capacity, access barriers to climate finance, and a disconnect between international ambition and domestic implementation, however, continue to limit diplomatic effectiveness. The article concludes that vulnerability can be a source of normative legitimacy, but only when it is supported by coalition strategy, institutional capacity, credible implementation and climate-finance readiness.