International law is founded upon the notion that states are juridically equal. One of the consequences of this legal equality is the principle of reciprocity whereby each state party to a treaty has the same rights and obligations. In practice, states vary greatly in wealth, resource endowment, military strength, size and population. These differences or inequalities influence, for instance, political clout in the international arena or the capacity to implement certain treaties. The concept of judicial equity has been known to different legal systems for a long time. This constitutes an acknowledgement that formal equality may lead in justice. This is an excellent tool to address situations which are inherently unusual. Where the results brought about by the application of formally equal rules do not necessary to devise different schemes which fulfil the same goals as judicial equity. Differential treatment does not encompass every deviation from the principle of sovereign equality. In refers to non-reciprocal arrangements which seek to foster substantive equality in the international community. In practice, this mainly includes deviations which seek to favour least favoured states. The latter con often be equated with developing and least developed countries. This categorization if relevant in a number of cases because economic development is of prime importance in a number of fields covered by international cooperation, such as trade, and because it is often correlated with levels of political or military power. However, the level of economic development is not the only why to categorize states for purposes of differentiation and this has been acknowledged in the practice of international institutions.

International law is founded upon the notion that states are juridically equal. One of the consequences of this legal equality is the principle of reciprocity whereby each state party to a treaty has the same rights and obligations. In practice, states vary greatly in wealth, resource endowment, military strength, size and population. These differences or inequalities influence, for instance, political clout in the international arena or the capacity to implement certain treaties. The concept of judicial equity has been known to different legal systems for a long time. This constitutes an acknowledgement that formal equality may lead in justice. This is an excellent tool to address situations which are inherently unusual. Where the results brought about by the application of formally equal rules do not necessary to devise different schemes which fulfil the same goals as judicial equity. Differential treatment does not encompass every deviation from the principle of sovereign equality. In refers to non-reciprocal arrangements which seek to foster substantive equality in the international community. In practice, this mainly includes deviations which seek to favour least favoured states. The latter con often be equated with developing and least developed countries. This categorization if relevant in a number of cases because economic development is of prime importance in a number of fields covered by international cooperation, such as trade, and because it is often correlated with levels of political or military power. However, the level of economic development is not the only why to categorize states for purposes of differentiation and this has been acknowledged in the practice of international institutions.

Differential Treatment, Sovereignty Equality, Kyoto Protocol, Veto Power, Special and Differential Treatment