Article 28 of the agreement allows the parties to terminate the contract following a notification of an appeal to the custodian. This notification can only take place three years after the agreement for the country comes into force. The payment is made one year after the transfer. Alternatively, the agreement provides that the withdrawal of the UNFCCC, under which the Paris Agreement was adopted, also withdraws the state from the Paris Agreement. The terms of the UNFCCC`s exit are the same as those of the Paris Agreement. There is no provision in the agreement for non-compliance. While the agreement has been welcomed by many, including French President Francois Hollande and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, criticism has also emerged. James Hansen, a former NASA scientist and climate change expert, expressed anger that most of the agreement is made up of “promises” or goals, not firm commitments.  He called the Paris talks a fraud with “nothing, only promises” and believed that only a generalized tax on CO2 emissions, which is not part of the Paris agreement, would force CO2 emissions down fast enough to avoid the worst effects of global warming.  Although the United States and Turkey are not parties to the agreement, as countries have not indicated their intention to withdraw from the 1992 UNFCCC, they will continue, as Schedule 1 countries, to prepare national communications and an annual inventory of greenhouse gases.  The Paris Agreement has a bottom-up structure, unlike most international environmental treaties that are “top down,” characterized by internationally defined standards and objectives and must be implemented by states.
 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.  At the 2015 Paris conference, at which the agreement was negotiated, developed countries reaffirmed their commitment to mobilize $100 billion a year for climate-financed financial institutions by 2020 and agreed to continue mobilizing $100 billion a year until 2025.  The commitment refers to the existing plan to allocate $100 billion per year to developing countries for climate change adaptation and climate change mitigation.  The NDC partnership was launched at COP22 in Marrakech to improve cooperation so that countries have access to the technical knowledge and financial assistance they need to achieve major climate and dev goals