The legal and economic consequences of the current COVID 19 crisis will continue to be felt for the foreseeable future. While this decision is the first in a contractual dispute between private parties, it will undoubtedly not be the last. One issue that may give rise to further disagreements in the courts is whether the Covid-19 crisis should continue to be interpreted as an unpredictable event, particularly with respect to contracts concluded around or after the outbreak of the COVID 19 epidemic. Moreover, the Tribunal`s interpretation of this specific agreement cannot be definitive, since the Tribunal has chosen a literal interpretation of the force majeure clause (and it can still be argued that the court should have taken into account other financial factors that were not taken into account) and EDF appealed the decision. We await the decision of the Court of Appeal with a stopped breath. In a possible first judgment, the Tribunal issued a clear decision that the COVID 19 crisis and its financial consequences may, in certain circumstances, be considered a force majeure event in the context of a commercial agreement between private parties. The level of the NDC set 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.
 From a technical point of view, the execution of the contract between the parties was still possible: EDF still supplied electricity and, under French law, financial difficulties are generally not a reason for force majeure. From EdF`s point of view, it would be unfair to allow alternative electricity suppliers to circumvent their payment obligations under ARENH agreements, edF being obliged to bear the financial risk alone.4 In France, a large number of start-ups grow each year, offering different payment, insurance, financing, savings, investment or financial management services in B2B and B2C operations. The Paris Agreement is the world`s first comprehensive climate agreement.  Although the enhanced transparency framework is universal, the framework, coupled with the global inventory that takes place every five years, aims to provide “integrated flexibility” to distinguish the capabilities of developed and developing countries. In this context, the Paris Agreement contains provisions to improve the capacity-building framework.  The agreement recognizes the different circumstances of some countries and notes, in particular, that the technical review of experts for each country takes into account the specific capacity of that country to report.  The agreement also develops a capacity-building initiative for transparency to help developing countries put in place the necessary institutions and procedures to comply with the transparency framework.  In particular, fintech operating in the United States is not subject to any specific regulatory framework for fintech, imposed by a single centralized financial supervisory authority.