The politics of climate change negotiations has been profoundly shaped by the historical, economic, and developmental divides between the Global North and the Global South. These negotiations, particularly under the umbrella of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), have exposed fundamental differences in priorities, responsibilities, and capacities between industrialized and developing nations. The Global North, encompassing mainly developed countries in Europe, North America, Japan, and other high-income states, bears the legacy of centuries of industrialization that has contributed disproportionately to greenhouse gas emissions. The Global South, comprising Asia, Africa, Latin America, and small island states, has historically contributed less to emissions but faces disproportionately severe impacts from climate change due to geographical vulnerability, weaker adaptive capacity, and developmental challenges. This asymmetry has given rise to the North-South politics that define climate diplomacy, where issues of equity, justice, and responsibility remain central points of contention. A critical foundation of North-South climate politics lies in the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” (CBDR-RC), enshrined in the 1992 UNFCCC. This principle acknowledges that while all states share a responsibility to address climate change, their obligations should reflect their historical contributions to the problem and their present capacities to act. Developing countries have long argued that industrialized nations, having historically emitted the bulk of greenhouse gases, should take the lead in reducing emissions and provide financial, technological, and capacity-building support to poorer nations. In contrast, the Global North has increasingly pushed for universal obligations, emphasizing the rising emissions from emerging economies like China, India, and Brazil, and calling for greater mitigation commitments from them. This tension has been a defining feature of almost every major climate negotiation. One of the earliest manifestations of this North-South divide was evident in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The protocol imposed binding emissions reduction targets exclusively on developed countries (Annex I nations), exempting developing countries from similar commitments in recognition of CBDR. While this was hailed as a victory for the South, it soon became a point of contention for the North, particularly the United States, which refused to ratify the treaty partly because emerging economies were not bound by reduction targets. This disagreement foreshadowed the struggles that would continue into the 21st century over balancing responsibility between developed and developing nations. The 2009 Copenhagen Conference of Parties (COP15) further highlighted these divisions. The Global South, particularly the Group of 77 (G77) and China, emphasized the need for ambitious commitments from developed countries in line with their historical responsibility, alongside significant financial commitments to support adaptation in vulnerable countries. The North, however, pushed for a more flexible agreement that included commitments from emerging economies. The result was the Copenhagen Accord, which was seen as a weak compromise that failed to deliver legally binding commitments or adequate financial pledges. Many countries from the South criticized the process as undemocratic and dominated by Northern interests, reinforcing perceptions of marginalization in global governance. Finance has been one of the most contentious arenas of North-South politics. Developing countries have consistently demanded predictable, adequate, and additional climate finance to support adaptation and mitigation, arguing that their developmental priorities constrain their ability to allocate domestic resources for climate action. The Global North, while acknowledging this obligation, has often fallen short of meeting its promises. The Copenhagen Accord and later the Cancun Agreements in 2010 pledged to mobilize \$100 billion annually by 2020 to support developing countries. However, the delivery of this promise has been riddled with ambiguity, creative accounting, and unmet commitments. For many Southern states, this failure symbolizes the persistent inequities in climate governance,