Mikail Yasar GunayThe UN’s Conference of the Parties (COP) is the world’s annual diplomatic summit under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where governments review progress, set rules, and negotiate finance and adaptation.
Its presidency rotates by region and is chosen not for spectacle but for stewardship: keeping nearly 190 countries at the table and delivering outcomes.
With COP31 scheduled for 2026, the contest to host has intensified into a diplomatic struggle. What should have been a routine rotation risks now turning the presidency into a question of entitlement rather than capability.
For 2026, hosting rotates to the Western Europe and Others Group (WEOG). Australia and Türkiye are the two candidates. The UN climate secretariat has urged the two countries to resolve the deadlock.
Should the agreement fail, COP would default to Bonn, an outcome widely seen as undesirable.
Entitlement and the question of consensus
Australia’s bid to brand itself as the Pacific COP does more than project ambition. By implying a de facto right to the presidency and pressing Ankara to withdraw, Australian decision-makers recast consensus rules as obstruction.
For Ankara, the shift carries the weight of unfairness. After putting its candidacy forward as early as COP27, Türkiye is now framing its COP31 candidacy around its role as a bridge between developed and developing countries, highlighting both geography and political positioning. Ankara has stressed that Türkiye offers convening capacity rooted in its diverse climate, economic structure, and strategic location.
Türkiye has positioned itself on that ground. In early July 2025, the Climate Law entered into force, giving the country its first comprehensive legal framework for climate action.
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan publicly affirmed its importance, signalling that climate policy now sits within the country’s broader political strategy, which includes provisions for an emissions trading system, and it builds on Türkiye’s long-term net-zero target.
Institutional capacity has also been reinforced, with the Ministry of Environment, Urbanisation and Climate Change expanded and a dedicated Directorate of Climate Change established to drive implementation.
Considering these advances in climate action, Türkiye brings with it an additional and equally vital asset: proven summit diplomacy at the highest level, indispensable for a successful COP leadership.
Summitry as stagecraft of power
Summits are precious platforms: they bring decision-makers together to mediate disputes, set agendas, and shape narratives, all core functions of diplomacy. The host usually holds the upper hand, using the stage to project leadership, earn respect, and build trust.
While summit diplomacy is often associated with high-stakes security forums like NATO, the COPs show that environmental issues also provide an influential arena for diplomatic engagement.
In recent years, Ankara has brokered difficult negotiations, from hosting Russia–Ukraine talks and facilitating prisoner exchanges, to mediating a landmark peace agreement between Ethiopia and Somalia through the Ankara Process.
These efforts demonstrate that Türkiye can keep communication channels open when others cannot.
Seen through the lens of summit diplomacy, Türkiye stands out as a proven mediator and host in international politics. Its record shows not only logistical capacity but the ability to create trust between adversaries.
The same capacity was visible in the 2022 Black Sea Grain Initiative, which Türkiye helped broker to secure Ukrainian grain exports and avert a global food crisis.
Platforms such as the Antalya Diplomacy Forum, established as a hub for multilateral dialogue, reinforce this role by providing space for high-level talks on regional security and normalisation.
Looking ahead, Türkiye’s planned hosting of the 2026 NATO Summit in Ankara underlines its strategic weight. Serving as a bridge between East and West, it has consistently shown the summitcraft needed to convene diverse actors, precisely the quality a COP presidency demands.
Thus, Türkiye, for its part, rejects the idea that it is blocking for its own sake. Ankara insists there is no automatic right to the presidency, only a duty to reach consensus. It highlights its mediation record and new initiatives as proof of seriousness.
The fact that the debate is now framed in terms of a ‘rightful’ candidate versus a ‘non-legitimate’ one exposes a deeper problem; not only in how COP presidencies are arranged, but in the conduct of summit diplomacy more broadly.
COP as a mechanism, not a moment
The notion that COPs are ‘less serious’ than security summits should be discarded: they are now among the largest recurring gatherings in global politics.
Because the climate challenge cannot be solved once and for all, COPs function as mechanisms for monitoring implementation, enforcing accountability, and making efforts visible, rather than as one-off treaty events.
Justice is central here. Procedural justice ensures efficiency and legitimacy; distributive justice, who bears which burdens, who receives support, must also be negotiated and tracked.
The host does not determine distribution alone, but it can channel discussions into tangible frameworks where accountability and cooperation are clearly and fairly defined.
Summits are larger than bilateral talks, but the principle is the same: an ability to remain objective, keep all stakeholders at the table, and manage a process inclusively. This is procedural competence and mutual recognition in practice.
This is where procedural justice comes in: credible, broad engagement of stakeholders, both the powerful and the smaller players, so every actor feels visible and taken seriously.
What COP31’s choice will signal
A Türkiye Bridge COP would stress implementation, inclusivity, and bridging regions. Failure to agree on a host would undermine COP’s credibility itself, reducing its power to mobilise action.
Ultimately, Türkiye withdrew its COP26 bid in favour of the UK, and now, the COP31 contest risks repeating that dynamic, one candidate cast as rightful heir, the other pressured to disappear.
The environmental crisis is already on the agenda of most states. What matters now is how commitments are implemented, how accountability is ensured, and how burdens are distributed fairly.
The venue and host will signal intent. Türkiye would signal a search for tangible, feasible solutions and collaborative implementation. But with only limited time left before COP31, scheduled for late 2026, the clock is ticking, and consensus must be reached if the summit is to retain its credibility.
The real issue is who can credibly guide the process, keeping diverse voices engaged and steering negotiations toward workable outcomes. On that measure, Türkiye presents itself as a prepared and balanced candidate.
