T his study aims to reconceptualize the chronic performance gaps in international climate governance from the perspective of cognitive biases. Despite more than three decades of international negotiations and numerous multilateral agreements, global emission trajectories continue to fall short of scientific requirements, necessitating an analytical framework that transcends conventional explanations. Drawing on bounded rationality theory, the study systematically examines how status quo bias, loss aversion, and temporal biases shape climate governance processes. Employing a conceptual and interpretive methodology based on interdisciplinary literature review, the research integrates cognitive psychology, international relations, and normative climate ethics literatures within a unified framework. Findings reveal that a significant portion of structural inaction in climate governance is directly related to systematic cognitive biases. Status quo bias facilitates the unquestioned perpetuation of fossil fuel-based development models, while loss aversion causes short-term economic costs to overshadow long-term climate benefits. Temporal biases lead to the systematic neglect of future generations’ interests, thereby undermining intergenerational justice principles. The study demonstrates that cognitive biases are not confined to the individual level but become embedded in institutional structures and reproduced over time. In this context, the persistence of voluntary commitment-based governance models is interpreted as an institutional manifestation of status quo bias. The normative-analytical framework offers an original contribution to climate ethics by linking cognitive findings with justice and legitimacy debates. The study argues that the effects of cognitive biases can be mitigated through transparency mechanisms, feedback loops, and framing strategies, emphasizing that cognitively informed governance designs must be developed in alignment with democratic values and ethical principles. Ultimately, the research proposes a more realistic decision-making model for climate governance studies by moving beyond the rational actor assumption.