No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Environmental Provisions in American and EU Free Trade Agreements: A Preliminary Comparison and Research Agenda
Abstract
Environmental provisions are included into bilateral trade agreements in increasingly creative ways. This article offers an initial exploration of the policy and legal dimensions of environmental provisions included in recent bilateral trade agreements concluded by the United States and by the European Union. Based primarily on a coding analysis of the environmental provisions contained in American and EU trade agreements since the mid-2000s, the article illuminates the variable characteristics of these environmental provisions, including the different approaches of the United States and the EU (punitive versus cooperative) to their implementation. The article pays particular attention to the unprecedented links that these treaties create with multilateral environmental agreements. It concludes with a discussion of avenues for future research, including approaches that are comparative and interdisciplinary in nature.
... This has prompted calls for exploring alternative governance structures for addressing climate change, such as climate clubs (Hovi et al., 2019;Nordhaus, 2015), sectoral treaties (Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, 2024), and domestic climate litigation (Mayer & van Asselt, 2023;Wegener, 2020). This study explores the novel approach of integrating climate commitments into trade agreements, an avenue which has been argued to hold significant promise (Jinnah & Morgera, 2013;Morin & Jinnah, 2018). In this article, we focus on climate provisions within the European Union's (EU) preferential trade agreements (PTAs). ...
... Yet to the best of our knowledge, there has been no comprehensive examination of the specific commitment within EU PTAs to effectively implement the Paris Agreement (for brief commentaries, see Blot, 2023;Bronckers & Gruni, 2021;Harrison & Paulini, 2020). By scrutinising this 'legal innovation' , which has become a staple of modern EU trade agreements, we seek to actualise and contribute to academic and policy discussions on trade-climate linkages and their potential contribution to climate governance (Jinnah & Morgera, 2013). ...
Since 2019, a commitment has been included in the European Union’s (EU) preferential trade agreements to effectively implement the Paris Agreement. This commitment now exists in nine ratified or pending trade agreements. Yet research into the legal nature and institutional implications of this linkage between the Paris Agreement and EU trade agreements remains scant. Relying on the governance stringency framework, we explore the evolution of this commitment across EU trade agreements, highlighting its transition from a statement of shared intent into a legally binding obligation. We argue that the EU’s latest trade agreements increase the cost of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and bolster the Paris Agreement’s obligations of conduct, namely parties’ procedural duties, the expectation of progressively more ambitious climate pledges, and the commitment of all parties to realise these to the best of their efforts. Finally, we suggest that the implementation and enforcement mechanisms available through EU trade agreements in the context of the Paris Agreement commitment may prove pivotal in realising the climate regime’s objectives.
... These focus on the implementation of multilateral environmental agreements, in which international environmental rules are set (DG Trade, 2019 (DG Trade, 2019). Substantively, these nine agreements can be divided into four subcategories: one clustering around 'climate change and global warming', another one concerning 'prospective dangerous goods and products', a third one on the 'protection of Flora & Fauna' and the fourth one on 'fisheries'. 1 Compared to labour rights, the environmental dimension of EU trade agreements has not been studied as extensively (for exceptions, see Bastiaens & Postnikov, 2017;Jinnah & Morgera, 2013;McNeill, 2020;Morgera, 2012;. ...
... Substantially, both the EU and the US trade agreements refer to the ILO core labour conventions. However, the EU focuses more strongly on human rights as a whole, whereas the United States gives more (2015) and Jinnah and Morgera (2013) importance to enforcement of national labour laws. When it comes to environmental issues, both the EU and the United States mention very similar international agreements, without defining environmental considerations as fundamental rights. ...
Pressures have grown on European policy-makers to ensure that geo-economic interests do not come at the cost of the environment and workers’ rights. In light of increased public salience of EU trade deals with third countries, this chapter explores how the EU satisfies sustainability demands in trade agreements and how geopolitical considerations impact the design of specific clauses in recent trade deals with five Asian countries. We argue that while the relative impact of the international level on the design of sustainability clauses is not observable, the EU template allows for potential interactions between the sustainability dimensions of EU and US agreements. This chapter is divided into three parts. The first part provides an overview of the distinct characteristics of so-called Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) chapters in EU trade agreements. We show how the EU’s ‘soft approach’ in the TSD chapters functions in particular contrast to the ‘hard approach’ followed in US trade agreements. In the second section, we explore how far geo-political considerations (‘cooperation’ and ‘competition’ scenarios) in the international sphere are able to explain the soft design of the EU TSD chapters. We come to the conclusion that internal EU dynamics (interests, ideas and institutions) are more likely to set the logic of TSD chapters. In the third section, we compare five TSD chapters in EU trade agreements with Korea, Singapore, Vietnam, Japan and Indonesia, finding further evidence for the EU’s continued use of a more or less coherent template, with some provisions adapted to Asian partner countries’ preferences.
... Europe is known for its strong socio-cultural values and policies on environment and climate change, and relatively early on EU leaders identified climate diplomacy as an area where Europe could establish a global leadership position [98]. The 1986 Single European Act introduced obligations for member states to integrate environmental protection into all EU policies, including trade [99]. The European Commission's White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment [100], imbued with ecological modernisation thinking (e.g., trade and green growth), further established the EU as arguably the strongest global leader on environmental issues by this time, especially on climate change [36,101]. ...
... In 2006, the EU revised its new Sustainable Development Strategy, updating the earlier 2001 version, and called for increased efforts to use international trade to achieve global sustainable development through the incorporation of more ambitious environmental measures in EU trade agreements [102,103]. This involves Sustainable Impact Assessments that had been included in all EU-signed trade agreements since 2000, these being more rigorous than their US counterparts [99,104]. These principles and goals were also incorporated into the EU's Global Europe-Competing in the World strategy policy document also published in 2006, stating that new 'competitiveness-driven' FTAs would include provisions on environmental co-operation with trade partners and at the global multilateral level. ...
Efforts to tackle climate change are taking place on multiple fronts. This includes trade, an increasingly important defining feature of the global economy. In recent years, free trade agreements (FTAs) have become the primary mechanism of trade policy and diplomacy. This study examines the development of climate action measures in FTAs and discusses what difference they can make to tackling climate change. Its primary source research is based on an in-depth examination of FTAs in force up to 2020. This paper is structured around a number of research questions forming around three main inter-related areas of enquiry. Firstly, to what extent are these provisions in FTAs essentially derivative of energy’s connections with climate change, and thus part of a wider trade–climate–energy nexus? Secondly, what kinds of climate action are FTAs specifically promoting, and how effective a potential positive impact may we expect these to have? Thirdly, are certain climate action norms being promoted by trade partners in FTAs and if so, then who are the norm leaders, what is motivating them, and to what extent are they extending their influence over other trade partners? In addressing these questions, this study offers new insights and analysis regarding a potentially important emerging trend in the trade–climate–energy nexus. Its international political economy approach and latest empirical research also provide a further distinctive contribution to knowledge in this inter-disciplinary area, developing new comprehensions of the relationship between trade, climate action and energy.
... Some studies have already documented the incorporation of environmental provision as an increasing feature of PTA design. Many of these studies analyse the design of only a small and unrepresentative sample of PTAs (Bastiaens & Postnikov, 2017;Jinnah & Morgera, 2013;OECD, 2007). Those that have looked at a more comprehensive collection of PTAs ask why PTAs include environmental provisions and do not offer any explanation why some provisions diffuse more often than others (Lechner, 2016;Milewicz et al., 2016;Morin et al., 2018). ...
... The relation between the trade and the environmental regimes is one of the most puzzling and widely studied institutional interactions (e.g., Bastiaens & Postnikov, 2017;Egger, Jessberger, & Larch, 2013;Hauer & Runge, 1999;Jinnah & Morgera, 2013;Johnson, 2015;Melser & Robertson, 2005;Oberthür & Gehring, 2006;Zelli, Gupta, & van Asselt, 2013). While one might presume that trade and environmental agreements are in frequent opposition as each has adverse consequences for the other, they co-evolve with little open conflict or blatant legal incompatibility. ...
Most recent preferential trade agreements (PTAs) include environmental provisions. While a number of these environmental provisions remain rare and are incorporated in just a few PTAs, others are widely popular and are duplicated in more than 100 PTAs. We still lack a convincing explanation for this varying frequency. While the diffusion literature typically tries to explain how diffusion occurs, we investigate why certain provisions diffuse more often than others. We hypothesise that the initial conditions under which provisions first emerge determine the scope of their diffusion. Our results support this hypothesis and indicate that provisions originating from intercontinental agreements diffuse more often than others. At the same time, provisions first designed by economically powerfully or environmentally credible countries are not related to more frequent occurrences of diffusion. These findings are of interest for the literatures on international institutions’ design, interaction, and diffusion.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
... Such provisions have been included in 38 PTAs since before the UNFCCC was agreed. In 1991, for example, the EU concluded agreements with Poland and Hungary, which required cooperation on climate change matters by encouraging dialogue on the issue between trading partners (Jinnah and Morgera 2013). Some PTAs are more specific and ask parties to cooperate These 'trade-related aspects' may potentially include the use of protectionist measures to assist domestic renewable energy producers (e.g. ...
... In contrast, especially in recent agreements, the US tends to include dispute settlement mechanisms that include legally binding decisions and sanction-based enforcement provisions. The US, therefore, scores higher than the EU for delegation, due to the strong dispute settlement mechanisms (Jinnah and Morgera 2013). However, US agreements contain a significantly weaker level of obligation and precision in their climate change provisions than do those of the EU. ...
The regulatory contribution that preferential trade agreements (PTAs) make to global climate governance is assessed through an analysis of climate-related provisions found in 688 PTAs signed between 1947 and 2016. Provisions are analyzed along four dimensions: innovation, legalization, replication, and distribution. Innovative climate provisions are found in several PTAs that are in some cases more specific and enforceable than the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. Nonetheless, these climate provisions offer limited progress because they remain weakly ‘legalized’, fail to replicate broadly in the global trade system, and were not adopted by the largest greenhouse gas emitters. Despite the inclusion of innovative climate provisions in a number of PTAs, their poor design and weak replication position them as some of the weakest environmental provisions within PTAs.
... Jinnah and Morgera (2013). ...
... 40 Jinnah and Lindsay (2016), 46. 41 Jinnah andMorgera (2013), 329. See alsoJinnah and Kennedy (2011). ...
The United States (US) and the European Union (EU) include several environmental clauses in their respective preferential trade agreements (PTAs). Building on an exhaustive and fine-grained dataset of PTAs environmental clauses, this article makes two contributions. First, it show that the US and the EU have initially favored different approaches to environmental protection in their PTAs. US concerns over regulatory sovereignty and level playing field have conducted to a legalistic and adversarial approach, while EU concerns for policy coherence have led to a more procedural and cooperative approach. Second, this article provides evidence that European and American trade negotiators have gradually converged on a shared set of environmental norms. Although the US and the EU initially pursued different objectives, they learned from each other and drew similar lessons. As a result, recent American agreements have become more European-like, and European agreements have become more Americanized. This article concludes that US and EU approaches, far from being incompatible, can usefully be combined and reinforce each other.
... Agency lies in the 'creative borrowing' of selected features to reach one's own ends (Said 1983, 226), whereby a given policy can be approached as a toolbox (Lenz and Nicolaïdis 2019). For instance, in the early 2000s, the EU appropriated the USA's policy of linking PTAs with environmental and labour chapters but introduced changes in terms of content, remedies and objectives (Jinnah and Morgera 2013;Postnikov 2020). Finally, resistance occurs when an actor only partially adapts to a norm or practice. ...
Sustainability provisions in the European Union’s (EU) preferential
trade agreements are typically attributed to the EU. The role
of trade partners is often underexplored or even ignored. This
article reverses the gaze, examining how trade partners and the
EU engage under Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD)
chapters. Drawing on 60 expert interviews, we juxtapose the
perceptions of both sides regarding TSD negotiations and
implementation, revealing similarities and differences. The EU
sees itself as the primary proponent of TSD chapters and generally
classifies trade partners into an in-group or out-group
based on their perceived level of development and sustainability
performance, employing a distinct governance logic for each
group. Trade partners acknowledge the EU’s influence but still
assert various forms of agency, including on fossil fuel subsidies,
gender equality and indigenous peoples’ rights. The integration
of trade and sustainable development is increasingly recognised
as a shared goal. However, emerging trade-sustainability communities
appear to be hindered by imbalanced policy objectives
and adaptation costs, the perceived inappropriateness of
'harder' policy means and a disregard for distinct contexts. Our
findings suggest that the EU’s and trade partners’ perceptions of
TSD interactions are shaped by underlying spatial and temporal
imaginaries. We propose two concepts – inclusive levelling and
exclusive distancing – to describe how spatiality and temporality
discursively influence the construction and delineation of
trade-sustainability communities and thereby the governance
of the trade-sustainability nexus.
... Based on existing research on the quantification of environmental provisions, we expect that PTA environmental provisions have a heterogeneous influence on the country's export structure. PTA environmental provisions have been gradually developed, as reflected in the change from the citation of MEAs to independent chapters of environmental clauses (Egger & Larch, 2008;Jinnah & Morgera, 2013;Morin et al., 2018). Environmental terms also increasingly cover more dimensions and have become more comprehensive (Berger et al., 2017). ...
The trade-off between trade welfare and environmental protection has long been an important issue. However, the role of environmental regulation in balancing trade with the environment has not yet been explored. This article investigates the effect of heterogeneous environmental provisions in preferential trade agreements (PTAs) on the export structure of an emerging economy. Using panel data for China and its 19 trading partners from 2002 to 2016, we estimate the effects of tariff decline under PTAs (tariff channel) and environmental provisions under PTAs (non-tariff channel) on trade flows. Specifically, the single-country gravity model is employed to empirically analyze the impact of China’s PTA environmental provisions on its export structure. We also apply various measurements regarding heterogeneous environmental provisions at the PTA level developed by Kohl et al. (World Econ 39(1): 97–131, 2016) and Berger et al. (German Development Institute/Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE), 2017). The relative comparative advantage (RCA) index is added as a control variable to avoid the potential endogeneity problem. Various fixed effects are also added. The main results indicate that PTAs with environmental provisions inhibit the export of China’s energy-consuming products. Meanwhile, PTAs with deeper environmental provisions exert an even larger inhibiting influence on China’s export of energy-consuming products. The paper contributes to the literature on the PTA trade effects and the effects of PTA environmental provisions and provides policy insights for China and other emerging economies to strike a balance between export trade and environmental protection.
... These agreements equally envision the establishment of so-called "soft" judicial mechanisms that are both compulsory and can freely review treaty parties' compliance. The difference between the so-called "hard" approach and its "soft" equivalent lies in the powers of the authority reviewing parties' compliance (Hradilová & Svoboda, 2018;Jinnah & Morgera, 2013). Under EU FTAs, environmental disputes can be brought to the attention of a "panel of experts" that can adopt findings and issue recommendations. ...
The international forest regime—if there ever was such a thing—traditionally developed on the fringes of various environmental treaty regimes. In recent years, however, the regime’s boundaries have conquered new, historically hostile territories. The last two decades have indeed witnessed the emergence, and then proliferation, of a new generation of free trade agreements that incorporate commitments pertaining to forests. These commitments have developed along two lines: either through the establishment of linkages to pre-existing forest-related obligations enshrined in multilateral environmental agreements or through the creation of new forest commitments. To the extent that such trade-forest commitments have now become part and parcel of the international law governing forests, their existence raises important policy choice questions that have not been addressed yet. This article aims to fill this gap by answering the following question: should we, for the sake of the protection of our forests, welcome such a development or, on the contrary, oppose it? Using a legal-dogmatic approach, this article provides, based on a cross-study analysis of a selection of trade agreements including forest-related provisions, a doctrinal evaluation of the fitness of these commitments to achieve forest protection and identifies the opportunities and risks associated therewith. In so doing, this article debates the adequacy of international trade law for regulating forests.
... In contrast, the U.S. government has a broader range of legislative strategies by which it can regulate the environment in all 50 states (Jinnah & Morgera, 2013). These strategies can be divided into four categories: federal standards with federal implementation and enforcement; federal standards with state implementation and execution; federal administration of federal lands and resources; and federal requirements or incentives for governments to adopt and enforce environmental protection measures (Capra & Mattei, 2015). ...
Motives: This research paper analyzes the legislative process and the implementation of the European Union’s (EU) environmental law as one of the principal tools for achieving and maintaining global ecological safety.Aim: The study was undertaken to determine how the priorities of the EU’s foreign and internal policy are reflected in the legislative process in the area of environmental protection. The problems associated with law enforcement and the implementation of EU legislative acts in national legislation were also examined, and the current state and prospects for policy-making in the area of environmental protection were assessed. The paper considers environmental policy issues and legal regulations in Azerbaijan in the context of EU experiences. The research covers political and legal relations.Results: An analysis of the historical transformation of the EU’s environmental law from an institutional and constitutional perspective was combined with an analysis of the principal aspects and the main trends in the EU’s environmental governance and lawmaking. The EU’s contribution to the development of environmental legislation highlights its approach to the multi-layered dimension of environmental governance internally, in terms of the dynamic relationship between the EU and the Member States, as well as internationally. The EU’s policy and legal regulations in the area of environmental protection can serve as a reliable example for countries in which the environmental agenda has not yet received due attention. The above applies to both strategic planning, regulatory issues, and law enforcement practices.
... Second, in terms of research on the economic and social effects of the depth of trade agreements, most existing studies focus on the effects of such depth on trade flows, global value chains, and foreign direct investment. Jinnah and Morgera (2013) analyze the coding analysis of environmental provisions in US-EU trade agreements that has occurred since the mid-2000s, describing the variable characteristics of these environmental provisions, including the different ways in which the USA and the EU (punitive versus cooperative) have implemented environmental provisions. Lin and Bao (2018) measure the depth of trade agreements in 40 economies worldwide in terms of value-added trade. ...
The construction of trade power and green low-carbon transformation are common high-quality development goals for countries worldwide. The depth of the environmental provisions contained in different countries’ intercountry trade agreements and the implicit carbon data of intercountry trade are accurately measured based on the textual analysis of trade agreement rules, and it is empirically found that enhancing the depth of the environmental provisions contained in trade agreements can significantly reduce CO2 emissions embodied in international trade. The capacity of intercountry green technology cooperation to strengthen the internal environmental governance capacity of countries and to enhance carbon productivity is an important transmission mechanism. The effect of the environmental provisions in different types of trade agreements on reducing trade-implied carbon is obviously heterogeneous; the higher the level of correlation with carbon emissions is, the stronger the effect of trade agreement provisions, and that effect is more significant in developed countries and in the reduction of foreign carbon emissions that are embedded in export products. In this paper, the impact of the depth of the environmental provisions of trade agreements on trade-implied carbon under the same framework is directly studied, which not only advances the measurement of the depth of the environmental provisions of trade agreements and expands the research field on the scope of influence of existing trade agreements but also fully accounts for the role of the effectiveness of environmental provisions in different contexts and provides a theoretical basis for the optimization of future environmental provisions.
... A pesar de ello, la relación entre la UE y Colombia sí ha sido escenario de la coherencia comunitaria, en la cual se ha ligado el discurso de los derechos humanos con los derechos ambientales. La UE ha incluido en sus acuerdos bilaterales aspectos jurídicos ambientales (Jinnah y Morgera, 2013), vinculándolos de facto con la temática de la responsabilidad social, cuya interpretación sigue sin ser forzosamente compartida (Sánchez y Norte, 2013). ...
El término posconflicto alude a la etapa o período posterior a situaciones
de enfrentamiento o choque, en el que dos o más partes han desarrollado
tiempos y contextos de aniquilamiento mutuo por diversas circunstancias.
Al hacer referencia al prefijo post y vislumbrar que se refiere a lo que
“acontece después de”, sobrevienen lecturas de cambio, transformación,
renovación, reacomodación, entre otras variables, para indicar que las
circunstancias en las que se encontraban los grupos enfrentados y/o los
afectados han sido superadas, y el trabajo conjunto en nuevas circunstancias
posibilitará la convivencia con “novedades” en las que el beneficio
mutuo sea palpable y efectivo3.
Sin embargo, la realidad de conflicto en la estructura humana es
constitutiva. Las diferencias y diversidad de lo humano ponen sobre la
convivencia posibilidades de choques que pueden configurar situaciones
conflictivas, pero no necesariamente violentas. Es decir, lo que cada persona
y grupo manifiesta en su cotidianidad respecto a la vida marca una
pauta de diferencia que, sumándolos a todos, hace palpable la diversidad
que configura el encuentro con el otro y/o los otros en dinámica de tener
“otras opciones y opiniones” frente a una misma realidad u objeto. Al buscar
una salida frente a lo anterior, se hace patente el conflicto cuando las
perspectivas son distintas y se pretenden diversas opciones. Por tanto,
¿podrán existir diversas interpretaciones del conflicto? ¿Es factible hablar
de “posconflicto” cuando el conflicto es constitutivo de lo humano y ese
llamado “período después de” podría no ser real?
... The conventional analytical approach has not fundamentally changed despite the recent growth of the trade and environment nexus driven by the proliferation of preferential trade agreements with extended environmental chapters (Jinnah and Morgera 2013). Some population-level studies have been conducted to explain the factors that led to the inclusion of environmental provisions in trade agreements and their actual impact on the environment (Bastiaens and Postnikov 2017). ...
Global governance consists of elementary regimes that form regime complexes, which in turn give rise to what we call superclusters around broad policy domains. In recent years, scholars have explored what these macroscopic structures look like and how they evolve over time. Yet the complex ways in which entire governance superclusters interact and coevolve, and what might emerge through this process, have not received much attention. In this article, we expand the ontological frontier of global governance research by offering a first bird’s-eye view on supercluster-level institutional interaction with an empirical focus on trade and environment. We constructed and analyzed a dynamic network-of-networks model, revealing a supercluster complex, a massive institutional structure in global governance consisting of two or more interlocking superclusters that exert a measurable influence on each other’s course of development. We theorize that the supercluster complex serves as an institutional fabric that enables the degree of self-organized coordination observed between the trade and environment policy domains. Our preliminary findings warrant more research on supercluster complexes as an important but little-noticed phenomenon in global governance.
... 78 Consequently, the EU has always adopted a more cooperative and light-touch approach. 79 The environmental provisions in the early generation EU FTAs had no standardized form and greatly varied in legal force, standards, priority issues and areas for environmental integration. Moreover, the environmental clauses were open-ended, focusing on environmental cooperation and dialogue rather than enforcement. ...
We argue that international trade law may be the solution to decarbonize the economy and invest in renewable energy, but there must be effective measures agreed by the international community. That would require agreeing on preferential trade agreements (PTAs) with environmental and sustainable development chapters on a unilateral, bilateral, or plurilateral basis, as multilateral agreements have proven to be increasingly difficult to negotiate. This paper will assess the feasibility of including such chapters through an analysis of existing environmental and climate change-content in recent PTAs. Equally, recent developments in newer bilateral investment treaties (BITs) show that there is a positive shift towards explicit inclusion of sustainable development issues into their wording (e.g. states' right to adopt sustainable development-oriented regulation). Reference to sustainable development issues may appear in different parts of a BIT, e.g. as a general objective of the treaty in a preamble, as a separate obligation of the state parties or investors, or as an exception to the substantive protection standards, such as prohibition of unlawful indirect expropriation. Specific position and wording of sustainable development provisions determine to what extent such provisions will be binding and enforceable against state parties. Certain BITs contain only a broad reference to sustainable development without clear practical consequences, while others list sustainable development obligations that may be enforced in practice, e.g. by means of state to state dispute settlement mechanism or, if such obligations are imposed on foreign investors, as a counterclaim brought by a host state against an investor. Finally, we analyze how efforts to modernize the Energy Charter Treaty may contribute to sustainable development.
... Existing scholarship highlighted the role of developed countries from a Western hemisphere in diffusing the norm of including EPs in FTAs (Bastiaens & Postnikov, 2017;Jinnah, 2011;Jinnah & Lindsay, 2016;Jinnah & Morgera, 2013). For instance, developed countries like the US and the EU pressure their FTA partners to include environmental chapters in FTAs. ...
In trade negotiations, developed countries have been frontrunners in advocating environmental protection whereas developing countries were reluctant to link environmental protection to their trade agreements. However, the recent trend of including environmental provisions (EPs) in free trade agreements (FTAs) shows a policy change in some of the emerging economies. Not only did they adopt EPs but they also actively introduced a comprehensive set of EPs – environmental chapters. Using the Republic of Korea (Korea)’s FTAs, this study explores why emerging economies come to include environmental chapters in their FTAs. Existing studies have offered explanations focusing on domestic politics. Yet, they do not specify the impact of the interaction between domestic and international politics. Through the lens of the two-level games, this study finds that the combination of domestic and international pressures plays an important role in making green FTAs. First, Korea has been pursuing environmental leadership at the world stage during the Korea-US FTA (KORUS) negotiation. Against this background, the US’ proposal to include an environmental chapter has reverberated within domestic politics. Second, the costs of implementing this environmental chapter were low. After the KORUS, Korea has been including similar environmental chapters because these chapters were cost-effective ways to promote its enduring environmental leadership. This finding has far-reaching implications for facilitating emerging economies’ green FTAs.
... Finally, the few studies paying attention toward the positive contributions of PTAs to environmental governance typically focus on EU and USA agreements (see, e.g., Jinnah and Morgera 2013;Poletti and Sicurelli 2016;Morin and Rochette 2017;Bastiaens and Postnikov 2017;Jinnah and Morin 2020). Both the USA and the EU are champions in terms of including environmental provisions in their PTAs. ...
The prolific literature on the relationship between the trade and environmental regimes suffers from three shortcomings. First, it myopically focuses on multilateral institutions while the vast majority of trade and environmental agreements are bilateral. Second, when studies consider preferential trade agreements’ (PTAs) environmental provisions, they are often limited to US and EU agreements. Third, it examines how the trade and environmental regimes negatively affect each other, leaving aside their potential synergies. Conversely, this article assesses the potential contribution of PTAs to international environmental law. Several PTAs include a full-fledged chapter devoted to environmental protection and contain detailed commitments on various environmental issue areas. One possible scenario is that countries that are dissatisfied with traditional settings for environmental lawmaking engage in a process of “regime shifting” toward PTAs to move forward on their environmental agenda. The alternative is that PTAs’ environmental provisions are the result of “tactical linkages” and merely duplicate extant obligations from international environmental law to serve political goals. We shed light on this question by building on two datasets of 690 PTAs and 2343 environmental treaties. We investigate four potential contributions of PTAs to environmental law: the diffusion of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), the diffusion of existing environmental rules, the design of new environmental rules, and the legal prevalence of MEAs. The article concludes that the contribution of PTAs to the strengthening of states’ commitments under international environmental law is very modest on the four dimensions examined.
... In recent years, the world has seen a proliferation of trade and investment agreements that reflect a growing awareness of climate change and sustainable development concerns. Recent surveys document over 140 new FTAs that explicitly commit to sustainable development, including EU-CARIFORUM EPA, 26 US-PERU TPA 27 , TPP 28 and CETA. 29 In these agreements, Parties display innovation and experimentation. ...
Brexit reaches into almost every area of policy, especially the environment. More than half of the UK’s planned cuts in carbon pollution are bound up with membership of the EU. Despite this, we have seen too little focus on how the UK’s established leadership position on climate change and clean energy could be impacted by future trade deals. A failure to understand and defend climate protections within post-Brexit trade agreements, including any UK-EU or UK-US trade deal, risks endangering the high environmental standards that Britain has become known for around the world.
Dr Markus Gehring and Freedom-Kai Phillips in this new paper examine the proposed UK exit arrangements and sets out how the Brexit agreement would need substantial changes to avoid damaging environmental rollbacks and instead set a new gold standard for climate change provisions in trade deals.
... Most studies focus exclusively on the World Trade Organization, although the trade regime's current developments are clearly located on bilateral and regional fronts. A number of recent studies have pioneered the analysis of preferential trade agreements' (PTAs) environmental provisions, but they have only analyzed a relatively small number of agreements ( Jinnah and Morgera 2013;Jinnah and Lindsay 2016), have not systematically coded their provisions (Anuradha 2011;Chaytor 2009;Gehring et al. 2013;OECD 2007;Monteiro 2016), or have looked at nontrade issues in general rather than environmental provisions specifically (Lechner 2016;Milewicz et al. 2017). ...
Environment and trade are increasingly linked through preferential trade agreements. Despite the encompassing nature of environmental provisions in trade agreements, studies on causes and consequences of the trade and environment linkage are scarce. A main cause hindering research in this area is the lack of data. By dint of this research note we introduce an original dataset on environmental provisions found in 630 trade agreements signed between 1947 and 2016 – that is the most comprehensive in terms of both variables coded and agreements covered. We illustrate the dataset’s usefulness by assessing the question of why countries include environmental provisions in trade agreements. Are trade negotiations opportunities to promote stringent environmental standards? Or are environmental provisions window-dressing covering protectionist interests? We find evidence that democracies, countries that face import competition, and countries that care about the environment are more likely to include environmental provisions in trade agreements. The database is of particular relevance for research on international institutional design, policy innovation, regime complexity, policy diffusion, and regime effectiveness.
... Yet, despite the similarity in EU and US PTAs, one crucial distinction remains between them. While environmental standards in US PTAs are enforceable through sanctions, the EU choses to eschew this approach and rely on the soft mechanisms of enforcement (Jinnah and Morgera 2013). EU environmental standards are legally binding and expert panels review cases of noncompliance, yet failure to comply with the rulings of these panels will not result in any tangible penalty. ...
Can environmental provisions in preferential trade agreements (PTAs) foster an environmental race to the top? The ways in which different enforcement mechanisms in North–South PTAs affect the implementation of environmental standards in developing countries are examined. It is argued that environmental provisions in European Union (EU) and United States (US) PTAs will be effective in instigating policy change in partner countries, although the timing of the effect will vary significantly. Fines and sanctions in US PTAs incentivize partner countries to reform during the negotiation process. Reform in EU PTA partners is predicted to occur during agreement implementation as a result of the EU’s policy dialogue approach. Illustrative evidence is provided and the hypotheses are tested using statistical estimations of EU and US PTAs with environmental provisions on developing countries’ environmental policy reform.
Trade and biodiversity are connected in many ways. One of them is the negative impact of trade itself on biodiversity. This chapter focuses particularly on whether the integration of environmental provisions, including some relevant to biodiversity, in EU Free Trade Agreements could mitigate this negative impact of trade on nature. To do so, the chapter aims to expose the gaps and overlaps between the impact of trade on biodiversity and the core biodiversity-related provisions of EU trade agreements’ Trade and Sustainable Development chapters. Firstly, by considering the negative impacts that trade may have on biodiversity, directly or through embedded biodiversity loss, and that trade agreements may enhance. The chapter thus brings a rationale behind the inclusion of biodiversity-related provisions in EU trade agreements to the fore. Secondly, the chapter presents the main goals of the relevant environmental clause in EU trade agreements and what kind of protection they can provide for biodiversity. Based on these two elements, the chapter identifies, in a third and final section, the gaps and overlaps between these negative impacts of, or enhanced by, EU trade agreements on biodiversity and the main goals of environmental provisions.
The mushrooming of trade agreements and their interlinkages with environmental governance calls for new research on the trade and environment interface. The more than 700 existing preferential trade agreements (PTAs) include ever more diverse and far-reaching environmental provisions. While missed opportunities remain and harmful provisions persist, numerous environmental provisions in PTAs entail promising potential. They promote the implementation of environmental treaties and cover numerous environmental issues. New concepts, data, and methods, including detailed content analysis across multiple institutions, are needed to explain these interlinkages and understand whether and how PTAs with environmental provisions can contribute to tackling global environmental challenges. Making use of the most extensive coding of environmental provisions in PTAs to date and combining quantitative data with qualitative analyses, this Element provides a comprehensive yet fine-grained picture of the drivers and effects of environmental provisions in PTAs. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.
Preferential Trade Agreements (‘PTAs’) are, at their core, an expression of cordial relations between States. After all, States rarely engage in PTA negotiations with enemies. Nonetheless, PTA negotiations, even amongst allies, have become lengthier and increasingly arduous. This is because modern PTAs, with their extensive coverage in terms of sectors and market regulation, are not just complex, but also bring to the fore concerns from domestic groups about potential impacts on their respective business sectors’ competitiveness, and from other domestic groups over possible changes to fundamental standards in areas like health and safety and animal welfare, among others. This chapter explores the politics of interstate competition at play in PTA negotiations. It argues that geoeconomic competition has become an increasingly important consideration in modern PTAs, and points to some novelties in European Union (‘EU’) and United States (‘US’) PTAs that reflect this concern with ensuring their own competitiveness, in particular elements of the USMCA (‘US- Mexico-Canada PTA’) and the EU-United Kingdom (‘UK’) Trade and Cooperation Agreement (‘TCA’).KeywordsTCAUSMCAPTANegotiationCompetitionGeopoliticsGeoeconomics
A core component of the European Union’s (EU) commitment to combatting climate change is the international promotion of issues related to sustainable development. Historically, it has done this by means of different instruments, such as international cooperation or development aid, but recently, it has opted increasingly for trade agreements between the EU and third states. These agreements include rules on sustainable development, with the main motivation for their inclusion being to prevent ‘race-to-the-bottom’ dynamics between the EU and its trade partners. The logic underlying a ‘race-to-the-bottom’ scenario is that there is asymmetry in the ambition levels of the regulatory standards in developed countries, on the one side, and developing or transition countries, on the other. This raises the question of whether the trade agreements between the EU and its trade partners which are developing or transition countries are more detailed concerning sustainable development than those with advanced economies. The empirical analysis of 12 trade agreements reveals that the rules on sustainable development vary across the EU’s trade partners. When the trade partners are developing or transition countries, the corresponding sections in the agreements are longer and more detailed. Sustainable development is also addressed in the agreements signed with trade partners that have developed economies, but in a more concise manner.
The renegotiation of what US President Trump called “the worst trade deal ever” has resulted in the most detailed environmental chapter in any trade agreement in history. The United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) reaffirms the approach to environmental protection under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), but also mentions dozens of environmental issues that its predecessor overlooked. Moreover, in line with contemporary US practice, the USMCA brings the vast majority of environmental provisions into the core of the agreement, and subjects these provisions to a sanction-based dispute settlement mechanism. It also jettisons two controversial NAFTA measures potentially harmful to the environment: the investor–state dispute settlement mechanism and the energy proportionality rule. The contribution of the USMCA to environmental governance remains limited, however. The agreement primarily replicates most of the environmental provisions included in recent trade agreements, in particular the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement on Trans-Pacific Partnership, and avoids important issues such as climate change.
In September 2015, world leaders adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represent a distinctive approach to development that moves away from a narrow perspective on economic development to an integrative agenda that simultaneously pursues ecological, social and economic goals. Trade and foreign investment are important economic vectors through which many of these goals can be achieved. Much depends, however, on whether and how SDGs are incorporated in international trade and investment agreements, and in private or public sector initiatives. Policymakers are also confronted with the interdependence of the SDGs which raises difficult trade-offs between various Goals. The contributions in this book explore the penetration and trade-offs of the SDGs, drawing on a multi-disciplinary approach incorporating insights from economists, lawyers and political scientists. The book offers a valuable guide for scholars and policy makers in identifying and evaluating the complex challenges related to sustainable development.
This chapter focuses on the linkage between economic and environmental governance by tracking environmental provisions in preferential trade agreements (PTAs). While the USA and the European Union are frequently seen as innovators of ‘green’ content in PTAs, systematic research on the role of emerging markets in promoting this development is scarce. For this reason, we develop an original, detailed data set mapping the environmental content in 48 PTAs signed by the emerging markets China, India, Indonesia, Brazil and Mexico. Our findings clearly indicate a trend towards more environmental content in those countries’ PTAs over time. At the same time, the data hint at patterns that suggest that these developments may at least be partly driven by Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. The chapter contributes to the literature on the design of PTAs, the linkage between trade and environment, as well as the role of emerging markets in global governance.
International institutions are prevalent in world politics. More than a thousand multilateral treaties are in place just to protect the environment alone, and there are many more. And yet, it is also clear that these institutions do not operate in a void but are enmeshed in larger, highly complex webs of governance arrangements. This compelling book conceptualises these broader structures as the 'architectures' of global governance. Here, over 40 international relations scholars offer an authoritative synthesis of a decade of research on global governance architectures with an empirical focus on protecting the environment and vital earth systems. They investigate the structural intricacies of earth system governance and explain how global architectures enable or hinder individual institutions and their overall effectiveness. The book offers much-needed conceptual clarity about key building blocks and structures of complex governance architectures, charts detailed directions for new research, and provides analytical groundwork for policy reform.
Frank Biermann & Rakhyun E. Kim (editors)
North–South preferential trade agreements (PTAs) have proliferated rapidly in the past decades. Despite a common focus on trade liberalisation, these preferential trade agreements differ greatly in their inclusion of labour and environmental provisions. A difference in the enforcement of these social standards is also puzzling: some preferential trade agreements envision sanctions for non-compliance while others do not. What explains this variation? We argue that Northern governments have their hands tied by domestic constituents demanding social standards as a key protectionist instrument. However, different electoral rules moderate the success of these demands. Because majoritarian systems provide a more efficient channel for the mobilisation of protectionist interests, they are more prone to social protectionist bias than their proportional representation counterparts. We assess our hypotheses using panel regressions of all North–South preferential trade agreements. Our analysis refines previous findings on tariff and non-tariff protectionist bias in majoritarian systems and shows how it is manifested in the design of preferential trade agreements.
The argument goes that the causes of environmental problems in a market economy are economics and that the consequences of environmental problems have important economic dimensions that travel from producers to consumers of good and services. Hence, the importance of solutions that are environmentally effective, economically sensible, and politically pragmatic. In the specific case of trade, traditionally, the thinking has been that more trade meant more energy consumption and therefore higher levels of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Economic growth has come at a cost to the environment. But it does not have to be that way. Trade can be part of the solution to reducing GHG emissions by providing preferential treatment to green goods/services in trade agreements, leading consumers to buy green goods such as electric cars.
There is no question that climate change is one of the biggest challenges humanity faces today. Today, 80% of the global energy supply comes from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels contribute to climate change and are finite, which leads to energy insecurity. We cannot use all the fossil reserves we have without seriously disrupting the climate system. Renewable energy can help here in that it is cleaner than fossil fuels. It also helps towards energy independence and therefore enhances energy security. Renewable energy sources are the only long-term energy supply solution we have at present. Trade law could be used as a vehicle to achieve these goals because trade rules can promote environmental goods and services.
Free trade generates macroeconomic gains but also creates winners and losers. Historically, to reconcile this tension, governments compensated globalization losers with social spending in exchange for support for free trade, known as the embedded liberalism compromise. In the neoliberal era, what other policies can governments pursue to strengthen support for globalization? We assess the effect of social standards in preferential trade agreements (PTAs) on individual preferences for free trade. We analyze data from an original survey experiment and find that respondents in advanced industrialized countries have greater support for free trade when PTAs include social standards. Differences do exist in how these social standards are perceived: while we do find evidence of an embedded liberalism compromise recast, fair trade norms have the most salience. An external validity check using the PEW global attitudes survey confirms the hypothesis. Our analysis has serious implications for the legitimacy of the global trading system suffering from neo-mercantilist creep.
Do environmental provisions in trade agreements make a difference? In part to coopt environmental criticisms, the United States has included environmental components to trade agreements since NAFTA side agreements in the mid-1990s. Environmental components are increasingly more integrated and more specific, as illustrated by the 2009 United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (PTPA). In exchange for increased market access to the United States, the Peruvian government agreed to reduce illegal logging and improve forest sector governance. Recent qualitative assessments of deforestation highlight difficulties in implementing the specific requirements of the PTPA’s Annex on Forest Sector Governance, but tests with Peruvian data on logging appear unreliable. We circumvent this difficulty by using satellite imagery of deforestation across Peruvian border regions and by engaging multiple methods to estimate the PTPA’s impact. All results suggest that deforestation has actually increased since the PTPA entered force, although no more than in other Amazonian countries. We conclude by emphasizing the limits of external imposition of environmental rules, which appear prone to failure unless domestic interests mobilize in their support.
This paper intends to make a contribution to the global debate on climate change mitigation by suggesting the transposition of a peculiar human rights-enhancing notion (developed by the European Institutions over the past three decades) towards the intersection between international trade law and climate change issues. The said notion, “conditionality”, is a practice which entails that the obligations assumed by the EU in the international cooperation and development agreements it signs with developing countries are conditional on those recipients’ continuous and clear respect of basic human rights. This paper’s hypothesis is that if obligations in cooperation and development agreements can be made conditional on the respect by other parties of human rights, then obligations in international trade agreements can be made conditional on the respect by other parties of their respective climate change obligations. In other words, “climate change conditionality” would mean that there would be no free-trade benefits without effective fulfilment of international climate-change-related obligations. The feasibility of this idea will be assessed via the textual analysis of the current wording and content of environmental/climate-change-related elements already present in a sample of relatively recent and/or upcoming free-trade agreements. This exercise intends to ascertain whether elements already present therein may be used to build climate change conditionality upon them.
The purpose of this article is to explain new horizons and perspectives in international
economic law in the context of sustainable development. This article explores the potential of
the trading system in helping mitigate climate change and enhancing sustainable energy. The
argument is that trade agreements have tremendous potential to help mitigate climate change,
which is currently under-explored. The article first explains how trade agreements may be a
legal instrument to mitigate climate change and enhance sustainable energy. It then provides
an analysis of the challenges of mitigating climate change and enhancing sustainable energy.
Next, it examines the synergistic links between the trading and climate regimes and offers
forum options that best deal with them with the aim to help mitigate climate change and
enhance sustainable energy. The article ends with what the future may hold on the links
between international trade and renewable energy.
Since the early 2000s, both US and EU Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) include social standards that aim to protect workers and the environment. However, the US and the EU have chosen fundamental different approaches for the enforcement of these clauses. While the US pursues a sanction-based approach, the EU solely relies on dialogue and cooperation mechanisms. Hence, to the surprise of many, social standards in U.S PTAs appear to be stricter than the ones in EU PTAs. Why do the two biggest trade powers of the world handle social clauses in PTAs so differently? In this paper, I argue that disparities in domestic politics account for their different strategies towards social standards. Drawing on the principal-agent literature, the paper analyses the PTA negotiations of the US and the EU with Peru and Colombia.
The EU contributes to halting the global loss of biodiversity through conservation efforts within its own territory as well as at the global level. This chapter outlines the EU’s external biodiversity policy, the objectives pursued and the mix of governance mechanisms used. The chapter subsequently explores the effectiveness of the existing mechanisms and activities in achieving the EU’s external ambitions, focusing on two key external biodiversity objectives set out in the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy: curbing illegal wildlife trade and mobilising resources for biodiversity conservation in third countries. The chapter concludes by discussing the key challenges of EU external biodiversity policy and the further need for monitoring its effectiveness.
Environmental concerns are increasingly being incorporated into Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) to promote environmental quality and ultimately to ensure the compatibility of trade and environmental policies. This occurs in a context where air pollution and its effects on human health is being a major issue. This paper investigates whether proliferation and depth of environmental provisions (EPs) in RTAs are associated to lower concentration levels of particulate matters. We present and index that measures de importance of EPs in RTAs and use it to estimate the effect of ratifying RTAs with different levels of EPs on changes in PM2.5 concentration levels in a panel of OECD countries over the 1999-2011 period. Using an instrumental variables strategy, we find that countries that have ratified RTAs with EPs show lower levels of PM2.5 concentrations when we control for scale, composition and technique effects and for national environmental regulations. Moreover, the PM2.5 concentration levels in the pairs of countries that belong to an RTA with EPs tend to converge for the country sample. Using a broader sample of 173 countries and other pollutants, our results hold for a larger period of time (1990-2011).
La presencia China genera dos interrogantes sobre las relaciones de América Latina y el Caribe (ALC) con la Unión Europea. 1) ¿Qué consecuencias tienen las estrategias de China para ALC sobre los equilibrios internacionales de la región, especialmente la UE? 2) ¿Qué impactos internos generan dichos reequilibrios internacionales?
Este trabajo establece una reflexión en cuatro grandes momentos. En el inicial se ofrece una visión teórica y metodológica destinada a enmarcar el análisis. En el segundo momento se describe la primera paradoja de la progresión latinoamericana y caribeña actual: las inversiones y comercio chino en ALC han favorecido una estabilización de la región que no había sido lograda a través de las relaciones con los otros socios internacionales. En un tercer momento se presenta la segunda paradoja que vertebra la reflexión: la relación China-ALC lleva la región latinoamericana y caribeña a una estabilidad fragilizada ante la cual la UE puede recobrar protagonismo ofreciendo a ALC lo que China no puede ni quiere. Por último, se proponen algunas conclusiones centrales, así como cuatro recomendaciones.
The democracy clause in the EU-Mexico Global Agreement and by extension the EU-Mexico Free Trade Agreement calls for respect for fundamental human rights. If these are breached, a sanctioning clause can be invoked. The widely reported violations of human rights in Mexico are tackled through political dialogue. The agreement includes cooperation articles on social policy, the results of which are non-binding. Against this background, it is difficult to make a clear link between the potential effects of human rights related clauses in the Global Agreement on the human rights situation in Mexico. The EU-Chile Association Agreement (AA) also includes a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement, which is subject to the democracy clause. More developed than that in the Global Agreement, this clause calls for respect for fundamental human rights; sustainable economic and social development; and commits parties to good governance. The AA also includes a suspension clause in case of breach of the democracy clause, and cooperation provisions, the results of which are non-binding. While these are more detailed than the ones in the Global Agreement, the impact of the EU-Chile AA on the human rights situation in Chile has been limited in its extent and to specific aspects of the social policy agenda. In both cases, the monitoring mechanisms of the EU agreements have generally been implemented properly – even if civil society participation in Chile was institutionalised late. These mechanisms have played an important role in nurturing cooperation, but the incentives created have not translated into sufficient pressure for the implementation of human rights related reforms. Rather than the EU FTAs per se impacting on ensuring the respect of human rights in Mexico and Chile, it is the cumulative effect of the liberalisation of trade in the two countries, the EU-Mexico Strategic Partnership, the role of all global players, and cooperation with international donors that have encouraged reform. Ultimately, whether or not reforms in favour of respect of human rights have been adopted and implemented was the result of domestic politics in Mexico and Chile.
The interaction between bilateral and multilateral action is evolving in the context of ‘global environmental law’ – a concept
that is emerging from the promotion of environmental protection as a global public good through a plurality of legal mechanisms
relying on a plurality of legal orders. The notion of global public goods can thus help one better to understand recent bilateral
initiatives aimed at supporting the implementation of multilateral environmental agreements and the decisions of their compliance
mechanisms. Innovative linkages between the compliance system under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
and bilateral trade agreements recently concluded by the European Union and the US provide an example. Innovative opportunities
for bilateral initiatives supporting the implementation of the 2010 Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing are likely
to lead to even more complex inter-relationships between different legal orders. This new approach to bilateralism that aims
to support the interests of the international community can be assessed in the context of earlier debates on unilateralism,
with a view to emphasizing the role of international law in the identification and delivery of global public goods, and the
role of global environmental law in understanding the interactions among a plurality of legal orders.
Several recent studies have discussed the ramifications of the China-Raw Materials case for China's rare earths. However, none of these studies has conducted a thorough investigation of China's current export quota regime for rare earths or how it might stand up under WTO rules, assuming that it would be treated the same. This article makes no such assumption, investigating China's export quota regime for rare earths as it stands in early June 2012. The regime is somewhat improved over that applied during the Raw Materials case and could allow a more favorable WTO ruling. However, if General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) disciplines are interpreted narrowly, as in China-Raw Materials, this article finds that the current regime still falls short of certain GATT exceptions. This article informs future analyses of China’s export quota regime for rare earths. Beyond the case of China, it also invites discussion on the appropriate amount of 'policy space' WTO Members should enjoy for imposing export quotas under the relevant GATT disciplines for resource conservation and environmental protection.
This paper examines substantive and institutional linkages between the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the World Trade Organization. It focuses on identifying potentially sensitive areas in their relationship, including sustainability requirements targeting processes and production methods, as well as measures targeting carbon leakage and competitiveness concerns. It also discusses institutional and doctrinal challenges related to fragmentation of international law and highlights problems that could arise if a climate change related dispute was considered by the WTO dispute settlement system. The paper concludes that the trade and climate regimes are increasingly relevant for each other and that they are not necessarily rivals - both could benefit from identifying and promoting unexploited synergies between the two regimes. However, closer cooperation and institutional coordination may be needed in the future in order to avoid mutually unhelpful institutional and legal clashes.
This article is about a problem only just becoming visible: the legitimacy of international environmental law, and more specifically, the perception that the international environmental process is insufficiently democratic. Until now, international lawyers have tended to focus on what environmental standards are needed and how those standards can be made effective. But as decision-making authority gravitates from the national to the international level, the question of legitimacy will likely emerge from the shadows and become a central issue in international environmental law. This article seeks to clarify the nature of the legitimacy challenge and to survey possible sources of legitimacy for international institutions.
The study has been prepared by Jacques Bourgeois (WilmerHale and College of Europe), Kamala Dawar (Uni-versity of Amsterdam) and Simon J. Evenett (University of St. Gallen) at the request of the Chief Economist Unit of DG Trade. The views and opinions presented in this document do not necessarily reflect those of DG Trade or the European Commission.. Tele-phone number: +41 71 224 2315. Any comments and suggestions to improve this report are most welcome.
This contribution aims to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the EU's external action in pursuing holistic environmental protection outside its borders. First the ambition of the EU's external environmental action will be illustrated, in its objective to support environmental multilateralism and contribute to shape a holistic approach in international environmental law, in light of the Treaty requirement of environmental integration (Article 11 TFEU) and the emerging international principle of mutual supportiveness. Then attention will be drawn to the complexity of the EU's external environmental action, by looking at the plethora of external relations tools used by the EU to achieve its global environmental objectives. The central part of the paper will assess the legitimacy of EU external environmental action against the international environmental principle of common but differentiated responsibility, taking recent EU initiatives on sustainable forest management and biofuels as case studies. The conclusions will point to promising approaches to ensure that EU external environmental action fully respects EU and international law.
In this article I argue that, the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), led by its autonomously entrepreneurial Executive Secretary, influences overlap management by strategically linking biodiversity and climate change issues. Specifically, the Secretariat marketed (filtered, framed, and reiterated) strategic frames of the biodiversity-climate change interface that reframed biodiversity from a passive victim of climate impacts, to an active player in climate response measures (i.e. adaptation). This reframing is significant in that a major hurdle to selling the benefits of biodiversity conservation to countries with more pressing development concerns has been the perceived limited relevance of conservation to human well-being. In emphasizing biodiversity's role in human adaptation and security, the Secretariat has begun to shape member state discourse surrounding the biodiversity-climate change linkage. Ultimately aimed at enriching our emerging theoretical understanding of the role of international bureaucracies in global governance, this article illuminates: (1) how the Secretariat understands and manages biodiversity-climate linkages; (2) the origins of the Secretariat's understanding and activities surrounding this issue; and (3) how Secretariat participation in overlap management is beginning to influence CBD political processes and outcomes. © 2011 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
"This article develops a conceptual framework for the systematic analysis of the interaction between institutions as a first step towards building a theory of international interaction. It examines how international institutions may exert causal influence on each other's development and effectiveness and suggests that four general causal mechanisms can elucidate the distinct routes through which influence travels from one institution to another. Institutional interaction can thus rely on transfer on knowledge, commitments established under an institution, behavioural effects of an institution, and functional linkage of the ultimate governance targets of the institutions involved. The article also puts forward hypotheses about the likely effects of specific types of institutional interaction for governance within the international system. The causal mechanisms and types of interaction are mutually exclusive models that help analyse real-world interaction suitations. They also serve as a basis for the systematic analysis of more complex interaction situations." (author's abstract)
Green Trade Agreements reviews and analyses the environmental provisions that have become an important characteristic of the growing number of bilateral and regional free trade agreements. This book examines the range of approaches to these environmental provisions, evaluates their effectiveness and suggests potential improvements to the process.
The previous chapter elegantly illustrated how environmental protection requirements have been integrated into EU external trade policy. In this chapter, the attention is shifted towards environmental integration in another important dimension of EU external relations: development cooperation. At the international level, the integration of environmental concerns into development cooperation is less controversial than for trade policy, not least because of the constraints imposed by international trade law on the use of trade measures to support environmental protection objectives. Conversely, an important aspect of international environmental law’s principle of common but differentiated responsibility is international assistance, including financial aid and technology transfer, in recognition of the fact that, historically, developed countries have played the greatest role in creating most of today’s global environmental problems, and also have greater capacity to address them. This principle is given effect, inter alia, with the establishment of financing mechanisms under core MEAs, and in particular the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) makes the implementation of commitments by developing countries conditional upon the effective provision of financial assistance and technology transfer from developed countries. In a similar vein, ‘environmental sustainability’ is one of the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) universally endorsed as the development blueprint, the achievement of which has revived commitments by donors (including the EU) to reach the long-standing UN target for official development assistance (ODA) of 0.7 per cent of gross national income by 2015.
This article compares trade-environment rules and their negotiation and implementation in the context of the European Union, the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization. As economic integration deepens in each organization, the development of trade-environment rules becomes of increasing interest to richer, greener countries. Professor Steinberg concludes that the interests and power of those countries explain why environment-friendly rules are developing more quickly and thoroughly in the two regional organizations than in the multilateral organization.
Experts investigate how states and other actors can improve inter-institutional synergy and examine the complexity of overlapping environmental governance structures.
Institutional interaction and complexity are crucial to environmental governance and are quickly becoming dominant themes in the international relations and environmental politics literatures. This book examines international institutional interplay and its consequences, focusing on two important issues: how states and other actors can manage institutional interaction to improve synergy and avoid disruption; and what forces drive the emergence and evolution of institutional complexes, sets of institutions that cogovern particular issue areas.
The book, a product of the Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change research project (IDGEC), offers both theoretical and empirical perspectives. Chapters range from analytical overviews to case studies of institutional interaction, interplay management, and regime complexes in areas including climate change, fisheries management, and conservation of biodiversity. Contributors discuss such issues as the complicated management of fragmented multilateral institutions addressing climate change; the possible “chilling effect” on environmental standards from existing commitments; governance niches in Arctic resource protection; the relationships among treaties on conservation and use of plant genetic resources; causal factors in cross-case variation of regime prevalence; and the difficult relationship between the World Trade Organization and multilateral environmental agreements. The book offers a broad overview of research on interplay management and institutional complexes that provides important insights across the field of global environmental governance.
Researchers studying the role institutions play in causing and confronting environmental change use a variety of concepts and methods that make it difficult to compare their findings. Seeking to remedy this problem, Oran Young takes the analytic themes identified in the Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change (IDGEC) Science Plan as cutting-edge research concerns and develops them into a common structure for conducting research. He illustrates his arguments with examples of environmental change ranging in scale from the depletion of local fish stocks to the disruption of Earth's climate system.Young not only explores theoretical concerns such as the relative merits of collective-action and social-practice models of institutions but also addresses the IDGEC-identified problems of institutional fit, interplay, and scale. He shows how institutions interact both with one another and with the biophysical environment and assesses the extent to which we can apply lessons drawn from the study of local institutions to the study of global institutions and vice versa. He examines how research on institutions can help us to solve global problems of environmental governance. Substantive topics discussed include the institutional dimensions of carbon management, the performance of exclusive economic zones, and the political economy of boreal and tropical forests.
The aim of this piece is to assess whether and to what extent the European Union can be considered a world leader in stimulating the development of international climate change standards through a variety of international organizations and processes as a way of spurring necessary international cooperation. It will argue that given slow progress towards an effective global response to the climate change challenge through multilateral cooperation, the EU has been trying to develop climate change standards internally or in cooperation with third countries, arguably in order to promote the acceptance of such standards by the competent international organizations, or at least create a critical mass of countries engaging in climate action (minilateralism). The paper will conclude by considering the legitimacy issues arising from this multi-faceted strategy of the EU in promoting international climate change standards.
The case United States — Measures Concerning the Importation and Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products concerns whether United States “dolphin-safe” labeling requirements comply with the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement) of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This paper analyzes the WTO Appellate Body decision and its systemic importance for the interpretation of the TBT Agreement’s substantive obligations; the types of labeling that fall within the scope of the Agreement; the legitimacy of labeling based on foreign process and production methods (PPMs); and the relation of other international law to WTO law.
Recently negotiated linkages between trade and environmental agreements have the potential to enhance environmental regime effectiveness in ways that have been impossible under environmental treaties alone. Specifically, the 2009 U.S.—Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA) contains the most prescriptive environmental directives found in any U.S. trade agreement to date and pioneering provisions linking environmental treaty implementation to the TPA’s much stronger dispute-settlement procedures. The combination of these two elements has begun to catalyze Peru’s implementation of relevant environmental provisions and a corresponding potential for regime effectiveness improvements. Simultaneously, these prescriptive provisions contributed to catastrophic social unrest in Peru that must be acknowledged and addressed by policy makers in the United States and abroad before this agreement is exported to other countries.
With limited progress in the UN climate change negotiations, the EU has been looking at ways to further reduce global CO2 emissions by extending the scope of its cap and trade system, most recently by including flights entering and leaving EU airspace. With the EU Aviation Directive entering into force on 1 January 2012, all airlines will need to hold permits to cover their CO2 emissions for flights operating in EU airspace. For instance, Singapore Airlines will be required to hold permits for CO2 emissions for its flights from Singapore to Frankfurt, which will include all CO2 emissions over Singapore, third countries, the high seas and EU airspace. As climate change is a global challenge, national and regional efforts to reduce CO2 emissions have an international impact by nature, particularly on trade. With the World Trade Organization (WTO) responsible for regulating world trade, this article analyses the consistency of the EU Aviation Directive with WTO rules. The EU's decision to include both non-EU and EU airlines under its cap and trade system is a response to the so-called carbon leakage and competitiveness issues that would have arisen if the scheme had been limited to EU airlines only. Carbon leakage arises when a carbon price leads domestic businesses to relocate to countries not pricing carbon or to increased imports of goods from countries not pricing carbon, resulting in no net reduction in global CO2 emissions. Competitiveness issues occur when a carbon price increases the price of domestically produced goods, causing consumers to substitute with cheaper imports from countries not pricing carbon, ultimately harming domestic industry and undermining support for these policies. With airlines providing an important international services trade, including CO2 emissions from aviation under the EU cap and trade system has important implications for international trade, particularly since air transport functions as an enabler of other forms of trade such as just-in-time manufacturing strategies, tourism, and business links. Despite the number of ways in which the Aviation Directive is in conflict with WTO rules, the article demonstrates that the type of WTO rules that the EU Aviation might violate are useful disciplines on how countries develop and apply climate change action that impedes international trade. Developing climate change measures consistently with WTO rules strikes an appropriate balance between giving WTO Members the policy space to take action to reduce CO2 emissions while maintaining an open and non-discriminatory trading system that supports economic growth and global welfare. Oxford University Press 2012, all rights reserved, Oxford University Press.
Since the early 1990s, the EU’s trade agreements have included a ‘human rights clause’ requiring the parties to respect human rights and democratic principles. More recently, beginning with the 2008 EU-Cariforum Economic Partnership Agreement, they have also included ‘sustainable development’ chapters, which contain obligations to respect labour and environmental standards. This article considers the extent to which, legally, these two sets of provisions give the EU the means of implementing its obligations to ensure that its external activities respect human rights and pursue the objective of promoting sustainable development. It also considers the desirability of these differences in the EU’s approach to the human rights and democratic principles, on the one hand, and labour and environmental standards, on the other.
Environmentalists have not always been of the same mind regarding the World Trade Organization (WTO) or the aggressive liberalization of trade. While many have warned about accelerating distorted and unsustainable growth patterns, others have seen opportunities to improve the
efficiency of global resource use or to ratchet up national environmental standards where they are weak. But in the wake of the battle in Seattle and ve years of experience with the WTO, it is increasingly clear that the hyperliberalization of trade is inimical to the quest for global ecological
sustainability in several ways. The WTO has proven to be profoundly anti-environmental both procedurally and substantively, handing down environmentally damaging decisions whenever it has had the chance to do so. Fears of a race to a dirty bottom are proving prescient, and optimism that trade rules can be greened from within has waned appreciably. Moreover, the problem is not just the obvious threat to local environmental quality from the forces of globalizing market pressures. We are also seeing the undermining of global-scale efforts at environmental
protection, through the destabilization of several important international environmental regimes and the commodification of critical global cycles and ecosystem services. As a result, environmental opposition in the era of confrontation inaugurated in Seattle is likely to be stronger, more unified, and less willing to tinker on the margins.
But what is the real significance of increased NGO pressence on the international sphere? (Is their rise evidence of the relative decline in the influence of the State?) How are their activities different, if at all, from the past? And are expectations of what NGOs should deliver in the achievement of sustainable development, with all the implications this has for assessing how well resources devoted to NGOs are being used, realistic? This article seeks to address these fundamental questions. Answers are not easy to arrive at given the disparate academic literature and the difficulties inherent in rapidly evolving international practices int his area. As we near the tenth anniversary of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit the need for discourse on how we assess the contribution of NGOs to international environmental law is surely evident. The first section of this article examines what we means by the term 'NGO', the historical development of NGOs and the kinds of activities undertaken by them in the sphere of international environmental law. The second evaluates the roles played by NGOs and the challenges for NGOs posed by the concept of sustainable development. The third and concluding sections focues on the nature and direction of future developments.
This article builds on recent scholarship that explores the nature of secretariat influence in global governance. By combining data from interviews with WTO delegates and secretariat staff with document analysis, this study examines how the WTO secretariat is shaping trade-environment politics by using its bureaucratic authority to influence overlap management in the WTO. This study argues that secretariat influence is present, but varies in form across cases. It shows up in the forms noted by previous scholars in their examinations of UNEP secretariats (i.e. negotiation-facilitation, capacity building, and knowledge-brokering), but also in previously un-discussed forms of influence such as marketing convention norms, and litigation facilitation. It further argues that secretariat influence matters in that the WTO secretariat plays an important role in shaping the way trade-environment issues evolve within the WTO, shaping its own identity as a hybrid administrative-judicial organ, as well as in enhancing WTO legitimacy with the broader public. (c) 2010 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
With the global growth of public concern about environmental issues over the last several decades, environmental legal norms have become increasingly internationalized. This development has been reflected both in the surge of international environmental agreements as well as the growth and increased sophistication of national environmental legal systems around the world. The result is the emergence of a set of legal principles and norms regarding the environment, such that one can arguably describe it as a body of law. After exploring the diverse forces that are contributing to the emergence of what we call “global environmental law,” this Article considers the implications of this emergence for the implementation, practice, and development of environmental law worldwide.
The sea turtle has become an icon ofenvironmentalist opposition to the World Trade Organization. Two decisions by the WTO in 1998 against a United States law intended to force other countries to adopt more turtle-friendly rules attracted widespread attention. A third decision in 2001 which supported the US law, however, went almost entirely unnoticed. A closer examination ofthe three decisions suggests that the WTO willingly accepts the idea ofenvironmental restrictions to international trade applied unilaterally by countries. But it requires that the restrictions be fairly applied and nondiscriminatory, show signs of being effective, and be accompanied by efforts to deal with the environmental issue cooperatively. These are all requirements that environmentalists should find unobjectionable. As such, the cause of more effective international environmental management might better be served ifenvironmental activists and NGOs worked with the WTO rather than reacting automatically against it. Copyright (c) 2002 Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
This article examines the implications of the rising density of international institutions. Despite the rapid proliferation of institutions, scholars continue to embrace the assumption that individual regimes are decomposable from others. We contend that an increasingly common phenomenon is the regime complex: a collective of partially overlapping and nonhierarchical regimes. The evolution of regime complexes reflects the influence of legalization on world politics. Regime complexes are laden with legal inconsistencies because the rules in one regime are rarely coordinated closely with overlapping rules in related regimes. Negotiators often attempt to avoid glaring inconsistencies by adopting broad rules that allow for multiple interpretations. In turn, solutions refined through implementation of these rules focus later rounds of negotiation and legalization. We explore these processes using the issue of plant genetic resources (PGR). Over the last century, states have created property rights in these resources in a Demsetzian process: as new technologies and ideas have made PGR far more valuable, actors have mobilized and clashed over the creation of property rights that allow the appropriation of that value.We are grateful for comments on early drafts presented at Stanford Law School, New York University Law School, Duke Law School, Harvard Law School, and the American Society for International Law. Thanks especially to Larry Helfer, Tom Heller, Robert Keohane, Benedict Kingsbury, Peter Lallas, Lisa Martin, Ron Mitchell, Sabrina Safrin, Gene Skolnikoff, Richard Stewart, Chris Stone, Buzz Thompson, Jonathan Wiener, Katrina Wyman, Oran Young, and two anonymous reviewers for their feedback. Kal Raustiala thanks the Program on Law and Public Affairs at Princeton for support. We also thank our research assistants, Lindsay Carlson, Lesley Coben and Joshua House.
Toward a Transatlantic Dialogue on Trade and the Environment: A Comparison of Approaches to Environmental Impact Assessments of Trade Agreements in the United States and EU
- L Alf
- C Assmann
- M Bauer
- J Weinkopf
L. Alf, C. Assmann, M. Bauer and J. Weinkopf, 'Toward a Transatlantic Dialogue on Trade and the Environment: A Comparison of
Approaches to Environmental Impact Assessments of Trade Agreements in the United States and EU', Bologna Center Journal of
International Affairs (2008), 137.
169 above. 173 The need for increasing interdisciplinary work between international lawyers and political scientists has been recently highlighted in
- T See
- S Gehring
- Oberthür
See T. Gehring and S. Oberthür, n. 169 above.
173 The need for increasing interdisciplinary work between international lawyers and political scientists has been recently highlighted in
E.M. Hafner-Burton, D.G. Victor and Y. Lupu, 'Political Science
Research on International Law', 106:1 American Journal of International Law (2012), 47.
174
PhD) is Senior Lecturer in Global Environmental Law at the University of Edinburgh Law School and Co-Director of the interdisciplinary Europa Institute of the University of Edinburgh. She specializes in international
- Elisa Morgera
- ( Llm
Elisa Morgera (LLM, PhD) is Senior Lecturer in Global
Environmental Law at the University of Edinburgh Law
School and Co-Director of the interdisciplinary Europa
Institute of the University of Edinburgh. She specializes in
international, EU and comparative environmental law.
Peculiarities and Rationale of Asymmetric Regional Trade Agreements
- S F Sherov-Ignatiev
- Sutyrin
Sherov-Ignatiev and S.F. Sutyrin, Peculiarities and Rationale of
Asymmetric Regional Trade Agreements (2011), found at: <http://wto
.org/english/res_e/publications_e/wtr11_forum_e/wtr11_2aug11_a_
e.htm>.
Trade-Environment Politics: The Emerging Role of Regional Trade Agreements The analysis of the EU FTAs draws from: G. Mar ı ´n-Durán and E. Morgera, Environmental Integration in the EU's External Relations
- S Jinnah
Previous drafts of the US-relevant analysis in this article
were published in: S. Jinnah, 'Trade-Environment Politics: The Emerging Role of Regional Trade Agreements',
in: P. Dauvergne (ed.), Handbook of Global Environmental Politics (Edward Elgar, 2012), 386. The analysis of the
EU FTAs draws from: G. Mar ı
´n-Durán and E. Morgera,
Environmental Integration in the EU's External Relations: Beyond Multilateral Dimensions (Hart, 2012).
above, at 142. As a result, EU's external funding remains subject to unilateral legal instruments
- G See
- E Marín-Durán
- Morgera
See G. Marín-Durán and E. Morgera, n. 7 above, at 142. As a result,
EU's external funding remains subject to unilateral legal instruments.
Environment Paper Sets Sights High, but without Enforcement', World Trade Online (2013), 31
- Us Inside
- Trade
- Eu
- Labor
Inside US Trade, 'EU Labor, Environment Paper Sets Sights High,
but without Enforcement', World Trade Online (2013), 31.
RECIEL 22 (3) 2013
ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS IN FTAS
at Chapter 6; and for an insider's perspective, R. Zvelc, n. 14 above
- G See
- E Marín-Durán
- Morgera
See G. Marín-Durán and E. Morgera, n. 7 above, at Chapter 6; and
for an insider's perspective, R. Zvelc, n. 14 above, at 186-193.
The Biodiversity Convention found at: <http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade- agreements/peru-tpa/final-text>. 71 Ibid 76 See, e.g., USTR, 'USTR Green Paper on Conservation and the Trans-Pacific Partnership
- F Mcconnell
69 F. McConnell, The Biodiversity Convention: A Negotiating History
(Kluwer Law, 1996), at 11.
70 United States Trade Representative (USTR), 'US-Peru TPA,
Understanding Regarding Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge',
(2006), found at: <http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-
agreements/peru-tpa/final-text>.
71 Ibid., paragraph 2.
72 Ibid., paragraph 3.
73 Ibid.
74 Ibid., paragraph 4.
75 Interview with United States government representative (January
2010).
76 See, e.g., USTR, 'USTR Green Paper on Conservation and the
Trans-Pacific Partnership', (2011), found at: <http://www.ustr.gov/
about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/ustr-green-paper-
conservation-and-trans-pacific-partnership>.
77 US-Peru TPA, n. 11 above, Annex 18.2.
US-Australia FTA, n. 57 above, Article 19.5; US-Morocco FTA, n. 57 above, Article 17.6; CAFTA, n. 57 above US-Bahrain FTA, n. 57 above, Article 16.6; US-Oman FTA, n. 57 above
- Article Above
above, Article 18.5; US-Australia FTA, n. 57 above, Article 19.5;
US-Morocco FTA, n. 57 above, Article 17.6; CAFTA, n. 57 above,
Article 17; US-Bahrain FTA, n. 57 above, Article 16.6; US-Oman FTA,
n. 57 above, Article 17.6.
61 US-Chile FTA, n. 54 above, Article 19.7; CAFTA, n. 57 above,
Article 17.12.
62
Turtles and Trade: The WTO's Acceptance of Environmental Trade RestrictionsLegitimacy of International Governance: A Coming Challenge for International Environmental LawThe World Trade Organization's Legitimacy Crisis
- S J Desombre
- Barkin
DeSombre and S.J. Barkin, 'Turtles and Trade: The WTO's
Acceptance of Environmental Trade Restrictions', 2:1 Global Environmental Politics (2002), 12, at 12.
25 D. Bodansky, 'Legitimacy of International Governance: A Coming
Challenge for International Environmental Law', 93:3 American
Journal of International Law (1999), 596; D. Esty, 'The World Trade
Organization's Legitimacy Crisis', 1:1 World Trade Review (2002), 7;
Costa Rica)) ('CAFTA'); US-Bahrain Free Trade AgreementUS-Bahrain FTA'); US-Oman Free Trade AgreementUS-Oman FTA'). 58 US-Chile FTA, n. 54 above, Article 19.6; US-Singapore FTA, n. 54 above, Article 18.7; US-Australia FTA, n. 57 above, Article 19.7; US-Morocco FTA, n. 57 above
- Dominican Republic
- Central America-Us Free Trade Agreement
January 2006) ('US-Morocco FTA'); Dominican Republic-Central
America-US Free Trade Agreement (Washington, DC, 5 August
2004; in force 1 March 2006 (El Salvador), 1 April 2006 (Honduras,
Nicaragua), 1 July 2006 (Guatemala), 1 March 2007 (Dominican
Republic) and 1 January 2008 (Costa Rica)) ('CAFTA'); US-Bahrain
Free Trade Agreement (Washington, DC, 14 September 2004; in
force 11 January 2006) ('US-Bahrain FTA'); US-Oman Free Trade
Agreement (Washington, DC, 19 January 2006; in force 1 January
2009) ('US-Oman FTA').
58 US-Chile FTA, n. 54 above, Article 19.6; US-Singapore FTA, n. 54
above, Article 18.7; US-Australia FTA, n. 57 above, Article 19.7;
US-Morocco FTA, n. 57 above, Article 17.7; CAFTA, n. 57 above,
Article 17.10; US-Bahrain FTA, n. 57 above, Article 16.8; US-Oman
FTA, n. 57 above, Article 17.8.
59 US-Chile FTA, n. 54 above, Article 19.3; CAFTA, n. 57 above,
Article 17.5.
Reflections on the International and External Legitimacy of WTO Dispute SettlementThe Club Model of Multilateral Cooperation and Problems of Democratic Legitimacy Efficiency, Equity, Legitimacy: The Multilateral Trading System at the Millennium
- J Weiler
- R Keohane
- J Nye
J. Weiler, 'The Role of Lawyers and the Ethos of Diplomats: Reflections on the International and External Legitimacy of WTO Dispute
Settlement', 35:2 Journal of World Trade (2001), 191; R. Keohane
and J. Nye, 'The Club Model of Multilateral Cooperation and Problems of Democratic Legitimacy', in: R. Porter et al. (eds.), Efficiency,
Equity, Legitimacy: The Multilateral Trading System at the Millennium
(Brookings Institution Press, 2001), 246.
26 M. Axelrod, 'Savings Clauses and the " Chilling Effect " : Regime
Interplay as Constraints on International Governance', in: S. Oberthür
and O.S. Stokke (eds.), Managing Institutional Complexity: Regime
Interplay and Global Environmental Change (MIT Press, 2011), 87 ;
Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO Legal System
- L Bartels
- Sikina Jinnah
- Elisa
- Reciel
33 L. Bartels and F. Ortino (eds.), Regional Trade Agreements and the
WTO Legal System (Cambridge University Press, 2006); L. Bartels,
SIKINA JINNAH AND ELISA MORGERA
RECIEL 22 (3) 2013
11 above, Article 18.11; US-Colombia Trade Agreement, n. 63 above, Article 18.11. 66 US-Peru TPA, n. 11 above
- Tpa Peru
Peru TPA, n. 11 above, Article 18.11; US-Colombia Trade
Agreement, n. 63 above, Article 18.11.
66 US-Peru TPA, n. 11 above, Annex 18.3.4.
67 Ibid., Article 18.11.
68 Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro, 5 June 1992; in
force 29 December 1993).
14 above, at 194. For a critique of the WTO-related rationale of Global Europe, see G. Marín-Durán
- R Zvelc
R. Zvelc, n. 14 above, at 194. For a critique of the WTO-related
rationale of Global Europe, see G. Marín-Durán, n. 13 above.
160 above, at 760. 169 T. Gehring and S. Oberthür, 'The Causal Mechanisms of Interaction between International InstitutionsOverlap Management in the World Trade Organization: Secretariat Influence on Trade- Environment Politics
- See E Morgera
See E. Morgera, n. 160 above, at 760.
169 T. Gehring and S. Oberthür, 'The Causal Mechanisms of Interaction between International Institutions', 15:1 European Journal of
International Relations (2009), 125; S. Jinnah, 'Overlap Management
in the World Trade Organization: Secretariat Influence on Trade-
Environment Politics', 10:2 Global Environmental Politics (2010), 64;
63 US-Peru TPA, n. 11 above, Annex 18.2; US-Colombia Trade Agreement) ('US-Colombia Trade Agreement'), Annex 18.2; US-Panama Trade Promotion AgreementUS-Panama TPA'), Annex 17.2; US-Korea Trade Agreement
- See S Jinnah
See S. Jinnah, n. 11 above, at 208.
63 US-Peru TPA, n. 11 above, Annex 18.2; US-Colombia Trade
Agreement (Washington, DC, 22 November 2006; in force 15 May
2012) ('US-Colombia Trade Agreement'), Annex 18.2; US-Panama
Trade Promotion Agreement (Washington, DC, 28 June 2007; in
force 31 October 2012) ('US-Panama TPA'), Annex 17.2; US-Korea
Trade Agreement (Washington, DC, 30 June 2007; in force 15 March
2012), Annex 20-a.
64 US-Peru TPA, n. 11 above, Article 18.12; US-Colombia Trade
Agreement, n. 63 above, Article 18.12.
Article XX. 23 Doha Ministerial Declaration (WTO Doc
April 1994; in force 1 January 1995) ('GATT'), Article XX.
23 Doha Ministerial Declaration (WTO Doc. WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1, 20
November 2001), at paragraph 31.
including as related to the earlier GATT Tuna-Dolphin dispute, seeUS Trade Law and Policy Series No. 22: Trade and the Environment: A Snapshot from Tuna/Dolphins to the NAFTA and Beyond Recent Developments
48 For a discussion of factors that influenced the American position on
environmental issues during NAFTA negotiations, including as related
to the earlier GATT Tuna-Dolphin dispute, see: J. Bello and A. Holmer,
'US Trade Law and Policy Series No. 22: Trade and the Environment:
A Snapshot from Tuna/Dolphins to the NAFTA and Beyond Recent
Developments', 27:1 International Lawyer (1993), 167.
49 NAFTA, n. 9 above, Article 104.
50 See, e.g., US-Jordan Free Trade Agreement (Washington, DC, 24
October 2000; in force 17 December 2001).
51 Ibid.
52 Ibid., Article 5.
53 Ibid.
54 US-Chile Free Trade Agreement (Miami, 6 June 2003; in force 1
The Biodiversity Convention: A Negotiating History (Kluwer Law, 1996), at 11. 70 United States Trade Representative (USTR), 'US-Peru TPA, Understanding Regarding Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge
- F Mcconnell
69 F. McConnell, The Biodiversity Convention: A Negotiating History
(Kluwer Law, 1996), at 11.
70 United States Trade Representative (USTR), 'US-Peru TPA,
Understanding Regarding Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge',
(2006), found at: <http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-tradeagreements/peru-tpa/final-text>.
See also European Commission, 'Follow up to the European Parliament Resolution on Human Rights and Social and Environmental Standards in International Trade Agreements
- See R Zvelc
See R. Zvelc, n. 14 above, at 201-202. See also European Commission, 'Follow up to the European Parliament Resolution on Human
Rights and Social and Environmental Standards in International
Trade Agreements' (2 March 2011), at 4.
The Causal Mechanisms of Interaction between International InstitutionsOverlap Management in the World Trade Organization: Secretariat Influence on TradeEnvironment Politics
- S Gehring
- S Oberthür
- Jinnah
. Gehring and S. Oberthür, 'The Causal Mechanisms of Interaction between International Institutions', 15:1 European Journal of
International Relations (2009), 125; S. Jinnah, 'Overlap Management
in the World Trade Organization: Secretariat Influence on TradeEnvironment Politics', 10:2 Global Environmental Politics (2010), 64;
S. Oberthür and O.S. Stokke, n. 26 above; O.R. Young, The Institutional Dimensions of Global Change: Fit Interplay and Scale ( MIT
Press, 2002).