Latin America has always been central to the configuration, interpretation, and operation of the field of transitional justice. Starting in the late 1980s with contributions from scholars interested in democratic transitions after dictatorships in the Southern Cone, the 1996 signing of the Peace Agreement in Guatemala, and the Truth Commission in Peru, to the more recent case of Colombia, Latin American academics and activists have contributed significantly to the theory and practice of transitional justice. This essay explores a question central to recent transitional justice processes: the interaction and possible contradictions between the aim of ending a violent internal conflict and the demands imposed by international law. Colombia serves as an example. The Colombian case is informed by all previous experiences, but it is also novel because it is the first transitional justice process established in the region since the establishment of the International Criminal Court. Although the Colombian process is still being implemented and it is too early to claim its success or failure, the case offers important insights into the tense, complex, and overarching interactions between international law, internal peace, and transitional justice. This essay explores how local and external actors involved in negotiating and implementing the agreement presented international law as if it were univocal and universal, as if there were no competing interpretations within the discipline, and as if it were neutral in relation to local political discussions. Building upon this analysis, the goal is to shed light upon the ideological uses of international law.
{"title":"International Law and Transitional Justice: Exploring Some Challenges Through the Colombian Case","authors":"Helena Alviar-García, Laura Betancur-Restrepo","doi":"10.1017/aju.2022.49","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.49","url":null,"abstract":"Latin America has always been central to the configuration, interpretation, and operation of the field of transitional justice. Starting in the late 1980s with contributions from scholars interested in democratic transitions after dictatorships in the Southern Cone, the 1996 signing of the Peace Agreement in Guatemala, and the Truth Commission in Peru, to the more recent case of Colombia, Latin American academics and activists have contributed significantly to the theory and practice of transitional justice. This essay explores a question central to recent transitional justice processes: the interaction and possible contradictions between the aim of ending a violent internal conflict and the demands imposed by international law. Colombia serves as an example. The Colombian case is informed by all previous experiences, but it is also novel because it is the first transitional justice process established in the region since the establishment of the International Criminal Court. Although the Colombian process is still being implemented and it is too early to claim its success or failure, the case offers important insights into the tense, complex, and overarching interactions between international law, internal peace, and transitional justice. This essay explores how local and external actors involved in negotiating and implementing the agreement presented international law as if it were univocal and universal, as if there were no competing interpretations within the discipline, and as if it were neutral in relation to local political discussions. Building upon this analysis, the goal is to shed light upon the ideological uses of international law.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":"116 1","pages":"302 - 306"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45196191","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Una propuesta de Reglamento europeo de 2021 prohíbe el comercio de materias primas y productos relacionados con la deforestación en el mercado de la Unión Europa1. El Reglamento europeo dirige esta prohibición hacia su propio mercado, pero inevitablemente esto tiene consecuencias para los países productores de materias primas en América Latina. La propuesta de Reglamento impactará el intercambio con la Unión Europa, un socio comercial clave para los países latinoamericanos. Si otros Estados industrializados que representan actualmente la cuota más grande de exportaciones para los países latinoamericanos adoptan este tipo de reglamentos, el impacto comercial en América Latina será aún más significativo. Sostenemos que los enfoques regulatorios que se centran en las cadenas de suministro globales —como el Reglamento UE— representan una oportunidad para fortalecer la existente (aunque débil) cooperación ambiental latinoamericana, de manera de abordar las principales causas de la deforestación, principalmente la expansión agrícola. A pesar de la relevancia global de los bosques y la biodiversidad de la región, la cooperación latinoamericana en materia de conservación de bosques no ha sido significativa2.
{"title":"La Lucha Contra La Deforestación a Través De Las Cadenas De Suministro Globales: ¿Una Oportunidad De Reenfocar La Cooperación Ambiental En América Latina?","authors":"B. Garcia, Laurent Pauwels","doi":"10.1017/aju.2022.60","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.60","url":null,"abstract":"Una propuesta de Reglamento europeo de 2021 prohíbe el comercio de materias primas y productos relacionados con la deforestación en el mercado de la Unión Europa1. El Reglamento europeo dirige esta prohibición hacia su propio mercado, pero inevitablemente esto tiene consecuencias para los países productores de materias primas en América Latina. La propuesta de Reglamento impactará el intercambio con la Unión Europa, un socio comercial clave para los países latinoamericanos. Si otros Estados industrializados que representan actualmente la cuota más grande de exportaciones para los países latinoamericanos adoptan este tipo de reglamentos, el impacto comercial en América Latina será aún más significativo. Sostenemos que los enfoques regulatorios que se centran en las cadenas de suministro globales —como el Reglamento UE— representan una oportunidad para fortalecer la existente (aunque débil) cooperación ambiental latinoamericana, de manera de abordar las principales causas de la deforestación, principalmente la expansión agrícola. A pesar de la relevancia global de los bosques y la biodiversidad de la región, la cooperación latinoamericana en materia de conservación de bosques no ha sido significativa2.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":"116 1","pages":"352 - 359"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49303606","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Rescuing the “other woman” has been an intractable feature of international and human rights legal interventions. This rescue narrative configures the “other woman,” invariably third world or from the Global South, as left behind in the movement toward progress and modernity. Part of the solution envisages the rescue and incorporation of the “other woman” into liberal rights discourse—the teleological endpoint of emancipation. Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) and postcolonial feminist critiques have exposed the racial and civilizational discourses that shape these rescue missions and the epistemic violence they engender. Using the example of the military invasion and occupation of Afghanistan from 2001–2021, I demonstrate how these discourses persist in contemporary women's human rights agendas and the carceral and securitized logics that they serve. I discuss the need to delink rights from rescue missions and the epistemic shifts required to move the critique in a meaningful and productive direction.
{"title":"“The First Feminist War in all of History”: Epistemic Shifts and Relinquishing the Mission to Rescue the “Other Woman”","authors":"R. Kapur","doi":"10.1017/aju.2022.45","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.45","url":null,"abstract":"Rescuing the “other woman” has been an intractable feature of international and human rights legal interventions. This rescue narrative configures the “other woman,” invariably third world or from the Global South, as left behind in the movement toward progress and modernity. Part of the solution envisages the rescue and incorporation of the “other woman” into liberal rights discourse—the teleological endpoint of emancipation. Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) and postcolonial feminist critiques have exposed the racial and civilizational discourses that shape these rescue missions and the epistemic violence they engender. Using the example of the military invasion and occupation of Afghanistan from 2001–2021, I demonstrate how these discourses persist in contemporary women's human rights agendas and the carceral and securitized logics that they serve. I discuss the need to delink rights from rescue missions and the epistemic shifts required to move the critique in a meaningful and productive direction.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":"116 1","pages":"270 - 274"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43478694","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In The Boundaries of International Law: A Feminist Critique (Boundaries),1 amidst observations about masculine bias in treaty law, co-authors Christine Chinkin and Hilary Charlesworth queried the masculine configuration, i.e., the gender of jus cogens or peremptory norms. A peremptory norm is “accepted and recognized by the international community . . . as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of international law having the same character.”2 Interrogating whether jus cogens privileged the experiences of males over that of females, they challenged jus cogens’ presumed universality and its intended utility. Accepted peremptory norms, they averred, exerted a silencing, deleterious impact on core feminine values such as sexual equality or freedom from gender discrimination.3 Decades after the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties’ (VCLT) codification of jus cogens, the International Law Commission (ILC) reified a non-exhaustive list of peremptory norms that explicitly excluded gender-based discrimination.4 This essay proposes a “jus cogens redux” to revive Chinkin and Charlesworth's question by peering at several threads in the thwarted conversations about whether freedom from gender discrimination rises to peremptory norm status. The conversational threads lay tattered by positive law's reliance on enumerated treaty provisions and accepted precepts of customary international law. They are frayed by normative law's philosophical, moralists’ approach. Neither the positivist law nor the normative law's concepts of how to determine jus cogens values grapples with gender or gender minorities. By default, each retains a masculine approach that configures the gender of jus cogens as “non-female.”
{"title":"Jus Cogens: Redux","authors":"P. Sellers","doi":"10.1017/aju.2022.47","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.47","url":null,"abstract":"In The Boundaries of International Law: A Feminist Critique (Boundaries),1 amidst observations about masculine bias in treaty law, co-authors Christine Chinkin and Hilary Charlesworth queried the masculine configuration, i.e., the gender of jus cogens or peremptory norms. A peremptory norm is “accepted and recognized by the international community . . . as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of international law having the same character.”2 Interrogating whether jus cogens privileged the experiences of males over that of females, they challenged jus cogens’ presumed universality and its intended utility. Accepted peremptory norms, they averred, exerted a silencing, deleterious impact on core feminine values such as sexual equality or freedom from gender discrimination.3 Decades after the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties’ (VCLT) codification of jus cogens, the International Law Commission (ILC) reified a non-exhaustive list of peremptory norms that explicitly excluded gender-based discrimination.4 This essay proposes a “jus cogens redux” to revive Chinkin and Charlesworth's question by peering at several threads in the thwarted conversations about whether freedom from gender discrimination rises to peremptory norm status. The conversational threads lay tattered by positive law's reliance on enumerated treaty provisions and accepted precepts of customary international law. They are frayed by normative law's philosophical, moralists’ approach. Neither the positivist law nor the normative law's concepts of how to determine jus cogens values grapples with gender or gender minorities. By default, each retains a masculine approach that configures the gender of jus cogens as “non-female.”","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":"116 1","pages":"281 - 286"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44475465","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This symposium explores where feminism has traveled and where it has yet to travel in international law since the groundbreaking 1991 article that Hilary Charlesworth, Christine Chinkin, and Shelley Wright published in the American Journal of International Law , “ Feminist Approaches to International Law. ” 1 Their article emerged following a “ particularly frustrating conference where female voice was notably absent, ” at which point Charlesworth, Chinkin, and Wright “ retired to a pub and scribbled thoughts on a napkin that ultimately became [their 1991 article]. ” 2 At a subsequent meeting of eminent (mostly male) international law scholars, the three feminist co-authors presented this work, which generated a degree of controversy. Charlesworth humorously alludes to the controversy in Alienating Oscar , referring to Oscar Schachter, the preeminent former AJIL editor-in-chief. 3 In fact, as Charlesworth noted, even while Schachter disagreed with some of the analysis that they had advanced, he was curious and encouraging, as was characteristic of him. 4 central authors examined arrangement typical to examine discipline based on the experience of women. By challenging the system, feminist theory could identify possibilities for of international law. 5 The authors queried “ whether ” 6
{"title":"Introduction to the Symposium on Feminist Approaches to International Law Thirty Years on: Still Alienating Oscar?","authors":"C. Powell, A. Wing","doi":"10.1017/aju.2022.43","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.43","url":null,"abstract":"This symposium explores where feminism has traveled and where it has yet to travel in international law since the groundbreaking 1991 article that Hilary Charlesworth, Christine Chinkin, and Shelley Wright published in the American Journal of International Law , “ Feminist Approaches to International Law. ” 1 Their article emerged following a “ particularly frustrating conference where female voice was notably absent, ” at which point Charlesworth, Chinkin, and Wright “ retired to a pub and scribbled thoughts on a napkin that ultimately became [their 1991 article]. ” 2 At a subsequent meeting of eminent (mostly male) international law scholars, the three feminist co-authors presented this work, which generated a degree of controversy. Charlesworth humorously alludes to the controversy in Alienating Oscar , referring to Oscar Schachter, the preeminent former AJIL editor-in-chief. 3 In fact, as Charlesworth noted, even while Schachter disagreed with some of the analysis that they had advanced, he was curious and encouraging, as was characteristic of him. 4 central authors examined arrangement typical to examine discipline based on the experience of women. By challenging the system, feminist theory could identify possibilities for of international law. 5 The authors queried “ whether ” 6","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":"116 1","pages":"259 - 263"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43348541","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Should the climate change crisis be framed in security terms? Many argue that it is dangerous to treat non-military threats as security issues. Such “securitization” is associated with the expansion of executive power and the exercise of exceptional measures involving the suspension of individual rights, secrecy, state violence, and a weakening of the rule of law. Nonetheless, climate change has already been identified as a security issue by many government agencies and international institutions.1 But, as J. Benton Heath explores in “Making Sense of Security,” the very concept of security is both ambiguous and contested.2 There are different and competing ideas about what it means, when, and by whom it should be invoked, the kinds of law and policy responses it should trigger, and, crucially, who gets to decide these questions. Heath argues that differing approaches to security reflect deeper struggles over whose knowledge matters in identifying and responding to security threats. He develops a typology for assessing these different approaches, and the implications they have for international law and institutions. But, while he notes that climate change is precisely one of those issues around which there are competing security claims, he leaves to others the question of whether, or how, to frame climate change in security terms. This essay takes up that question, continuing the inquiry into how best to understand the concept of security, and how Heath's typology helps think about the question. It argues that it may indeed be important to frame climate change in security terms, but as a matter of global security rather than national security.
{"title":"Climate Change and Global Security: Framing an Existential Threat","authors":"Craig Martin","doi":"10.1017/aju.2022.39","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.39","url":null,"abstract":"Should the climate change crisis be framed in security terms? Many argue that it is dangerous to treat non-military threats as security issues. Such “securitization” is associated with the expansion of executive power and the exercise of exceptional measures involving the suspension of individual rights, secrecy, state violence, and a weakening of the rule of law. Nonetheless, climate change has already been identified as a security issue by many government agencies and international institutions.1 But, as J. Benton Heath explores in “Making Sense of Security,” the very concept of security is both ambiguous and contested.2 There are different and competing ideas about what it means, when, and by whom it should be invoked, the kinds of law and policy responses it should trigger, and, crucially, who gets to decide these questions. Heath argues that differing approaches to security reflect deeper struggles over whose knowledge matters in identifying and responding to security threats. He develops a typology for assessing these different approaches, and the implications they have for international law and institutions. But, while he notes that climate change is precisely one of those issues around which there are competing security claims, he leaves to others the question of whether, or how, to frame climate change in security terms. This essay takes up that question, continuing the inquiry into how best to understand the concept of security, and how Heath's typology helps think about the question. It argues that it may indeed be important to frame climate change in security terms, but as a matter of global security rather than national security.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":"116 1","pages":"248 - 253"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46419072","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Introduction to the Symposium on J. Benton Heath, “Making Sense of Security”","authors":"Antony T. Anghie","doi":"10.1017/aju.2022.42","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.42","url":null,"abstract":"provision of Treaty of the of the other.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":"116 1","pages":"225 - 229"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41711056","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The European Union (EU) recently proposed the introduction of a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) and suddenly transformed into reality an almost two decade-long debate over the hypothetical use of CBAMs as antidotes to uneven carbon prices. The European Commission presented the scheme as a climate measure aimed at reducing the risk of carbon leakage for energy intensive and trade-exposed industries facing the cost of increased climate ambition.1 At the same time, however, it listed the mechanism among the instruments that support a “competitive [green] transition” for EU businesses in the context of the new industrial strategy supporting the EU Green Deal.2 This ambiguity risks undermining the credibility of the scheme as a legitimate climate response unless it can be shown that the equalization of carbon costs (i.e., the fair competition/industrial component) is instrumental to achieving higher emission reduction levels than could have been achieved otherwise (i.e., the carbon leakage/climate component). While the exact balance between climate- and industrial-informed features is ultimately an issue of design, this essay argues that making the scheme (as) compatible (as possible) with the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO) improves its environmental effectiveness and accordingly contributes to reconciling the CBAM with its stated climate purpose.
{"title":"Reconciling the Climate/Industrial Interplay of CBAMs: What Role for the WTO?","authors":"Ilaria Espa","doi":"10.1017/aju.2022.31","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.31","url":null,"abstract":"The European Union (EU) recently proposed the introduction of a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) and suddenly transformed into reality an almost two decade-long debate over the hypothetical use of CBAMs as antidotes to uneven carbon prices. The European Commission presented the scheme as a climate measure aimed at reducing the risk of carbon leakage for energy intensive and trade-exposed industries facing the cost of increased climate ambition.1 At the same time, however, it listed the mechanism among the instruments that support a “competitive [green] transition” for EU businesses in the context of the new industrial strategy supporting the EU Green Deal.2 This ambiguity risks undermining the credibility of the scheme as a legitimate climate response unless it can be shown that the equalization of carbon costs (i.e., the fair competition/industrial component) is instrumental to achieving higher emission reduction levels than could have been achieved otherwise (i.e., the carbon leakage/climate component). While the exact balance between climate- and industrial-informed features is ultimately an issue of design, this essay argues that making the scheme (as) compatible (as possible) with the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO) improves its environmental effectiveness and accordingly contributes to reconciling the CBAM with its stated climate purpose.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":"116 1","pages":"208 - 212"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42431091","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
M. Mehling, H. van Asselt, Susanne Droege, Kasturi Das
The European Union's (EU) proposed Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) underscores that the introduction of climate-motivated trade measures is no longer just a matter of academic debate. With countries ramping up domestic climate action at different speeds and levels of ambition, the likelihood of other countries following the EU's lead and adopting a border carbon adjustment (BCA)1 of their own will only increase. International cooperation can help avoid a fragmented landscape of varying BCA designs, mitigate concerns about trade protectionism, and ensure that the further development of BCAs leads to stronger global action on climate change. Some countries have begun to show an interest in pursuing international cooperation involving joint trade measures through “climate clubs.” Yet such international cooperation also raises new questions concerning the legal form, the forum through which cooperation should be pursued, and the (normative) substance of any international agreement on BCAs. The answers to these questions matter not only for the development and implementation of BCAs, but may also affect the future trajectory of the international legal regime for climate change and trade.
{"title":"The Form and Substance of International Cooperation on Border Carbon Adjustments","authors":"M. Mehling, H. van Asselt, Susanne Droege, Kasturi Das","doi":"10.1017/aju.2022.33","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.33","url":null,"abstract":"The European Union's (EU) proposed Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) underscores that the introduction of climate-motivated trade measures is no longer just a matter of academic debate. With countries ramping up domestic climate action at different speeds and levels of ambition, the likelihood of other countries following the EU's lead and adopting a border carbon adjustment (BCA)1 of their own will only increase. International cooperation can help avoid a fragmented landscape of varying BCA designs, mitigate concerns about trade protectionism, and ensure that the further development of BCAs leads to stronger global action on climate change. Some countries have begun to show an interest in pursuing international cooperation involving joint trade measures through “climate clubs.” Yet such international cooperation also raises new questions concerning the legal form, the forum through which cooperation should be pursued, and the (normative) substance of any international agreement on BCAs. The answers to these questions matter not only for the development and implementation of BCAs, but may also affect the future trajectory of the international legal regime for climate change and trade.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":"116 1","pages":"213 - 218"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44673251","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The global trade liberalization project has been one of the most successful efforts at international cooperation ever. Estimates of industrial nations ’ average tariffs in 1947, when the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was negotiated, range from 20 – 40 percent. 1 The World Bank reports that in 1994, the year before the World Trade Organization (WTO) came into existence, the global applied average weighted tariff was still 8.57 percent. 2 Twenty years later, that number had fallen below 3 percent, and many developed nations, including the United States and the European Union (EU), have applied average tariffs around 1.5 percent. 3 Beyond tariff rates, the GATTexpanded from twenty-three original parties to the WTO ’ s 164. Along with over three hundred regional free trade agreements and customs unions currently in force, the WTO has also reduced non-tariff barriers to trade in goods and liberalized trade in services. 4 From a historical, economy-wide perspective, we live in a world that the GATT framers would likely have thought approximates free trade. Trade liberalization bene fi ts: helping rebuild Europe and Japan after solidi-fying support during and lifting millions of people worldwide out of trade liberalization Workers face increased disruptions to their prospects and long-term economic security due to competition from countries in which the state provides substantial comparative certain creating And low trade, along falling few they
{"title":"Taxing, Regulating, and Trading Carbon: An Introduction to the Symposium","authors":"Timothy Meyer","doi":"10.1017/aju.2022.35","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.35","url":null,"abstract":"The global trade liberalization project has been one of the most successful efforts at international cooperation ever. Estimates of industrial nations ’ average tariffs in 1947, when the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was negotiated, range from 20 – 40 percent. 1 The World Bank reports that in 1994, the year before the World Trade Organization (WTO) came into existence, the global applied average weighted tariff was still 8.57 percent. 2 Twenty years later, that number had fallen below 3 percent, and many developed nations, including the United States and the European Union (EU), have applied average tariffs around 1.5 percent. 3 Beyond tariff rates, the GATTexpanded from twenty-three original parties to the WTO ’ s 164. Along with over three hundred regional free trade agreements and customs unions currently in force, the WTO has also reduced non-tariff barriers to trade in goods and liberalized trade in services. 4 From a historical, economy-wide perspective, we live in a world that the GATT framers would likely have thought approximates free trade. Trade liberalization bene fi ts: helping rebuild Europe and Japan after solidi-fying support during and lifting millions of people worldwide out of trade liberalization Workers face increased disruptions to their prospects and long-term economic security due to competition from countries in which the state provides substantial comparative certain creating And low trade, along falling few they","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":"116 1","pages":"191 - 195"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42411270","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：