After ten years in the making, in 2022, the European Union adopted an International Procurement Instrument (IPI). This article examines how the 2022 IPI seeks to regulate the access of third-country economic operators, goods and services to the Union’s public procurement markets, as well as how it intends to support negotiations on access of Union economic operators, goods and services to the public procurement markets of third countries. After setting out the background to the IPI proposal, the article identifies the main features in terms of its’ scope and coverage, procedures and obligations. The article then highlights key changes in design since the IPI was originally proposed in 2012 and again in the 2016 Amended Proposal. The article assesses the potential of the IPI to meet its’ objectives without provoking retaliation or challenges from its’ trading partners or placing an undue burden on the EU procurement process and businesses. It concludes that the 2022 IPI is better suited as a political tool for encouraging negotiations than as an effective economic instrument to create a level playing field in government procurement markets. EU International Procurement Instrument (IPI), government procurement, EU trade policy, reciprocity, WTO Government Procurement Agreement (WTO GPA), WTO Article III.8 (a), protectionism
{"title":"The EU 2022 International Procurement Regulation Enters in to Force Reciprocity","authors":"K. Dawar","doi":"10.54648/trad2023005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/trad2023005","url":null,"abstract":"After ten years in the making, in 2022, the European Union adopted an International Procurement Instrument (IPI). This article examines how the 2022 IPI seeks to regulate the access of third-country economic operators, goods and services to the Union’s public procurement markets, as well as how it intends to support negotiations on access of Union economic operators, goods and services to the public procurement markets of third countries. After setting out the background to the IPI proposal, the article identifies the main features in terms of its’ scope and coverage, procedures and obligations. The article then highlights key changes in design since the IPI was originally proposed in 2012 and again in the 2016 Amended Proposal. The article assesses the potential of the IPI to meet its’ objectives without provoking retaliation or challenges from its’ trading partners or placing an undue burden on the EU procurement process and businesses. It concludes that the 2022 IPI is better suited as a political tool for encouraging negotiations than as an effective economic instrument to create a level playing field in government procurement markets.\u0000EU International Procurement Instrument (IPI), government procurement, EU trade policy, reciprocity, WTO Government Procurement Agreement (WTO GPA), WTO Article III.8 (a), protectionism","PeriodicalId":46019,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Trade","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42708366","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The European Union’s (EU’s) ‘New Generation’ Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) often contain ‘level playing field’ obligations. ‘Level playing field’ obligations, in this context, are minimum, reciprocal obligations usually with respect to taxation, state-aid, and both labour and environmental standards. This short article is not so much concerned with these obligations or their effect, as it is with the use of the ‘level playing field’ metaphor to describe them, specifically in the context of labour and environmental standards. Through an examination of the actual usage, meaning and context of the level playing field metaphor, the article analyses and rejects arguments that a commitment to a level playing field in fact indicates a change on the part of states away from ‘free’ trade to ‘fair’. Rather, it demonstrates that the level playing field metaphor, at least in the context of EU FTAs, in fact functions as a kind of linguistic disguise for a competitive move in trade agreements. Level Playing Field, EU Trade, Free Trade Agreements, Free Trade, Fair Trade, Sustainabilty, Labour, Environment, Metaphor, Cognitive Metaphor Theory
{"title":"The ‘Level Playing Field’ Metaphor: Revealing a Competitive Move in EU Free Trade Agreements","authors":"M. Gillis","doi":"10.54648/trad2023004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/trad2023004","url":null,"abstract":"The European Union’s (EU’s) ‘New Generation’ Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) often contain ‘level playing field’ obligations. ‘Level playing field’ obligations, in this context, are minimum, reciprocal obligations usually with respect to taxation, state-aid, and both labour and environmental standards. This short article is not so much concerned with these obligations or their effect, as it is with the use of the ‘level playing field’ metaphor to describe them, specifically in the context of labour and environmental standards. Through an examination of the actual usage, meaning and context of the level playing field metaphor, the article analyses and rejects arguments that a commitment to a level playing field in fact indicates a change on the part of states away from ‘free’ trade to ‘fair’. Rather, it demonstrates that the level playing field metaphor, at least in the context of EU FTAs, in fact functions as a kind of linguistic disguise for a competitive move in trade agreements.\u0000Level Playing Field, EU Trade, Free Trade Agreements, Free Trade, Fair Trade, Sustainabilty, Labour, Environment, Metaphor, Cognitive Metaphor Theory","PeriodicalId":46019,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Trade","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42655878","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There is a growing willingness to include inclusivity and sustainability provisions in trade agreements. This has gone hand-in-hand with a new trend in trade policy circles to acknowledge the differential impacts of trade. These developments offer an unprecedented opportunity to deepen reflection about ways of anticipating what possible impacts of new trade agreements might be, how to avoid adverse impacts, and how to design flanking and mitigating measures. This article considers the pertinence of a human rights-based approach for identifying economic, social and environmental impacts. Noting that discussion about human rights in the trade context has been hampered by misunderstandings, the article clarifies the legal basis for undertaking human rights impact assessment (HRIA) and what a human rights approach can achieve. It demonstrates that the function of HRIA goes beyond determining impacts of trade rules on human rights, to be a tool for ascertaining whether trade is fulfilling its intended societal functions. The article draws on a recent ex ante assessment of the European Free Trade Area (EFTA)-Mercosur trade agreement (EMFTA) to illustrate how HRIA methodology can be applied. Referring to this and other HRIAs, it concludes that human rights-based methodologies are well-suited to assess potential impacts of planned trade agreements, and that such assessment is a promising route towards trade agreements that are inclusive, robust, and supportive of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). International trade, trade negotiations, Mercosur, EFTA, inclusive trade, human rights, impact assessment, sustainability impact assessment
{"title":"On How the Human Rights Framework Can Contribute to Inclusive Trade Agreements","authors":"Caroline Dommen","doi":"10.54648/trad2023006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/trad2023006","url":null,"abstract":"There is a growing willingness to include inclusivity and sustainability provisions in trade agreements. This has gone hand-in-hand with a new trend in trade policy circles to acknowledge the differential impacts of trade. These developments offer an unprecedented opportunity to deepen reflection about ways of anticipating what possible impacts of new trade agreements might be, how to avoid adverse impacts, and how to design flanking and mitigating measures. This article considers the pertinence of a human rights-based approach for identifying economic, social and environmental impacts. Noting that discussion about human rights in the trade context has been hampered by misunderstandings, the article clarifies the legal basis for undertaking human rights impact assessment (HRIA) and what a human rights approach can achieve. It demonstrates that the function of HRIA goes beyond determining impacts of trade rules on human rights, to be a tool for ascertaining whether trade is fulfilling its intended societal functions. The article draws on a recent ex ante assessment of the European Free Trade Area (EFTA)-Mercosur trade agreement (EMFTA) to illustrate how HRIA methodology can be applied. Referring to this and other HRIAs, it concludes that human rights-based methodologies are well-suited to assess potential impacts of planned trade agreements, and that such assessment is a promising route towards trade agreements that are inclusive, robust, and supportive of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).\u0000International trade, trade negotiations, Mercosur, EFTA, inclusive trade, human rights, impact assessment, sustainability impact assessment","PeriodicalId":46019,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Trade","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49593523","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Simon Schropp, O. Latipov, Christian Lau, Kornel Mahlstein
In addition to the existing import ban on energy products (oil, gas, coal), the United States recently announced a new sanction package that imposes significantly higher import tariffs on 570 product groups from Russia. These tariff increases affect more than USD 2 billion in US imports from Russia. Using a sector-specific partial-equilibrium (PE) model, we quantify the impact of these US tariff increases. We find that the new tariffs affect 8.7% of total US imports from Russia and may decrease Russian welfare by USD 181 million per year, while imposing annual costs of USD 90 million on US consumers. Our sectoral analysis shows that the US’ choice of target sectors produces mixed results. On one hand, the sanctions cover dozens of sectors whose inclusion produce particularly large welfare losses to Russia and/or high welfare gains to the US Yet, for several target sectors higher tariffs result in zero harm to Russia, and/or greater harm to the US than to Russia. For example, higher tariffs for several selected sectors result in zero harm to Russia, and/or greater harm to the United States than to Russia. These and other insights may provide guidance for the design of future tariff sanctions by the European Union (EU) and other Allies. International trade, war in Ukraine, economic sanctions, import tariffs, economic impact, partial equilibrium, sectoral analysis, welfare analysis, pass-through, tariff revenue, Russia, United States, European Union
{"title":"Quantifying the Impact of the Latest US Tariff Sanctions on Russia: A Sectoral Analysis","authors":"Simon Schropp, O. Latipov, Christian Lau, Kornel Mahlstein","doi":"10.54648/trad2023003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/trad2023003","url":null,"abstract":"In addition to the existing import ban on energy products (oil, gas, coal), the United States recently announced a new sanction package that imposes significantly higher import tariffs on 570 product groups from Russia. These tariff increases affect more than USD 2 billion in US imports from Russia.\u0000Using a sector-specific partial-equilibrium (PE) model, we quantify the impact of these US tariff increases. We find that the new tariffs affect 8.7% of total US imports from Russia and may decrease Russian welfare by USD 181 million per year, while imposing annual costs of USD 90 million on US consumers.\u0000Our sectoral analysis shows that the US’ choice of target sectors produces mixed results. On one hand, the sanctions cover dozens of sectors whose inclusion produce particularly large welfare losses to Russia and/or high welfare gains to the US Yet, for several target sectors higher tariffs result in zero harm to Russia, and/or greater harm to the US than to Russia. For example, higher tariffs for several selected sectors result in zero harm to Russia, and/or greater harm to the United States than to Russia. These and other insights may provide guidance for the design of future tariff sanctions by the European Union (EU) and other Allies.\u0000International trade, war in Ukraine, economic sanctions, import tariffs, economic impact, partial equilibrium, sectoral analysis, welfare analysis, pass-through, tariff revenue, Russia, United States, European Union","PeriodicalId":46019,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Trade","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46418455","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article (1) summarizes the provisions relating to cultural services in the preferential trade agreements (PTAs) to which Australia and New Zealand belong, and (2) discusses the scope of these provisions, in light of the cultural policy measures involved and states’ resulting ability to pursue cultural policies. Not only have Australia and New Zealand pursued some of the world’s most ambitious cultural policies, these two partner countries at times took unusual positions on the trade and culture debate. Yet, both have resolutely positioned themselves toward the ‘culture’ side of the debate, with either some of the most far-reaching exceptions or modest commitments relating to the cultural sector in their respective PTAs. Australia, New Zealand, cultural policies, trade and culture debate, trade liberalization, preferential trade agreements, cultural provisions, cultural services, cultural exceptions, cultural commitments
{"title":"Cultural Services in Australia and New Zealand’s Preferential Trade Agreements","authors":"G. Gagné, Camille Jean-Desnoyers","doi":"10.54648/trad2023002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/trad2023002","url":null,"abstract":"This article (1) summarizes the provisions relating to cultural services in the preferential trade agreements (PTAs) to which Australia and New Zealand belong, and (2) discusses the scope of these provisions, in light of the cultural policy measures involved and states’ resulting ability to pursue cultural policies. Not only have Australia and New Zealand pursued some of the world’s most ambitious cultural policies, these two partner countries at times took unusual positions on the trade and culture debate. Yet, both have resolutely positioned themselves toward the ‘culture’ side of the debate, with either some of the most far-reaching exceptions or modest commitments relating to the cultural sector in their respective PTAs.\u0000Australia, New Zealand, cultural policies, trade and culture debate, trade liberalization, preferential trade agreements, cultural provisions, cultural services, cultural exceptions, cultural commitments","PeriodicalId":46019,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Trade","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71321727","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A New Digital Economy Collaboration in the Indo-Pacific: Negotiating Digital Trade in the Australia-India CECA","authors":"Andrew D. Mitchell, Neha Mishra","doi":"10.54648/trad2023001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/trad2023001","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46019,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Trade","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135096518","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
How does the complexity and fragmentation of digital trade governance shape the digital trade strategies of members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)? And how are these strategies, in turn, shaping digital governance in the region? Drawing on the regime complexity literature in international relations, this article examines the different digital strategies used by three ASEAN members – Singapore, Vietnam, and Indonesia – to navigate between the regulatory approaches of the United States and China. The article highlights the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement (DEPA) as a key venue for increasing cooperation and consistency of digital trade rules in the Asia-Pacific. If the US pushes for a binding digital trade agreement as part of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), the loose, modular cooperation of DEPA would become more attractive to ASEAN members. Yet, even a modest DEPA that chooses to emphasize breadth of membership over deep liberalization would still represent progress in reducing regime complexity. digital trade, e-commerce, cross-border data flows, regime complex, ASEAN, Digital Economy Partnership Agreement, Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia
{"title":"ASEAN and the Regime Complex for Digital Trade in the Asia-Pacific","authors":"Gregory P. Corning","doi":"10.54648/trad2022038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/trad2022038","url":null,"abstract":"How does the complexity and fragmentation of digital trade governance shape the digital trade strategies of members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)? And how are these strategies, in turn, shaping digital governance in the region? Drawing on the regime complexity literature in international relations, this article examines the different digital strategies used by three ASEAN members – Singapore, Vietnam, and Indonesia – to navigate between the regulatory approaches of the United States and China. The article highlights the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement (DEPA) as a key venue for increasing cooperation and consistency of digital trade rules in the Asia-Pacific. If the US pushes for a binding digital trade agreement as part of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), the loose, modular cooperation of DEPA would become more attractive to ASEAN members. Yet, even a modest DEPA that chooses to emphasize breadth of membership over deep liberalization would still represent progress in reducing regime complexity.\u0000digital trade, e-commerce, cross-border data flows, regime complex, ASEAN, Digital Economy Partnership Agreement, Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia","PeriodicalId":46019,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Trade","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41453212","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article discusses the long-standing issue of jurisdictional conflict in World Trade Organisation (WTO) jurisprudence, which has, in the recent decades, been exacerbated by the proliferation of Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs). An examination of WTO jurisprudence reveals that jurisdictional conflict stems from the lack of choice of forum clauses in WTO-covered agreements, and the lack of a hierarchy of sources in international law. While there exists legal basis for the application of general principles of international law such as res judicata, a careful analysis demonstrates that there is conceptual difficulty applying the doctrine in the context of WTO disputes. To remedy this, the article argues that the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) could be amended to allow for the operation of res judicata. WTO, res judicata, jurisdiction conflict, regional trade agreements, general principles of law, Dispute Settlement Understanding
{"title":"Jurisdictional Conflict Between the World Trade Organization and Regional Trade Agreements: Res Judicata Revisited","authors":"Joel Soon","doi":"10.54648/trad2022037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/trad2022037","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the long-standing issue of jurisdictional conflict in World Trade Organisation (WTO) jurisprudence, which has, in the recent decades, been exacerbated by the proliferation of Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs). An examination of WTO jurisprudence reveals that jurisdictional conflict stems from the lack of choice of forum clauses in WTO-covered agreements, and the lack of a hierarchy of sources in international law. While there exists legal basis for the application of general principles of international law such as res judicata, a careful analysis demonstrates that there is conceptual difficulty applying the doctrine in the context of WTO disputes. To remedy this, the article argues that the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) could be amended to allow for the operation of res judicata.\u0000WTO, res judicata, jurisdiction conflict, regional trade agreements, general principles of law, Dispute Settlement Understanding","PeriodicalId":46019,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Trade","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41638164","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The central question posed by the longstanding debate among World Trade Organization (WTO) Members over special and differential treatment (S&DT) is how best to address legitimate demands for differentiation. Should this be done by replacing the self-designation of development status by a set of objective metrics distinguishing different categories of WTO Members? Or should Members alternatively focus their efforts on addressing objectively assessed capacities and needs in a more customized manner and on a case by case and agreement-specific basis? This note’s review of the S&DT debate suggests that rather than focusing on the divisive issue of development status, where prospects for consensus appear non-existent, WTO Members should design S&DT support focusing on objectively assessed negotiating and implementation needs to which targeted Aid for Trade would respond. A forward-looking approach to differentiation within the WTO requires that an altogether different narrative on trade and development take root in the organization, one that ascribes to trade (and to trade policy) a key supportive role in development trajectories. All too often, S&DT demands are formulated as if multilateral rules are inherently inimical to the development needs and aspirations of the world’s poorest nations. The note advances several reform options in charting a forward-looking S&DT agenda. Trade and development, trade governance, developing countries, least developed countries, special and differential treatment, World Trade Organization
{"title":"Special and Differential Treatment as If It Could Be Reformed","authors":"P. Sauvé","doi":"10.54648/trad2022036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/trad2022036","url":null,"abstract":"The central question posed by the longstanding debate among World Trade Organization (WTO) Members over special and differential treatment (S&DT) is how best to address legitimate demands for differentiation. Should this be done by replacing the self-designation of development status by a set of objective metrics distinguishing different categories of WTO Members? Or should Members alternatively focus their efforts on addressing objectively assessed capacities and needs in a more customized manner and on a case by case and agreement-specific basis? This note’s review of the S&DT debate suggests that rather than focusing on the divisive issue of development status, where prospects for consensus appear non-existent, WTO Members should design S&DT support focusing on objectively assessed negotiating and implementation needs to which targeted Aid for Trade would respond. A forward-looking approach to differentiation within the WTO requires that an altogether different narrative on trade and development take root in the organization, one that ascribes to trade (and to trade policy) a key supportive role in development trajectories. All too often, S&DT demands are formulated as if multilateral rules are inherently inimical to the development needs and aspirations of the world’s poorest nations. The note advances several reform options in charting a forward-looking S&DT agenda.\u0000Trade and development, trade governance, developing countries, least developed countries, special and differential treatment, World Trade Organization","PeriodicalId":46019,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Trade","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43376493","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The EU proposal for a carbon border adjustment mechanism (‘CBAM’) has triggered a lively academic and policy debate. In June 2022, the European Parliament put forward amendments regarding the potential introduction of export rebates under the EU Emission Trading System (‘ETS’) and the CBAM. This article focuses on this specific proposal, enquiring into the WTO law compatibility of ETS/CBAM export rebates. First, it enquires whether the ‘pecuniary burden’ associated with compliance with the CBAM would qualify as a ‘charge’ that is ‘equivalent to an internal tax’ and that is ‘imposed consistently with Article III:2 GATT’. Second, it suggests that the ‘pecuniary burden’ associated with compliance with the ETS/ CBAM is unlikely to qualify as an adjustable product tax; the analysis draws on a close examination of relevant provisions in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (‘SCMA’). Finally, the article develops some brief considerations on the detrimental environmental effects of export rebates. As the article concludes, the regulatory design of the CBAM is not perfect; export rebates, however, would make this scheme considerably worse. Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, Carbon Border Measures, Export Rebates, Border Tax Adjustment, Tax, Charge, GATT 1994, Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, Emission Trading System
{"title":"Export Rebates and the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism: WTO Law and Environmental Objections","authors":"Giulia Claudia Leonelli","doi":"10.54648/trad2022040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/trad2022040","url":null,"abstract":"The EU proposal for a carbon border adjustment mechanism (‘CBAM’) has triggered a lively academic and policy debate. In June 2022, the European Parliament put forward amendments regarding the potential introduction of export rebates under the EU Emission Trading System (‘ETS’) and the CBAM. This article focuses on this specific proposal, enquiring into the WTO law compatibility of ETS/CBAM export rebates. First, it enquires whether the ‘pecuniary burden’ associated with compliance with the CBAM would qualify as a ‘charge’ that is ‘equivalent to an internal tax’ and that is ‘imposed consistently with Article III:2 GATT’. Second, it suggests that the ‘pecuniary burden’ associated with compliance with the ETS/ CBAM is unlikely to qualify as an adjustable product tax; the analysis draws on a close examination of relevant provisions in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (‘SCMA’). Finally, the article develops some brief considerations on the detrimental environmental effects of export rebates. As the article concludes, the regulatory design of the CBAM is not perfect; export rebates, however, would make this scheme considerably worse.\u0000Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, Carbon Border Measures, Export Rebates, Border Tax Adjustment, Tax, Charge, GATT 1994, Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, Emission Trading System","PeriodicalId":46019,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Trade","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46245715","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：