World Trade Review最新文献

Two scholarly communities work on global trade and investment governance yet communicate little with each other. On the one hand, classic trade and investment scholarship focuses on states' foreign economic policies, trade and investment treaty programs, and participation in the World Trade Organisation. On the other hand, scholars of private and commercial law study how businesses draft and enforce the international contracts of a private law nature that ultimately constitute international trade and investment transactions. This research note seeks to raise awareness for this bifurcation of research on global trade and investment, develops a conceptual framework to better understand the role of private law in shaping trade and investment flows, and proposes a research agenda anchored in economics, political economy, and political science to advance our understanding of the role of private law in global trade and investment transactions and governance.

Rulemaking in digital trade is proceeding apace. Many preferential trade agreements contain dedicated e-commerce or digital trade chapters and some states have entered into stand-alone digital economy agreements. This article seeks to establish whether, and to what extent, normative change is occurring in digital trade agreements, the nature of any changes, and identify which states are acting as norm entrepreneurs. We employ a new method of legal coding, systematically comparing the nature and prescriptiveness of digital provisions in 12 trade agreements concluded between 2019 and 2023. We find evidence of substantial policy innovation, and identify Singapore as the key norm entrepreneur. A new wave of ‘Singapore-led’ agreements substantially expands the scope of digital trade, to cover areas such as digital identities, e-invoicing and e-payments, the governance of AI, and regulation of new digital technologies. Commitments are typically couched as soft rather than hard law, reflecting the nascent stages of rulemaking. Norm entrepreneurship on the part of Singapore and its allies reflects a desire to position themselves as ‘digital hubs’ in the global economy, spur rulemaking in areas where innovation is ahead of regulation, and promote digital interconnectivity at time of regulatory divergence and geopolitical rivalry.

To avoid penalizing exporters that already paid carbon prices, the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism credits carbon taxes and Emissions Trading Schemes in third countries. By excluding instruments of traditional regulation (e.g. emission standards) and indirect carbon prices (e.g. fuel excise taxes) from this crediting mechanism, the EU is criticized for discriminating against countries that do not follow its climate model, in breach of international trade and climate law. This article seeks to nuance this criticism by arguing that the calculation of actual emissions (instead of default values) under the EU CBAM allows exporters to reflect compliance with foreign emission standards, and thus respects states' right to pursue emission reductions through traditional regulation. However, amendments of the CBAM Regulation are necessary to recognize the positive and negative impact of indirect carbon prices on decarbonization, and the role of carbon-crediting mechanisms in equalizing carbon costs in a more flexible and equitable way.