International law and its understanding can evolve outside of treaties, but little is known about the elements that can explain these changes. This paper looks at the debate on border carbon adjustment (BCA) compatibility with the World Trade Organization (WTO) and argues that international law depends on the actors’ perceptions, which can change over time. It applies an interactional international law framework to explain how a policy that was once deemed incompatible with WTO rules is now considered ‘WTO-compliant’ by the European Union. A discourse network analysis is conducted based on debates from the WTO and the literature over 24 years. Results show that since 2012, the legal literature has increasingly been more confident that BCA could be WTO-compatible, despite the absence of significant changes in WTO case law during the same period. This increase in support was sustained by an expanded practice of legality and a perceived lack of legality of applicable WTO rules. This research offers new insights into the dynamics of international law. It provides new methodological avenues for scholars seeking to trace the evolution of law and legal understanding through formal and informal processes.
{"title":"Border carbon adjustment compliance and the WTO: the interactional evolution of law","authors":"Laurie Durel","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgae007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgae007","url":null,"abstract":"International law and its understanding can evolve outside of treaties, but little is known about the elements that can explain these changes. This paper looks at the debate on border carbon adjustment (BCA) compatibility with the World Trade Organization (WTO) and argues that international law depends on the actors’ perceptions, which can change over time. It applies an interactional international law framework to explain how a policy that was once deemed incompatible with WTO rules is now considered ‘WTO-compliant’ by the European Union. A discourse network analysis is conducted based on debates from the WTO and the literature over 24 years. Results show that since 2012, the legal literature has increasingly been more confident that BCA could be WTO-compatible, despite the absence of significant changes in WTO case law during the same period. This increase in support was sustained by an expanded practice of legality and a perceived lack of legality of applicable WTO rules. This research offers new insights into the dynamics of international law. It provides new methodological avenues for scholars seeking to trace the evolution of law and legal understanding through formal and informal processes.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":"174 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139953689","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Government subsidies for fossil fuels, agricultural production, and fisheries amount to trillions of dollars per year. This funding harms economic inefficiency, disrupts trade, and actively exacerbates the global environmental and climate crises. Moreover, the scale of these subsidies far exceeds the support provided to industries and activities that contribute to the transition towards a low-carbon and sustainable future economy. In seeking to discipline such subsidies, trade law has traditionally focused on whether the funding distorts trade without regard to the rationale or purpose of the subsidies. In this article, we argue that this approach to subsidies is at once incompatible with (i) the original vision of multilateral trade law, (ii) what is needed to manage international economic interdependence in today’s world, and (iii) the present moment’s urgent need to take seriously sustainable development as the ultimate objective of the trading system. The reform package we present in this article calls for a reframing of WTO subsidies rules on a foundation that gauges alignment with sustainable development alongside trade distortions, with sustainability becoming the first and foremost test of whether subsidies should be permitted—consistent with the sustainable development mandate in the Marrakesh Agreement that established the WTO.
{"title":"Making international trade work for sustainable development: toward a new WTO framework for subsidies","authors":"Elena Cima, Daniel C Esty","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgae008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgae008","url":null,"abstract":"Government subsidies for fossil fuels, agricultural production, and fisheries amount to trillions of dollars per year. This funding harms economic inefficiency, disrupts trade, and actively exacerbates the global environmental and climate crises. Moreover, the scale of these subsidies far exceeds the support provided to industries and activities that contribute to the transition towards a low-carbon and sustainable future economy. In seeking to discipline such subsidies, trade law has traditionally focused on whether the funding distorts trade without regard to the rationale or purpose of the subsidies. In this article, we argue that this approach to subsidies is at once incompatible with (i) the original vision of multilateral trade law, (ii) what is needed to manage international economic interdependence in today’s world, and (iii) the present moment’s urgent need to take seriously sustainable development as the ultimate objective of the trading system. The reform package we present in this article calls for a reframing of WTO subsidies rules on a foundation that gauges alignment with sustainable development alongside trade distortions, with sustainability becoming the first and foremost test of whether subsidies should be permitted—consistent with the sustainable development mandate in the Marrakesh Agreement that established the WTO.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139953656","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In 2021, the USA and the European Union (EU) expressed an interest in deepening their cooperation with each other and other international actors on export controls to address evolving security risks, including the misuse of dual-use technologies to violate human rights. This interest presents an opportunity to probe the potential for US–EU leadership, as a stated intention of these actors, in developing standards that incorporate human rights considerations into export control policy. To undertake this analysis, this article assesses the legal and political context in which the USA and the EU regulate exports and how this context affects potential opportunities for leadership. The article contends that the USA and EU may struggle to exercise joint leadership due to their divergent systems but may be capable of doing so if they invest in creative diplomatic efforts. In particular, the USA possesses greater legal flexibility than the EU to propose new standards and to engage in diplomatic efforts to multilateralize them. In short, the EU’s structural limitations create a dynamic in which the EU will rely heavily on US diplomacy, as well as that of its Member States, to achieve its objective of creating US–EU leadership in this area.
{"title":"Transatlantic leadership in an era of human rights-based export controls","authors":"Nina M Hart, Christopher A Casey","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgae005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgae005","url":null,"abstract":"In 2021, the USA and the European Union (EU) expressed an interest in deepening their cooperation with each other and other international actors on export controls to address evolving security risks, including the misuse of dual-use technologies to violate human rights. This interest presents an opportunity to probe the potential for US–EU leadership, as a stated intention of these actors, in developing standards that incorporate human rights considerations into export control policy. To undertake this analysis, this article assesses the legal and political context in which the USA and the EU regulate exports and how this context affects potential opportunities for leadership. The article contends that the USA and EU may struggle to exercise joint leadership due to their divergent systems but may be capable of doing so if they invest in creative diplomatic efforts. In particular, the USA possesses greater legal flexibility than the EU to propose new standards and to engage in diplomatic efforts to multilateralize them. In short, the EU’s structural limitations create a dynamic in which the EU will rely heavily on US diplomacy, as well as that of its Member States, to achieve its objective of creating US–EU leadership in this area.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139953686","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Nicola Strain, Runar Hilleren Lie, Yuliya Chernykh, Even Espelid, Taylor St John, Malcolm Langford, Isabella Cuervo-Lorens, Daniel Peat, Maria Florencia Sarmiento, Coen Ripson, Maxim Usynin, Faadhil Adams, Tarald Gulseth Berge, Laura Létourneau-Tremblay, Prevy Parekh, Szilárd Gáspár-Szilágyi, Morr Link, Lara Eguia, Øyvind Stiansen, Emilia Onyema
The ability to ensure compliance with investor-state arbitral awards is often regarded as one of the strengths of the international investment regime. Yet, there have been few systematic studies of compliance to assess the extent to which states have actually complied with adverse investor-state compensation awards. This paper presents a new dataset that enables empirical research on compliance with these decisions; it is the first publicly available dataset to focus on what happens after awards are handed down, and in this way complements other databases on international investment law. This paper explains the data collection process (and its associated challenges), discusses the design choices made in selecting inputs and variables, presents a descriptive overview of the data, and examines how variables can be used in future research. Moreover, various cases are used as illustrations of the challenges of collecting and coding data on post-award processes and we explore what missing data can tell us about compliance dynamics.
{"title":"Compliance politics and international investment disputes: a new dataset","authors":"Nicola Strain, Runar Hilleren Lie, Yuliya Chernykh, Even Espelid, Taylor St John, Malcolm Langford, Isabella Cuervo-Lorens, Daniel Peat, Maria Florencia Sarmiento, Coen Ripson, Maxim Usynin, Faadhil Adams, Tarald Gulseth Berge, Laura Létourneau-Tremblay, Prevy Parekh, Szilárd Gáspár-Szilágyi, Morr Link, Lara Eguia, Øyvind Stiansen, Emilia Onyema","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgae004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgae004","url":null,"abstract":"The ability to ensure compliance with investor-state arbitral awards is often regarded as one of the strengths of the international investment regime. Yet, there have been few systematic studies of compliance to assess the extent to which states have actually complied with adverse investor-state compensation awards. This paper presents a new dataset that enables empirical research on compliance with these decisions; it is the first publicly available dataset to focus on what happens after awards are handed down, and in this way complements other databases on international investment law. This paper explains the data collection process (and its associated challenges), discusses the design choices made in selecting inputs and variables, presents a descriptive overview of the data, and examines how variables can be used in future research. Moreover, various cases are used as illustrations of the challenges of collecting and coding data on post-award processes and we explore what missing data can tell us about compliance dynamics.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139765810","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The green transition is creating exponential needs for critical minerals. As demand currently exceeds supply for many of these minerals, governments worldwide are devising strategies to secure stable procurements of the minerals they lack as well as to ensure that they reap the benefits of their own natural wealth. The European Union (EU) is in a difficult position in this regard due to limited domestic reserves and, thus, serves as an ideal case study to explore developments in international economic law on this issue. Internally, the EU has been reforming its financing mechanisms, developing risk management tools, and enhancing recycling. Externally, the EU has been using international trade tools to focus on access to supply rather than traditional market access issues while also developing new investment rules to open doors and protect its foreign investors in extractive industries. Both internal and external actions are being coordinated with allies through new cooperative mechanisms. However, challenges abound. These strategies will face resistance from resource-abundant economies in view of their growing demand for policy space to protect their own mineral sector. Such strategies are also inherently competitive and, hence, might lead to growing tensions among resource-seeking economies themselves.
{"title":"Critical insecurities? The European Union’s strategy for a stable supply of minerals","authors":"Victor Crochet, Weihuan Zhou","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgae003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgae003","url":null,"abstract":"The green transition is creating exponential needs for critical minerals. As demand currently exceeds supply for many of these minerals, governments worldwide are devising strategies to secure stable procurements of the minerals they lack as well as to ensure that they reap the benefits of their own natural wealth. The European Union (EU) is in a difficult position in this regard due to limited domestic reserves and, thus, serves as an ideal case study to explore developments in international economic law on this issue. Internally, the EU has been reforming its financing mechanisms, developing risk management tools, and enhancing recycling. Externally, the EU has been using international trade tools to focus on access to supply rather than traditional market access issues while also developing new investment rules to open doors and protect its foreign investors in extractive industries. Both internal and external actions are being coordinated with allies through new cooperative mechanisms. However, challenges abound. These strategies will face resistance from resource-abundant economies in view of their growing demand for policy space to protect their own mineral sector. Such strategies are also inherently competitive and, hence, might lead to growing tensions among resource-seeking economies themselves.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139765813","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The international regulation of energy is complex, involving various legal frameworks such as economic agreements, environmental conventions, and dispute resolution mechanisms. These instruments often overlap and may not align, creating challenges for addressing energy-related issues. The United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) exemplifies these complexities. It addresses entitlements to natural resources, protection of energy-related transactions, cross-border energy policies, and environmental externalities. However, the USMCA does not fully resolve conflicts among differing policy goals within the energy sector. This article examines how the USMCA navigates issues related to resource entitlements, energy transactions, policy clashes, and environmental concerns. It argues that the absence of a unified energy policy leaves disputes to be balanced by resolution bodies, such as arbitration panels. The article scrutinizes each aspect of the USMCA’s approach and discusses potential mechanisms for resolving policy conflicts. The USMCA’s treatment of energy-related matters underscores the intricate interplay between international economic law and the energy sector, with implications for regional competitiveness and sustainability.
{"title":"Contradictions and tensions in the way the USMCA regulates energy","authors":"Guillermo J Garcia Sanchez","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgad036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad036","url":null,"abstract":"The international regulation of energy is complex, involving various legal frameworks such as economic agreements, environmental conventions, and dispute resolution mechanisms. These instruments often overlap and may not align, creating challenges for addressing energy-related issues. The United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) exemplifies these complexities. It addresses entitlements to natural resources, protection of energy-related transactions, cross-border energy policies, and environmental externalities. However, the USMCA does not fully resolve conflicts among differing policy goals within the energy sector. This article examines how the USMCA navigates issues related to resource entitlements, energy transactions, policy clashes, and environmental concerns. It argues that the absence of a unified energy policy leaves disputes to be balanced by resolution bodies, such as arbitration panels. The article scrutinizes each aspect of the USMCA’s approach and discusses potential mechanisms for resolving policy conflicts. The USMCA’s treatment of energy-related matters underscores the intricate interplay between international economic law and the energy sector, with implications for regional competitiveness and sustainability.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":"266 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139463502","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"From pledges to neglect: treaties and the rule of law promise","authors":"L. Poulsen","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgad047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad047","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":"64 34","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139385497","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Amid the Ukraine war, the energy transition has reached a critical juncture: decisions taken by key governmental or commercial actors may irreversibly threaten efforts to limit the rise in global average temperature to 1.5°C. After defining the notions of ‘energy transition’ and ‘critical juncture’, this article describes how the ‘international law of energy’ may both entrench a socio-technical regime based on fossil fuels and promote the transition towards renewable energy. These categories serve to frame several contributions to a symposium, which assist in mapping the rules, processes, and institutions that organize the decisional options of key actors as they try to drive the energy transition through this critical juncture. We conclude by recalling the practical utility of this dynamic map and the pressing need for an authoritative compass to give interpretive direction to the legal organization of the entitlements, obligations, and decisional options of key actors in reorienting energy activities to avoid the catastrophic tipping points of climate change.
{"title":"The energy transition at a critical juncture","authors":"Oliver Hailes, J. Viñuales","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgad045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad045","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Amid the Ukraine war, the energy transition has reached a critical juncture: decisions taken by key governmental or commercial actors may irreversibly threaten efforts to limit the rise in global average temperature to 1.5°C. After defining the notions of ‘energy transition’ and ‘critical juncture’, this article describes how the ‘international law of energy’ may both entrench a socio-technical regime based on fossil fuels and promote the transition towards renewable energy. These categories serve to frame several contributions to a symposium, which assist in mapping the rules, processes, and institutions that organize the decisional options of key actors as they try to drive the energy transition through this critical juncture. We conclude by recalling the practical utility of this dynamic map and the pressing need for an authoritative compass to give interpretive direction to the legal organization of the entitlements, obligations, and decisional options of key actors in reorienting energy activities to avoid the catastrophic tipping points of climate change.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":"20 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138949319","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Over the past decades, the China–Russian energy partnership has become firmly established. Significant milestones such as the 2009 oil and the 2014 gas deals demonstrate the geopolitical impact of this partnership. The article finds that the China–Russian energy cooperation uses a partnership-based relational approach that eschews rulemaking by treaty. Instead, the legal framework of this partnership is multi-layered and has distinct features. It relies heavily on bilateralism, pragmatic cooperation, and non-binding commitments. A range of instruments applies at the bilateral level, including a bilateral investment treaty, energy cooperation agreements, intergovernmental agreements on significant energy deals, and many joint communiques and statements of a soft law nature. Regarding regional energy governance, China and Russia prefer different approaches, as reflected in their participation in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Eurasian Economic Union, and the Belt and Road Initiative. While these regional mechanisms contribute to the energy partnership, their impact on the legal framework is limited.
{"title":"International law in the China–Russian energy partnership: mapping the partnership-based relational approach","authors":"Yuanyuan Zhang","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgad041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad041","url":null,"abstract":"Over the past decades, the China–Russian energy partnership has become firmly established. Significant milestones such as the 2009 oil and the 2014 gas deals demonstrate the geopolitical impact of this partnership. The article finds that the China–Russian energy cooperation uses a partnership-based relational approach that eschews rulemaking by treaty. Instead, the legal framework of this partnership is multi-layered and has distinct features. It relies heavily on bilateralism, pragmatic cooperation, and non-binding commitments. A range of instruments applies at the bilateral level, including a bilateral investment treaty, energy cooperation agreements, intergovernmental agreements on significant energy deals, and many joint communiques and statements of a soft law nature. Regarding regional energy governance, China and Russia prefer different approaches, as reflected in their participation in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Eurasian Economic Union, and the Belt and Road Initiative. While these regional mechanisms contribute to the energy partnership, their impact on the legal framework is limited.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138821416","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"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 (EU) faces a pressing, multi-level energy crisis propelled by the perfect storm of Russia’s war in Ukraine and rapidly progressing climate change. As a result, the EU is scrambling to ensure it has sufficient energy supplies for the foreseeable future while reinventing its energy strategy in the long term. Since the EU is at a critical juncture for squaring EU energy security with European and international legal commitments, this article surveys this radical shift and its consequences. It analyses new EU-wide crisis-response tools and ad hoc bilateral arrangements with third countries against existing legal commitments. Recent developments are only the beginning of a much larger re-evaluation of core notions of the ‘trade-energy security’ nexus. To decarbonize, the EU must move towards a ‘security-centred’ energy transition, premised on ‘security first, compliance second’. This requires reassessing the notion of ‘protectionism’ in geopolitically sensitive areas and the current division of energy competences between the EU and its Member States.
{"title":"Towards a ‘security-centred’ energy transition: balancing the European Union’s ambitions and geopolitical realities","authors":"Anna-Alexandra Marhold","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgad043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad043","url":null,"abstract":"The European Union (EU) faces a pressing, multi-level energy crisis propelled by the perfect storm of Russia’s war in Ukraine and rapidly progressing climate change. As a result, the EU is scrambling to ensure it has sufficient energy supplies for the foreseeable future while reinventing its energy strategy in the long term. Since the EU is at a critical juncture for squaring EU energy security with European and international legal commitments, this article surveys this radical shift and its consequences. It analyses new EU-wide crisis-response tools and ad hoc bilateral arrangements with third countries against existing legal commitments. Recent developments are only the beginning of a much larger re-evaluation of core notions of the ‘trade-energy security’ nexus. To decarbonize, the EU must move towards a ‘security-centred’ energy transition, premised on ‘security first, compliance second’. This requires reassessing the notion of ‘protectionism’ in geopolitically sensitive areas and the current division of energy competences between the EU and its Member States.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":"486 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138821768","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"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：