The World Trade Organization (WTO) and its dispute settlement mechanism were established in 1995 to great acclaim. Both have seen much success: WTO membership expanded apace, and the WTO dispute settlement mechanism proved to be the most active state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism in history. However, in recent years, the WTO has come under increasing criticism as negotiations to expand and modernize WTO disciplines have produced limited results and dissatisfaction with the dispute settlement system on the part of the system’s most active user led to the paralysis of appellate review. Calls for WTO reform have become widespread. At the June 2022 Ministerial Conference, WTO members committed to work toward necessary reform, including by conducting discussions with a view to having a fully and well-functioning dispute settlement system in place by 2024. This is a tall order, given that long-standing efforts to agree on amendments to the dispute settlement system not only failed but also highlighted significant differences in members’ preferred approaches for resolving disputes. In addition, the legal processes required to implement the major change could take years. This paper identifies adjustments to the dispute settlement system that could lead to important efficiencies and that can be effected before the 2024 deadline arrives.
{"title":"Maintaining Relevance in a Much-Changed World: Reforming WTO Dispute Settlement","authors":"Valerie Hughes","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgac065","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac065","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The World Trade Organization (WTO) and its dispute settlement mechanism were established in 1995 to great acclaim. Both have seen much success: WTO membership expanded apace, and the WTO dispute settlement mechanism proved to be the most active state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism in history. However, in recent years, the WTO has come under increasing criticism as negotiations to expand and modernize WTO disciplines have produced limited results and dissatisfaction with the dispute settlement system on the part of the system’s most active user led to the paralysis of appellate review. Calls for WTO reform have become widespread. At the June 2022 Ministerial Conference, WTO members committed to work toward necessary reform, including by conducting discussions with a view to having a fully and well-functioning dispute settlement system in place by 2024. This is a tall order, given that long-standing efforts to agree on amendments to the dispute settlement system not only failed but also highlighted significant differences in members’ preferred approaches for resolving disputes. In addition, the legal processes required to implement the major change could take years. This paper identifies adjustments to the dispute settlement system that could lead to important efficiencies and that can be effected before the 2024 deadline arrives.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48075839","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}
ABSTRACT In the face of multiple global challenges, major policy-making initiatives are under way at various international fora. In many of these talks and discussions, a central question is how to fairly and effectively engage external stakeholders. While lagging behind for decades, the World Trade Organization has woken up to the potential of more actively engaging stakeholders in international trade policy-making, both to make better policies and mitigate implementation challenges. This contribution describes the groundbreaking steps taken in a number of Member-led informal discussions and dialogues: the Trade and Environmental Sustainability Structured Discussions and the Informal Dialogue on Plastics Pollution and Environmentally Sustainable Plastics Trade. The objective of this contribution is to describe and applaud recent developments and initiate a discussion on how the process can be made more inclusive and robust and, potentially, also be extended to formal World Trade Organization activities. In this context, the World Health Organization’s ongoing negotiations on a new pandemic treaty are used to offer an interesting point of comparison.
{"title":"Taking Stakeholder Engagement in International Policy-Making Seriously: Is the WTO Finally Opening Up?","authors":"Joost Pauwelyn","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgac061","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac061","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In the face of multiple global challenges, major policy-making initiatives are under way at various international fora. In many of these talks and discussions, a central question is how to fairly and effectively engage external stakeholders. While lagging behind for decades, the World Trade Organization has woken up to the potential of more actively engaging stakeholders in international trade policy-making, both to make better policies and mitigate implementation challenges. This contribution describes the groundbreaking steps taken in a number of Member-led informal discussions and dialogues: the Trade and Environmental Sustainability Structured Discussions and the Informal Dialogue on Plastics Pollution and Environmentally Sustainable Plastics Trade. The objective of this contribution is to describe and applaud recent developments and initiate a discussion on how the process can be made more inclusive and robust and, potentially, also be extended to formal World Trade Organization activities. In this context, the World Health Organization’s ongoing negotiations on a new pandemic treaty are used to offer an interesting point of comparison.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136117873","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 twenty-five years, States, international institutions, and private entities have attempted to rein in corruption and promote corporate social responsibility. Such efforts have produced mixed results but have led to greater international cooperation and the establishment of clear norms. Increasing the accountability of multinational corporate actors remains a challenge but depends upon cooperation among boards of directors, national governments, nongovernmental organizations, and international institutions. This paper analyzes the relationship among municipal statutes, nonbinding ‘soft law’, and private standards. None on their own can effectively solve the problem of irresponsible corporate behavior but together have made meaningful steps in creating a more fair and accountable business environment.
{"title":"Corporate Power and Accountability in International Economic Law","authors":"Lucinda A. Low","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgac060","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac060","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Over the past twenty-five years, States, international institutions, and private entities have attempted to rein in corruption and promote corporate social responsibility. Such efforts have produced mixed results but have led to greater international cooperation and the establishment of clear norms. Increasing the accountability of multinational corporate actors remains a challenge but depends upon cooperation among boards of directors, national governments, nongovernmental organizations, and international institutions. This paper analyzes the relationship among municipal statutes, nonbinding ‘soft law’, and private standards. None on their own can effectively solve the problem of irresponsible corporate behavior but together have made meaningful steps in creating a more fair and accountable business environment.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44676049","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}
Roland Ismer, Harro van Asselt, Jennifer Haverkamp, Michael Mehling, Karsten Neuhoff, Alice Pirlot
ABSTRACT To reach climate neutrality, carbon emissions from the production of basic materials need to be curtailed. When governments encourage this transition by adopting support measures, the measures must comply with the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. This article analyzes three selected support schemes under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures: (i) free allocation under emissions trading systems to operators of installations at risk of carbon leakage; (ii) the combination of a charge on carbon-intensive materials with free allocation; and (iii) carbon contracts for difference, under which governments cover the incremental costs of climate-neutral production processes relative to conventional processes. The analysis reveals that the current regime of free allocation is vulnerable to challenges under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. By contrast, the combination of free allocation and a charge on carbon-intensive materials would ensure consistent carbon pricing and thus would not amount to a subsidy under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. In a similar vein, the carbon contracts for difference could be designed so that they would not confer a benefit and hence not constitute a subsidy.
{"title":"Supporting the Transition to Climate-Neutral Production: An Evaluation Under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures","authors":"Roland Ismer, Harro van Asselt, Jennifer Haverkamp, Michael Mehling, Karsten Neuhoff, Alice Pirlot","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgac058","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac058","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT To reach climate neutrality, carbon emissions from the production of basic materials need to be curtailed. When governments encourage this transition by adopting support measures, the measures must comply with the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. This article analyzes three selected support schemes under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures: (i) free allocation under emissions trading systems to operators of installations at risk of carbon leakage; (ii) the combination of a charge on carbon-intensive materials with free allocation; and (iii) carbon contracts for difference, under which governments cover the incremental costs of climate-neutral production processes relative to conventional processes. The analysis reveals that the current regime of free allocation is vulnerable to challenges under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. By contrast, the combination of free allocation and a charge on carbon-intensive materials would ensure consistent carbon pricing and thus would not amount to a subsidy under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. In a similar vein, the carbon contracts for difference could be designed so that they would not confer a benefit and hence not constitute a subsidy.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136378143","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}
This article investigates the potential of global value chain (GVC)-orientated sustainability provisions in regional and bilateral trade agreements (FTAs). Such provisions impose social and environmental obligations directly onto GVCs, as opposed to creating obligations for governments. The theoretical potential of GVC provisions is examined, and the concepts of effectiveness and legitimacy are introduced as values by which to assess them. Four recent sets of provisions are then scrutinized. These are (i) palm oil sustainability standards from the Indonesia–European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Comprehensive Economic Partnerhsip Agreement (CEPA) FTA, (ii) hen welfare standards in the European Union–Mercosur Association Agreement, (iii) a stipulation of a minimum average wage for the automobile industry in the US–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), and (iv) enforcement of collective bargaining and freedom of association directly against factories, also in the USMCA. All of these provisions are found to have significant deficiencies. At the same time, it is argued that three different governance models underpin them, namely (i) third-party certification schemes, (ii) domestic regulations of one of the parties, and (iii) bespoke arrangements created for the FTA in question. The article therefore considers the potential and drawbacks of each governance model in terms of their effectiveness and legitimacy, as well as alternative and complementary commitments including unilateral measures and subject-specific trade agreements.
{"title":"Trade Agreements and Sustainability: Exploring the Potential of Global Value Chain (GVC) Obligations","authors":"J. Harrison","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgac057","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac057","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article investigates the potential of global value chain (GVC)-orientated sustainability provisions in regional and bilateral trade agreements (FTAs). Such provisions impose social and environmental obligations directly onto GVCs, as opposed to creating obligations for governments. The theoretical potential of GVC provisions is examined, and the concepts of effectiveness and legitimacy are introduced as values by which to assess them. Four recent sets of provisions are then scrutinized. These are (i) palm oil sustainability standards from the Indonesia–European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Comprehensive Economic Partnerhsip Agreement (CEPA) FTA, (ii) hen welfare standards in the European Union–Mercosur Association Agreement, (iii) a stipulation of a minimum average wage for the automobile industry in the US–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), and (iv) enforcement of collective bargaining and freedom of association directly against factories, also in the USMCA. All of these provisions are found to have significant deficiencies. At the same time, it is argued that three different governance models underpin them, namely (i) third-party certification schemes, (ii) domestic regulations of one of the parties, and (iii) bespoke arrangements created for the FTA in question. The article therefore considers the potential and drawbacks of each governance model in terms of their effectiveness and legitimacy, as well as alternative and complementary commitments including unilateral measures and subject-specific trade agreements.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46912053","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}
ABSTRACT There is a growing view among both governments and commentators, especially in the West, that China engages in acts of trade coercion which violate the law and spirit of the multilateral trading system. And while there is a developing literature discussing this issue, the debate currently lacks clarity about how China’s approach differs from other types of coercion which do not inspire the same backlash. This article advances the literature by suggesting that Chinese trade coercion is particularly threatening to the rules-based system (RBS) as it uses methods that had largely been eradicated under the GATT/WTO system. Chinese trade coercion therefore represents a “new” and important phenomenon in international trade as it uses coercion for strategic purposes, usually as retaliation for perceived affronts in matters unrelated to trade. We label this approach “passive-aggressive legalism” because, rather than relying on open dialogue to resolve diplomatic frictions, China implements informal and “plausibly deniable” retaliatory measures to indirectly make its displeasure known and felt. The article concludes by making broader claims about why China’s approach represents a threat to the WTO system and may even undermine the effectiveness of rules-based constraints in other domains of global regulation.
{"title":"The Use of Trade Coercion and China’s Model of ‘Passive-Aggressive Legalism’","authors":"Ben Czapnik, Bryan Mercurio","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgac055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac055","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT There is a growing view among both governments and commentators, especially in the West, that China engages in acts of trade coercion which violate the law and spirit of the multilateral trading system. And while there is a developing literature discussing this issue, the debate currently lacks clarity about how China’s approach differs from other types of coercion which do not inspire the same backlash. This article advances the literature by suggesting that Chinese trade coercion is particularly threatening to the rules-based system (RBS) as it uses methods that had largely been eradicated under the GATT/WTO system. Chinese trade coercion therefore represents a “new” and important phenomenon in international trade as it uses coercion for strategic purposes, usually as retaliation for perceived affronts in matters unrelated to trade. We label this approach “passive-aggressive legalism” because, rather than relying on open dialogue to resolve diplomatic frictions, China implements informal and “plausibly deniable” retaliatory measures to indirectly make its displeasure known and felt. The article concludes by making broader claims about why China’s approach represents a threat to the WTO system and may even undermine the effectiveness of rules-based constraints in other domains of global regulation.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134902885","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}
ABSTRACT This article discusses the methodology used in the quantification of the level of authorized countermeasures in trade disputes settled under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO)’s dispute settlement system. It discusses the legal framework pertaining to the quantification of the level of the remedies provided for under the WTO agreements in case of failure by the respondent to timely comply with the rulings and recommendations of the Dispute Settlement Body and where no agreement on compensation is reached: suspension of concessions and countermeasures. It analyzes whether the current understanding of ‘damage’ in WTO law is consistent with the prevailing economic reality and suggests an alternate interpretation that would account for value actually added on the territory of the complainant as a basis for quantification of the level of countermeasures. Finally, the article responds to ‘pragmatic’ arguments advanced by those who conceptually oppose to a methodological reform that would authorize countermeasures based on the share of value-added attributable to the complainant rather than on the gross amount of exports of the good affected by the impugned measure.
{"title":"From Bananas to Large Civil Aircraft: An On-Going Quest for Value-Added in the Computation of Countermeasures at the WTO","authors":"Marc-Antoine Couet","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgac056","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac056","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article discusses the methodology used in the quantification of the level of authorized countermeasures in trade disputes settled under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO)’s dispute settlement system. It discusses the legal framework pertaining to the quantification of the level of the remedies provided for under the WTO agreements in case of failure by the respondent to timely comply with the rulings and recommendations of the Dispute Settlement Body and where no agreement on compensation is reached: suspension of concessions and countermeasures. It analyzes whether the current understanding of ‘damage’ in WTO law is consistent with the prevailing economic reality and suggests an alternate interpretation that would account for value actually added on the territory of the complainant as a basis for quantification of the level of countermeasures. Finally, the article responds to ‘pragmatic’ arguments advanced by those who conceptually oppose to a methodological reform that would authorize countermeasures based on the share of value-added attributable to the complainant rather than on the gross amount of exports of the good affected by the impugned measure.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135276889","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}
ABSTRACT The future of investment law has in store fundamental shifts, not incremental changes, in three substantive issue areas, which pose immense challenges to the system as it currently stands, namely, climate change, national security, and investor obligations. This article describes those challenges and argues that for these shifts to be accommodated, abolition is not desirable, but reform is necessary and urgent. It suggests procedural ways forward.
{"title":"Investment Law in the Twenty-First Century: Things Will Have to Change in Order to Remain the Same","authors":"Anne van Aaken","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgac054","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac054","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The future of investment law has in store fundamental shifts, not incremental changes, in three substantive issue areas, which pose immense challenges to the system as it currently stands, namely, climate change, national security, and investor obligations. This article describes those challenges and argues that for these shifts to be accommodated, abolition is not desirable, but reform is necessary and urgent. It suggests procedural ways forward.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135276885","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 original ‘building blocks or stumbling blocks’ debate considered the positive and negative impacts on the multilateral trading system in the form of the World Trade Organization (WTO) of free trade agreements (FTAs) at a time when FTAs were primarily bilateral and/or regional. This article recasts the debate in light of modern realities. Since the collapse of the Doha Round, WTO Members have increasingly formed FTAs with more than one large economy; plurilateral as well as bilateral groupings; and agreements including WTO-plus commitments. Further, Members have pursued plurilateral subject-specific negotiations both outside the WTO such as the Trade in Services Agreement and within, in the form of Joint Statement Initiatives. The article assesses from General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade formation to the present the extent to which the full range of trade agreements have facilitated experimentation and to which such agreements have had a fragmenting impact on the WTO. While the answers to these questions are nuanced, what is clear is that Members who wish to liberalize more deeply than other Members will find a way to do so outside the WTO rather than abandoning their objectives. As such, the debate today is no longer whether bilateral or regional FTAs are good or bad for a single undertaking-based multilateral WTO. Instead, we must weigh whether it is preferable for new plurilateral initiatives to be accommodated within the WTO at the expense of strict consensus or to reject such initiatives with the understanding that powerful Members will instead to pursue their objectives in plurilateral arrangements outside the WTO.
{"title":"International Trade Agreements: Laboratories of Innovation or Propellers of Fragmentation?","authors":"Meredith Kolsky Lewis","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgac050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac050","url":null,"abstract":"The original ‘building blocks or stumbling blocks’ debate considered the positive and negative impacts on the multilateral trading system in the form of the World Trade Organization (WTO) of free trade agreements (FTAs) at a time when FTAs were primarily bilateral and/or regional. This article recasts the debate in light of modern realities. Since the collapse of the Doha Round, WTO Members have increasingly formed FTAs with more than one large economy; plurilateral as well as bilateral groupings; and agreements including WTO-plus commitments. Further, Members have pursued plurilateral subject-specific negotiations both outside the WTO such as the Trade in Services Agreement and within, in the form of Joint Statement Initiatives. The article assesses from General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade formation to the present the extent to which the full range of trade agreements have facilitated experimentation and to which such agreements have had a fragmenting impact on the WTO. While the answers to these questions are nuanced, what is clear is that Members who wish to liberalize more deeply than other Members will find a way to do so outside the WTO rather than abandoning their objectives. As such, the debate today is no longer whether bilateral or regional FTAs are good or bad for a single undertaking-based multilateral WTO. Instead, we must weigh whether it is preferable for new plurilateral initiatives to be accommodated within the WTO at the expense of strict consensus or to reject such initiatives with the understanding that powerful Members will instead to pursue their objectives in plurilateral arrangements outside the WTO.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138531660","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}
This article explores the ‘Trade and …’ ‘Debate’ in the context of trade and environment issues. It provides an explanation of the evolution of discussions of such issues in a non-dispute settlement context, using developments in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ integration efforts as illustrations. It also highlights a number of opportunities for trade and environment collaboration in negotiations for free trade agreement and Digital Economy Partnership Agreements.
这篇文章探讨了在贸易和环境问题的背景下“贸易和……”的“辩论”。它以东南亚国家联盟(Association of Southeast Asian Nations)一体化努力的发展为例，解释了在非争端解决背景下对这些问题讨论的演变。它还强调了自由贸易协定和数字经济伙伴关系协定谈判中贸易和环境合作的一些机会。
{"title":"The Evolution of the ‘Trade and …’ ‘Debate’—A View from ASEAN","authors":"Locknie Hsu","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgac051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac051","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the ‘Trade and …’ ‘Debate’ in the context of trade and environment issues. It provides an explanation of the evolution of discussions of such issues in a non-dispute settlement context, using developments in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ integration efforts as illustrations. It also highlights a number of opportunities for trade and environment collaboration in negotiations for free trade agreement and Digital Economy Partnership Agreements.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138531659","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：