EU–Biodiesel (Indonesia) is the latest in two lines of cases. On the one hand, the case offers yet another example of the Dispute Settlement Body striking down creative interpretations of antidumping rules by developed countries. Applying the Appellate Body's decision in EU–Biodiesel (Argentina), the panel found that the EU could not use antidumping duties to counteract the effects of Indonesia's export tax on palm oil. On the other hand, the decision is another chapter in the battle over renewable energy markets. Both the EU and Indonesia had intervened in their markets to promote the development of domestic biodiesel industries. The panel's decision prevents the EU from using antidumping duties to preserve market opportunities created by its Renewable Energy Directive for its domestic biodiesel producers. The EU has responded in two ways. First, through regulations that disfavor palm-based biodiesel, but not biodiesel made from from other foodstocks, such as rapeseed oil commonly produced in the EU. Second, the EU has imposed countervailing duties on Indonesian biodiesel, finding that Indonesia's export tax on crude palm oil constitutes a subsidy to Indonesian biodiesel producers. The EU's apparently inelastic demand for protection raises two questions: First, when domestic political bargains rest on both protectionist and non-protectionist motives and policies have both protectionist and non-protectonist effects, what are the welfare consequences of restraining only overt protectionism? Second, under what circumstances may regulatory approaches be even less desirable than duties for addressing combined protectionist and environmental interests, and would the WTO have the right powers to discipline them in an environmentally sound way?

中文翻译：

---

生物柴油贸易中的浸信会和盗版者：欧盟-生物柴油（印度尼西亚）

欧盟-生物柴油（印度尼西亚）是两行案例中最新的。一方面，该案为争端解决机构打击发达国家对反倾销规则的创造性解释提供了又一个例子。将上诉机构的决定应用于欧盟-生物柴油（阿根廷），专家组发现，欧盟不能使用反倾销税来抵消印度尼西亚对棕榈油征收出口税的影响。另一方面，这一决定是可再生能源市场争夺战的又一章。欧盟和印度尼西亚都对各自的市场进行了干预，以促进国内生物柴油产业的发展。该小组的决定阻止欧盟使用反倾销税来保护其可再生能源指令为其国内生物柴油生产商创造的市场机会。欧盟以两种方式作出回应。首先，通过不利于棕榈基生物柴油的法规，而不是由其他食品原料制成的生物柴油，例如欧盟通常生产的菜籽油。二是欧盟对印尼生物柴油征收反补贴税，认定印尼“ 对毛棕榈油征收的出口税构成对印度尼西亚生物柴油生产商的补贴。欧盟显然缺乏弹性的保护需求引发了两个问题：首先，当国内政治交易同时基于保护主义和非保护主义动机且政策同时具有保护主义和非保护主义效果时，仅限制公开保护主义的福利后果是什么？其次，在什么情况下，监管方法可能比针对保护主义和环境利益的共同责任更不可取，世贸组织是否有权以无害环境的方式对它们进行约束？当国内的政治交易既依赖于保护主义的动机，也依赖于非保护主义的动机，而政策既有保护主义的效果，也有非保护主义的效果，那么仅仅限制公开的保护主义会带来什么福利后果？其次，在什么情况下，监管方法可能比针对保护主义和环境利益的共同责任更不可取，世贸组织是否有权以无害环境的方式对它们进行约束？当国内的政治交易既依赖于保护主义的动机，也依赖于非保护主义的动机，而政策既有保护主义的效果，也有非保护主义的效果，那么仅仅限制公开的保护主义会带来什么福利后果？其次，在什么情况下，监管方法可能比针对保护主义和环境利益的共同责任更不可取，世贸组织是否有权以无害环境的方式对它们进行约束？