当前位置: X-MOL 学术World Trade Review › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Trade and Climate, Law and Politics: A Response
World Trade Review ( IF 2.2 ) Pub Date : 2021-07-29 , DOI: 10.1017/s1474745621000422
Timothy Meyer 1 , Todd N. Tucker 2
Affiliation  

We are grateful to Simon Lester for responding to our piece, ‘A Pragmatic Approach to Carbon Border Measures’ and its companion policy proposal, ‘A Green Steel Deal: Towards a Pro-Jobs, Pro-Climate Transatlantic Cooperation on Carbon Border Measures.’ We are heartened to find ourselves broadly in agreement with Lester on the need for WTO rules to offer states greater flexibility to pursue legitimate policy objectives. This agreement is part of a broadening consensus that the WTO Appellate Body interpreted the combination of nondiscrimination rules and exceptions in a narrow and technical fashion that ultimately has made it difficult for governments to comply with their WTO commitments while simultaneously addressing existential threats like climate change. People who hold this general view may differ on how to solve this problem. Our view is that the Appellate Body interpreted the element of ‘likeness’ in the WTO’s nondiscrimination rules in an expansive way, disregarding the aim of a government’s measure in drawing distinctions among products. At the same time, the Appellate Body suggested in EC–Asbestos that it would interpret nondiscrimination treatment standards to permit governments to draw distinctions among products without violating WTO rules. The Appellate Body’s reasoning in subsequent disputes left that promise unfulfilled, emphasizing how a government’s measure alters the conditions of competition, rather than why it does so. Nondiscrimination principles applicable to the GATT Article XX exceptions through that article’s chapeau have extended the difficulty to exceptions. Thus, even if one agrees that the Appellate Body’s direction of travel in interpreting the GATT’s exceptions – towards broader acceptance of governments’ legitimate policy objectives –was correct, one might still feel that the Appellate Body ultimately failed to show sufficient deference to national regulators pursuing legitimate objectives. Our disagreements with Lester are less about WTO law and more about the politics of integrating climate into trade policy. We understand Lester’s two principal arguments. First, the climate problem could be solved more directly if politicians (especially in the United States) told the truth about the climate problem. Second, the United States cannot rely on Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act to impose trade-related climate measures without

中文翻译:

贸易与气候、法律与政治:回应

我们感谢西蒙·莱斯特(Simon Lester)对我们的文章“碳边界措施的务实方法”及其配套政策提案“绿色钢铁交易:迈向有利于就业、有利于气候的跨大西洋碳边界措施合作”的回应。我们很高兴地发现自己与莱斯特广泛同意 WTO 规则需要为各国提供更大的灵活性来追求合法的政策目标。该协议是广泛共识的一部分,即 WTO 上诉机构以狭隘和技术性的方式解释非歧视规则和例外的组合,最终使政府难以在遵守其 WTO 承诺的同时应对气候变化等生存威胁。持有这种普遍观点的人可能对如何解决这个问题有不同的看法。我们的观点是,上诉机构对世贸组织非歧视规则中的“相似”要素进行了广泛的解释,忽视了政府在产品之间进行区分的措施的目的。同时,上诉机构在 EC-Asbestos 中建议,它将解释非歧视待遇标准,以允许政府在不违反 WTO 规则的情况下对产品进行区分。上诉机构在随后的争议中的推理并未兑现承诺,强调政府的措施如何改变竞争条件,而不是为什么这样做。通过该条的起首部分适用于 GATT 第 20 条例外的非歧视原则将困难扩大到例外。因此,即使人们同意上诉机构在解释关贸总协定例外情况方面的行动方向——更广泛地接受政府的合法政策目标——是正确的,人们仍可能认为上诉机构最终未能对追求合法目标的国家监管机构表现出足够的尊重. 我们与莱斯特的分歧不是关于 WTO 法律,而是更多关于将气候纳入贸易政策的政治。我们理解莱斯特的两个主要论点。首先,如果政治家(尤其是美国)说出气候问题的真相,气候问题可以得到更直接的解决。其次,美国不能依靠《贸易扩张法》第 232 条在不实施与贸易相关的气候措施的情况下实施 人们可能仍然认为上诉机构最终未能对追求合法目标的国家监管机构表现出足够的尊重。我们与莱斯特的分歧不是关于 WTO 法律,而是更多关于将气候纳入贸易政策的政治。我们理解莱斯特的两个主要论点。首先,如果政治家(尤其是美国)说出气候问题的真相,气候问题可以得到更直接的解决。其次,美国不能依靠《贸易扩张法》第 232 条在不实施与贸易相关的气候措施的情况下实施 人们可能仍然认为上诉机构最终未能对追求合法目标的国家监管机构表现出足够的尊重。我们与莱斯特的分歧不是关于 WTO 法律,而是更多关于将气候纳入贸易政策的政治。我们理解莱斯特的两个主要论点。首先,如果政治家(尤其是美国)说出气候问题的真相,气候问题可以得到更直接的解决。其次,美国不能依靠《贸易扩张法》第 232 条在不实施与贸易相关的气候措施的情况下实施 我们理解莱斯特的两个主要论点。首先,如果政治家(尤其是美国)说出气候问题的真相,气候问题可以得到更直接的解决。其次,美国不能依靠《贸易扩张法》第 232 条在不实施与贸易相关的气候措施的情况下实施 我们理解莱斯特的两个主要论点。首先,如果政治家(尤其是美国)说出气候问题的真相,气候问题可以得到更直接的解决。其次,美国不能依靠《贸易扩张法》第 232 条在不实施与贸易相关的气候措施的情况下实施
更新日期:2021-07-29
down
wechat
bug