免除最不发达国家的边境碳调整:经济上简单,法律上复杂

IF 2.2 3区 社会学 Q2 ECONOMICS
Sunayana Sasmal, Dongzhe Zhang, Emily Lydgate, L. A. Winters
{"title":"免除最不发达国家的边境碳调整:经济上简单,法律上复杂","authors":"Sunayana Sasmal, Dongzhe Zhang, Emily Lydgate, L. A. Winters","doi":"10.1017/s1474745624000132","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The EU has introduced a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which extends its carbon prices to imported products in some sectors. Increasingly considered by other countries, such border carbon adjustments (BCAs) are facing a global backlash against the lack of consideration of the adverse impacts on developing countries and particularly, least developed countries (LDCs). This article first argues that small overall import volumes support the conclusion that exempting or lessening BCA requirements from LDCs would not undermine developed countries' climate-related objectives in practical terms. An economic analysis of EU and UK trade in relation to a CBAM supports this assertion. However, legally, such an exemption or development-based preferential treatment is difficult under existing multilateral trade rules and jurisprudence, owing to the legal characterization and objectives of BCAs; their interaction with existing special and differential treatment (SDT) provisions; and complexity of available policy options. We thus highlight the gap between normative aims of SDT provisions to support development, and current WTO law and jurisprudence which expose WTO members providing preferential treatment to allegations of discrimination. With increasing unilateral climate action, an inability to integrate SDT more meaningfully into WTO non-discrimination frameworks risks further weakening of international cooperation on climate and trade.","PeriodicalId":46109,"journal":{"name":"World Trade Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exempting Least Developed Countries from Border Carbon Adjustments: Simple Economically but Complex Legally\",\"authors\":\"Sunayana Sasmal, Dongzhe Zhang, Emily Lydgate, L. A. Winters\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s1474745624000132\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The EU has introduced a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which extends its carbon prices to imported products in some sectors. Increasingly considered by other countries, such border carbon adjustments (BCAs) are facing a global backlash against the lack of consideration of the adverse impacts on developing countries and particularly, least developed countries (LDCs). This article first argues that small overall import volumes support the conclusion that exempting or lessening BCA requirements from LDCs would not undermine developed countries' climate-related objectives in practical terms. An economic analysis of EU and UK trade in relation to a CBAM supports this assertion. However, legally, such an exemption or development-based preferential treatment is difficult under existing multilateral trade rules and jurisprudence, owing to the legal characterization and objectives of BCAs; their interaction with existing special and differential treatment (SDT) provisions; and complexity of available policy options. We thus highlight the gap between normative aims of SDT provisions to support development, and current WTO law and jurisprudence which expose WTO members providing preferential treatment to allegations of discrimination. With increasing unilateral climate action, an inability to integrate SDT more meaningfully into WTO non-discrimination frameworks risks further weakening of international cooperation on climate and trade.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46109,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Trade Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Trade Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1474745624000132\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Trade Review","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1474745624000132","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

欧盟引入了碳边境调整机制(CBAM),将其碳价格扩展至某些行业的进口产品。其他国家也越来越多地考虑这种边境碳调整机制,但由于没有考虑到对发展中国家,尤其是最不发达国家(LDCs)的不利影响,这种机制正面临着全球性的反弹。本文首先论证了进口总量较小这一结论,即免除或减少最不发达国家的边境碳调整要求不会损害发达国家与气候相关的实际目标。对欧盟和英国与《生物多样性公约》相关贸易的经济分析支持了这一论断。然而,从法律上讲,根据现有的多边贸易规则和判例,这种豁免或基于发展的优惠待遇是困难的,原因包括:《生物多样性公约》的法律特征和目标;其与现有特殊和差别待遇(SDT)条款的相互作用;以及现有政策选择的复杂性。因此,我们强调了特殊和差别待遇条款支持发展的规范性目标与现行世贸组织法律和判例之间的差距,后者使提供优惠待遇的世贸组织成员面临歧视指控。随着单边气候行动的增加,如果不能将特殊和差别待遇更有意义地纳入世贸组织的非歧视框架,就有可能进一步削弱气候和贸易方面的国际合作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exempting Least Developed Countries from Border Carbon Adjustments: Simple Economically but Complex Legally
The EU has introduced a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which extends its carbon prices to imported products in some sectors. Increasingly considered by other countries, such border carbon adjustments (BCAs) are facing a global backlash against the lack of consideration of the adverse impacts on developing countries and particularly, least developed countries (LDCs). This article first argues that small overall import volumes support the conclusion that exempting or lessening BCA requirements from LDCs would not undermine developed countries' climate-related objectives in practical terms. An economic analysis of EU and UK trade in relation to a CBAM supports this assertion. However, legally, such an exemption or development-based preferential treatment is difficult under existing multilateral trade rules and jurisprudence, owing to the legal characterization and objectives of BCAs; their interaction with existing special and differential treatment (SDT) provisions; and complexity of available policy options. We thus highlight the gap between normative aims of SDT provisions to support development, and current WTO law and jurisprudence which expose WTO members providing preferential treatment to allegations of discrimination. With increasing unilateral climate action, an inability to integrate SDT more meaningfully into WTO non-discrimination frameworks risks further weakening of international cooperation on climate and trade.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
World Trade Review
World Trade Review Multiple-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
41
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信