The overlap between the UN climate regime and the world trade organization: Lessons for climate governance beyond 2012

Global Climate Governance beyond 2012: Architecture, Agency and Adaptation

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 79-96

  Zelli, Fariborz ^a   Van Asselt, Harro ^b  

^a GERMAN DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE   (Germany)

^b INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84870183401     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139107150.008     Document Type: Chapter

References (60)

1. ADAM (Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies: Supporting European Climate Policy) and UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) 2008. International Workshop on Post- 2012 Climate and Trade Policies, Geneva, 8-9 September 2008. Workshop summary. www.unep.ch/etb/events/International%20Workshop%20CC%20and%20Trade%20Policies%20Sept%202008/ADAM-UNEP%20workshop%20summary.pdf.
2. Asselt, H. van and F. Biermann 2007. ‘European emissions trading and the international competitiveness of energy-intensive industries: a legal and political evaluation of possible supporting measures’, Energy Policy 35: 497-506.
3. Asselt, H. van, T. Brewer and M. Mehling 2009. Addressing Leakage and Competitiveness in US Climate Policy: Issues concerning Border Adjustment Measures. Cambridge, UK: Climate Strategies.
4. Asselt, H. van, N. van der Grijp and F. Oosterhuis 2006. ‘Greener public purchasing: opportunities for climate-friendly government procurement under WTO and EU rules’, Climate Policy 6: 217-229.
5. Bhagwati, J. and P. C. Mavroidis 2007. ‘Is action against US exports for failure to sign Kyoto Protocol WTO-legal?’, World Trade Review 6: 299-310.
6. Biermann, F. and R. Brohm 2005. ‘Implementing the Kyoto Protocol without the United States: the strategic role of energy tax adjustments at the border’, Climate Policy 4: 289-302.
7. Brack, D., M. Grubb and C. Windram 2000. International Trade and Climate Change Policies. London: Earthscan.
8. Brewer, T. L. 2003. ‘The trade regime and the climate regime: institutional evolution and adaptation’, Climate Policy 3: 329-341.
9. Brewer, T. L. 2004. ‘The WTO and the Kyoto Protocol: interaction issues’, Climate Policy4: 3-12.
10. Brewer, T. L. 2008a. Climate Change Policies and Trade Policies: The New Joint Agenda, background paper for UNEP Expert Meeting, Geneva: United Nations Environment Programme.
11. Brewer, T. L. 2008b. ‘Climate change technology transfer: a new paradigm and policy agenda’, Climate Policy 8: 516-526.
12. Cesar, H. and A. de Zeeuw 1996. ‘Issue linkage in global environmental problems’, in A. Xepapadeas (ed.), Economic Policy for the Environment and Natural Resources. Cheltenham, uK: Edward Elgar, pp. 158-173.
13. Chambers, W. B. (ed.) 2001a. Inter-Linkages: The Kyoto Protocol and the International Trade and Investment Regimes. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
14. Chambers, W. B. 2001b. ‘International trade law and the Kyoto Protocol: potential incompatibilities’, in W. B. Chambers (ed.) Inter-Linkages: The Kyoto Protocol and the International Trade and Investment Regimes. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, pp. 87-118.
15. Charnovitz, S. 2003. ‘Trade and climate: potential conflicts and synergies’, in E. Diringer (ed.), Beyond Kyoto: Advancing the International Effort against Climate Change. Arlington, VA: Pew Center on Global Climate Change, pp. 141-170.
16. Climate Strategies 2008. International Cooperation to Limit the Use of Border Adjustment, workshop summary, South Center, Geneva, 10 September 2008. Cambridge, UK: Climate Strategies.
17. Cosbey, A. and R. Tarasofsky 2007. Climate Change, Competitiveness and Trade, a Chatham House report. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.
18. Eckersley, R. 2004. ‘The big chill: the WTO and multilateral environmental agreements’, Global Environmental Politics 4: 24-40.
19. Folmer, H., P. Von Mouche and S. E. Ragland 1993. ‘Interconnected games and international environmental problems’, Environment and Resources Economics 3: 313-335.
20. Frankel, J. 2005. ‘Climate and trade: links between the Kyoto Protocol and WTO’, Environment 47: 8-19.
21. Gehring, T. and S. Oberthur 2006. ‘Comparative empirical analysis and ideal types of institutional interaction’, in S. Oberthur and T. Gehring (eds.), Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance: Synergy and Conflict among International and EU Policies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 307-371.
22. Haas, E. B. 1980. ‘Why collaborate? Issue-linkage and international regimes’, World Politics 32: 357-402.
23. Harashima, Y. 2008. ‘Trade and environment negotiations in the WTO: Asian perspectives’, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 8: 17-34.
24. Haverkamp, J. 2001. ‘The conflict between the WTO and MEAs: in the view of the U.S. government, only a theoretical problem’, in Heinrich Boll Foundation (ed.), Trade and Environment, the WTO, and MEAs: Facets of a Complex Relationship. Washington, DC: Heinrich Boll Foundation Washington Office, pp. 5-11.
25. Henry, L. A. and L. Sundstrom 2007. ‘Russia and the Kyoto Protocol: seeking an alignment of interests and image’, Global Environmental Politics 7: 47-69.
26. Howse, R. and A. Eliason (2009). ‘Domestic and international strategies to address climate change: an overview of the WTO legal issues’, in T. Cottier, O. Nartova and S. Bigdeli (eds.), International Trade Regulation and the Mitigation of Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 48-94.
27. ICTSD (International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development) 2007. Trade in Environmental Goods and Services and Sustainable Development: Domestic Considerations and Strategies for WTO Negotiations, ICTSD Policy Discussion Paper. Geneva: ICTSD.
28. ICTSD 2008a. ‘Progress over next two weeks critical to Ministerial prospects’, Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest 12(24).
29. ICTSD 2008b. ‘WTO Panel rules against EU import ban in beef hormone case: both sides claim victory’, Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest 12(11).
30. ICTSD 2008c. ‘TRIPS Council once again marked by divisions over disclosure amendment’, Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest 12(10).
31. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 2001. Climate Change 2001:Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC
32. Ismer, R. and K. Neuhoff 2007. ‘Border tax adjustment: a feasible way to support stringent emission trading’, European Journal of Law and Economics 24: 137-164.
33. Jha, V. 2008. Environmental Priorities and Trade Policies for Environmental Goods: A Reality Check, ICTSD Issue Paper No. 7. Geneva: ICTSD.
34. Kim, J. A. 2001. ‘Institutions in conflict? The climate change flexibility mechanisms and the multinational trading system’, Global Environmental Change 11: 251-255.
35. Knopf, B. and O. Edenhofer 2010 (in press). ‘The economics of low stabilisation: implications for technological change and policy’, in M. Hulme andH. Neufeldt (eds.), Making Climate Change Work for Us: European Perspectives on Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
36. Kommerskollegium (Swedish National Board of Trade) 2004. Climate and Trade Rules: Harmony or Conflict? Stockholm: Kommerskollegium.
37. Linner, B.-O. 2006. ‘Authority through synergism: the roles of climate change linkages’, European Environment 16: 278-289.
38. Littleton, M. 2008. The TRIPS Agreement and Transfer of Climate-Change-Related Technologies to Developing Countries, Working Paper No. 71. Doc. No. ST/ESA/ 2008/DWP/71. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
39. Martin, M. A. 2007. ‘Trade law implications of restricting participation in the European Union emissions trading scheme’, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 19: 437-474.
40. Meyer-Ohlendorf, N. and C. Gerstetter 2009. Trade and Climate Change: Triggers or Barriers for Climate Friendly Technology Transfer and Development, Dialogue on Globalization Occasional Paper No. 41. Berlin: Ecologic.
41. Neumann, J. 2002. Die Koordination des WTO-Rechts mit anderen volkerrechtlichenOrdnungen: Konflikte des materiellen Rechts und Konkurrenzen der Streitbeilegung. Berlin: Duncker and Humblot.
42. Oberthur, S. 2006. ‘The climate change regime: interactions with ICAO, IMO, and the EU burden-sharing agreement’, in S. Oberthur and T. Gehring (eds.), Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance: Synergy and Conflict among International and EU Policies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 53-78.
43. Palmer, A. and R. Tarasofsky 2007. The Doha Round and Beyond: Towards a Lasting Relationship between the WTO and the International Environmental Regime, a Chatham House report. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.
44. Pauwelyn, J. 2007. US Federal Climate Policy and Competitiveness Concerns: The Limits and Options of International Trade Law, Nicholas Institute Working Paper 07-02. Durham, NC: Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University.
45. Petsonk, A. 1999. ‘The Kyoto Protocol and the WTO: integrating greenhouse gas emission allowance trading into the global marketplace’, Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum 10: 185-220.
46. Quick, R. 2008. ‘“Border tax adjustment” in the context of emissions trading: climate protection or “naked” protectionism?’, Global Trade and Customs Journal 3: 163-175.
47. Sampson, G. P. 2001. ‘WTO rules and climate change: the need for policy coherence’, in W. B. Chambers (ed.), Inter-Linkages: The Kyoto Protocol and the International Trade and Investment Regimes. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, pp. 69-85.
48. Santarius, T., H. Dalkmann, M. Steigenberger and K. Vogelpohl 2004. Balancing Trade and Environment: An Ecological Reform of the WTO as a Challenge in Sustainable Global Governance. Wuppertal: Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment, and Energy.
49. Stilwell, M. T. and E. Tuerk 1999. Trade Measures and Multilateral Agreements: Resolving Uncertainty and Removing the WTO Chill Factor, discussion paper. Gland, Switzerland: WWF International.
50. Stokke, O. S. 2004. ‘Trade measures and climate compliance: institutional interplay between WTO and the Marrakesh Accords’, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 4: 339-357.
51. Subbarao, P. S. 2008. International Technology Transfer to India An Impedimenta and Impetuous, IIM Working Paper No. 2008-01-07. Ahmedabad: Indian Institute of Management.
52. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) and ADAM (Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies: Supporting European Climate Policy) 2010. Climate and Trade Policies in a Post-2012 World. Geneva: United Nations Environment Programme.
53. Voigt, C. 2008. ‘WTO Law and international emissions trading: is there potential for conflict?’, Carbon and Climate Law Review 2: 54-66.
54. Vranes, E. 2006. ‘The definition of “norm conflict” in international law and legal theory’, European Journal of International Law 17: 395-418.
55. Werksman, J. 2001. ‘Greenhouse-gas emissions trading and the WTO’, in W. B. Chambers (ed.), Inter-Linkages: The Kyoto Protocol and the International Trade and Investment Regimes. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, pp. 153-90.
56. World Bank 2008. International Trade and Climate Change: Economic, Legal, and Institutional Perspectives. Washington, DC: World Bank.
57. Yamin, F. and J. Depledge 2004. The International Climate Change Regime: A Guide to Rules, Institutions and Procedures. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
58. Zelli, F. 2007. ‘The World Trade Organization: free trade and its environmental impacts’, in K. V. Thai, D. Rahm and J. D. Coggburn (eds.), Handbook of Globalization and the Environment. London: Taylor and Francis, pp. 177-216.
59. Zelli, F. 2008. Regime Conflicts in Global Environmental Governance: A Framework for Analysis, Global Governance Working Paper No. 36. Amsterdam: The Global Governance Project.
60. Zurn, M. 1990. ‘Intra-German trade: an early East-West regime’, in V. Rittberger (ed.), International Regimes in East-West Politics. London: Pinter, pp. 151-188.