International Law Outline

Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – 1997 (816-18)

Download 320.5 Kb.
Size320.5 Kb.
1   ...   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   ...   128
Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – 1997 (816-18)

  1. Article 3 – individual targets – but understood emissions reductions would be costly, so created FLEXIBILITY in meeting the targets

    1. Financial incentives for Annex I states – use/improve natural resources to absorb emissions

      1. if you create project that reduces emissions, you can then trade/sell that off

      2. Annex I states working together (Article 6)

    2. Developed countries can invest in developing countries to help them meet emissions goals, and get credit towards their own compliance (article 12)

    3. Emissions trading (article 17)

  2. Trying to up compliance - Reporting requirements expanded, expert-review teams

  • Post-Kyoto

    1. 1999 – Buenos Aires – work plan over remaining issues

      1. Extent to which Annex I states can meet commitments by trading/undertaking projects in other states?

        1. EU wants to cap trading at 50% of required reductions

        2. US and others – no limits in text about trading

          1. Helps meet goals most efficiently

      2. Are reduction mechanisms really going above and beyond what would have occurred absent trade/investment?

        1. Russian economic crisis – going to have a lot of excess credits. Should we be able to buy them?

      3. What to do about noncompliance?

        1. Legally binding OR political approach?

    2. 2000 – Hague meeting

      1. Unable to reach agreement

    3. 2001 – US announces US won’t ratify Kyoto Protocol

      1. United countries around Kyoto, galvanized into action.

    4. 2002 – Bonn Convention

      1. Adopted rules governing CDM

      2. Created executive board to oversee CDM

      3. Supplemental mechanisms (CDM, international emissions trading, and JI regime) must be less than domestic actions

      4. Created Compliance Committee

        1. Facilitative branch and enforcement branch

    5. Marrakesh Accords – set out agreements reached in Bonn.

    6. 2005 – Kyoto entered into FORCE, and became legally binding.

      1. Only four developed states have not ratified – Australia, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and US

      2. BUT, since US is absent, and control lacking over developing countries – applies to LESS THAN A THIRD of global emissions

    7. Copenhagen – Dec. 2009

      1. Problem is MONEY.

      2. Not going to come to resolution here, but climate change IS on int’l agenda

  • Session 22 –Balancing Trade and Environment (International Economic Law, Part One)

    1. Historical Development of International Economic Law

      1. 1945 – UN Charter

        1. Premised on idea that economic development would eliminate conflict, contribute to improved standards of living

      2. 1947 – Havana Conference

        1. Established plan to create International Trade Organization (ITO), supposed to have extensive functions

        2. Adopted General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT)

      3. US doesn’t like GATT, ITO never established

        1. However, GATT then turned into organization

          1. SOFT organization

            1. Set up PANELS to resolve disputes

              1. Only binding if adopted by ENTIRE GATT executive body – CONSENSUS

      4. 1980s – Uruguay Round – rolling negotiations to try to liberalize world trade rules

        1. Had to wait until end of Cold War.

      5. 1994 – WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION created.

        1. Panel decisions binding and Appellate body rulings binding

          1. UNLESS rejected by consensus

    2. Premise of Trade Law

      1. There will always be reasons why states want to restrict trade. A lot of those reasons are purely political and manipulative. Every country has domestic protectionists. The trade law assumption says these pressures are ALWAYS bad, and should ALWAYS be rejected. If they are, overall common good will be promoted.

        1. There may be a few marginal issues where free trade should be subjected to something else, but VERY few.

      2. Problem – we manipulate OTHER areas of law through trade law

        1. Ozone

        2. Climate

        3. Human rights??

      3. Lots of protests – focus on trade at expense of other important concerns like redistribution, equity, human rights, labor rights, environment

      4. Two responses

        1. Set up complete protection for trade law and say that we cannot jeopardize this with other little concerns.

        2. Now, move away to interpretation which says standards are evolving, we now need to build completely different consciousness INTO trade law, while still retaining solid core, and resisting unwarranted intrusions of various activists

    3. Tuna-Dolphin Dispute

      1. Background

        1. Challenged US’s Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), US had to fish in dolphin safe manner. Amended to require foreign states to adopt comparable regulatory program to import to US

        2. US was reluctant to enforce, but Earth Island filed federal court action

          1. Order required government to enforce MMPA

          2. US enforced tuna embargo, and Mexico brought GATT dispute settlement proceedings

        3. GATT law

          1. Article XI – no prohibitions or restrictions other than duties, taxes or other charges, whether made effective through quotas…or other measures, shall be instituted/maintained on imports from other GATT members

          2. Article III – products imported from GATT parties – no less favorable treatment than like products of nat’l origin

          3. Article XX – except for arbitrary/unjustifiable discrimination, any party can take measures to prevent human, animal or plant life or health, or measures relating to conservation of exhaustible natural resources

        4. US made two arguments

          1. argued that these were “regulations” under Article III, not quotas governed by Article XI

          2. argued that fell within Article XX exception

      2. Directory: sites -> default -> files -> upload documents
        upload documents -> Always put things in threes (eskridge has ocd) I. Procedural Due Process and Reading a Case
        upload documents -> Federalism – The Structure of Government
        upload documents -> General Info About Property law
        upload documents -> Con law professor Larry Sager Fall 1995 I. U. S. Term limits V. Thornton
        upload documents -> Property with Professor Vicki Been
        upload documents -> Property Outline – Professor Upham, Spring 2000
        upload documents -> Constitutional law outline part I: structure of government judicial review and constitutional interpretation
        upload documents -> Complex federal investigations
        upload documents -> Foundations: Agency Law Introduction to law of enterprise organizations
        upload documents -> Pricing v. Sanctions

        Share with your friends:
  • 1   ...   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   ...   128

    The database is protected by copyright © 2020
    send message

        Main page