Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – 1997 (816-18) Article 3 – individual targets – but understood emissions reductions would be costly, so created FLEXIBILITY in meeting the targets
Financial incentives for Annex I states – use/improve natural resources to absorb emissions
if you create project that reduces emissions, you can then trade/sell that off
Annex I states working together (Article 6)
Developed countries can invest in developing countries to help them meet emissions goals, and get credit towards their own compliance (article 12)
Emissions trading (article 17)
Trying to up compliance - Reporting requirements expanded, expert-review teams
1999 – Buenos Aires – work plan over remaining issues
Extent to which Annex I states can meet commitments by trading/undertaking projects in other states?
EU wants to cap trading at 50% of required reductions
US and others – no limits in text about trading
Helps meet goals most efficiently
Are reduction mechanisms really going above and beyond what would have occurred absent trade/investment?
Russian economic crisis – going to have a lot of excess credits. Should we be able to buy them?
What to do about noncompliance?
Legally binding OR political approach?
2000 – Hague meeting
Unable to reach agreement
2001 – US announces US won’t ratify Kyoto Protocol
United countries around Kyoto, galvanized into action.
Supplemental mechanisms (CDM, international emissions trading, and JI regime) must be less than domestic actions
Created Compliance Committee
Facilitative branch and enforcement branch
Marrakesh Accords – set out agreements reached in Bonn.
2005 – Kyoto entered into FORCE, and became legally binding.
Only four developed states have not ratified – Australia, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and US
BUT, since US is absent, and control lacking over developing countries – applies to LESS THAN A THIRD of global emissions
Copenhagen – Dec. 2009
Problem is MONEY.
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) Historical Development of International Economic Law
1945 – UN Charter
Premised on idea that economic development would eliminate conflict, contribute to improved standards of living
1947 – Havana Conference
Established plan to create International Trade Organization (ITO), supposed to have extensive functions
Adopted General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT)
US doesn’t like GATT, ITO never established
However, GATT then turned into organization
Set up PANELS to resolve disputes
Only binding if adopted by ENTIRE GATT executive body – CONSENSUS
1980s – Uruguay Round – rolling negotiations to try to liberalize world trade rules
Had to wait until end of Cold War.
1994 – WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION created.
Panel decisions binding and Appellate body rulings binding
UNLESS rejected by consensus
Premise of Trade Law
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.
There may be a few marginal issues where free trade should be subjected to something else, but VERY few.
Problem – we manipulate OTHER areas of law through trade law
Lots of protests – focus on trade at expense of other important concerns like redistribution, equity, human rights, labor rights, environment
Set up complete protection for trade law and say that we cannot jeopardize this with other little concerns.
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
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
US enforced tuna embargo, and Mexico brought GATT dispute settlement proceedings
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
Article III – products imported from GATT parties – no less favorable treatment than like products of nat’l origin
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
US made two arguments
argued that these were “regulations” under Article III, not quotas governed by Article XI