Carbon-related Border Adjustment and WTO Law

Carbon-related Border Adjustment and WTO Law

Kateryna Holzer

Carbon-Related Border Adjustment and WTO Law will be of great benefit to policymakers and practitioners working in the area of climate policy and trade regulation. Researchers and advanced students in international economic law and international environmental law will also find much to interest them in this work.

Chapter 9: The potential of and limits to a multilateral approach

Kateryna Holzer

Subjects: environment, environmental law, law - academic, environmental law, international economic law, trade law


Negotiations on the rules related to carbon-related BAMs could in principle take place in different fora. One such forum could be the UNFCCC, where parties to the climate convention could negotiate this issue in parallel with other issues concerning a post-Kyoto international climate policy framework. UNFCCC parties could either deal with this issue within provisions on the use of trade measures in a post-Kyoto agreement, adopt provisions on the use of carbon-related BAMs in a separate agreement (e.g. a plurilateral agreement), or adopt a resolution on the application of carbon-related BAMs. Alternatively, carbonrelated BAMs could become the subject of multilateral trade negotiations in the WTO outside the Doha Development Agenda. The outcome of the negotiations on carbon-related BAMs could be a multilateral understanding, a waiver or a plurilateral agreement allowing the use of BAMs and other PPM-related measures for climate protection purposes. There is also a proposal to establish a joint WTO-UNFCCC Working Group on carbon-related BAMs. In addition, the issue of carbon-related BAMs could be taken up by an international organization, which is outside both the WTO and the UNFCCC. This could be either an existing organization (e.g. the OECD) or an organization specially created for these purposes. It is, however, doubtful that all WTO or UNFCCC members would accept the jurisdiction of such an institution over the trade-related aspects of climate policy. If jurisdiction were not accepted, the legitimacy of a regulatory framework for carbon-related BAMs from such a body would be limited.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information