Negotiating environmental protection in trade agreements: A regime shift or a tactical linkage?
Tóm tắt
The prolific literature on the relationship between the trade and environmental regimes suffers from three shortcomings. First, it myopically focuses on multilateral institutions, while the vast majority of trade and environmental agreements are bilateral. Second, when studies consider preferential trade agreements’ (PTAs) environmental provisions, they are often limited to USA and EU agreements. Third, it examines how the trade and environmental regimes negatively affect each other, leaving aside their potential synergies. Conversely, this article assesses the potential contribution of PTAs to international environmental law. Several PTAs include a full-fledged chapter devoted to environmental protection and contain detailed commitments on various environmental issue areas. One possible scenario is that countries that are dissatisfied with traditional settings for environmental lawmaking engage in a process of “regime shifting” toward PTAs to move forward on their environmental agenda. The alternative is that PTAs’ environmental provisions are the result of “tactical linkages” and merely duplicate extant obligations from international environmental law to serve political goals. We shed light on this question by building on two datasets of 690 PTAs and 2343 environmental treaties. We investigate four potential contributions of PTAs to environmental law: the diffusion of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), the diffusion of existing environmental rules, the design of new environmental rules, and the legal prevalence of MEAs. The article concludes that the contribution of PTAs to the strengthening of states’ commitments under international environmental law is very modest on the four dimensions examined.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Aggarwal, V. K. (2013). US free trade agreements and linkages. International Negotiation,18(1), 89–110.
Bastiaens, I., & Postnikov, E. (2017). Greening up: The effects of environmental standards in EU and US trade agreements. Environmental Politics,26(5), 847–869.
Bhagwati, J. (1995). Trade liberalisation and ‘fair trade’ demands: Addressing the environmental and labour standards issues. World Economy,18(6), 745–759.
Borgen, C. J. (2005). Resolving treaty conflicts. The George Washington International Law Review,37, 573–648.
Conca, K. (2000). The WTO and the undermining of global environmental governance. Review of International Political Economy,7(3), 484–494.
De Bièvre, D., Espa, I., & Poletti, A. (2017). No iceberg in sight: On the absence of WTO disputes challenging fossil fuel subsidies. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics,17(3), 411–425.
Dür, A., Baccini, L., & Elsig, M. (2014). The design of international trade agreements: Introducing a new dataset. The Review of International Organizations,9(3), 353–375.
Durán, G. M., & Morgera, E. (2012). Environmental integration in the EU's external relations: Beyond multilateral dimensions. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Eckersley, R. (2004). The big chill: The WTO and multilateral environmental agreements. Global Environmental Politics,4(2), 24–50.
Egger, P., Jeßberger, C., & Larch, M. (2011). Trade and investment liberalization as determinants of multilateral environmental agreement membership. International Tax and Public Finance,18(6), 605–633.
Gallagher, K. (2004). Free trade and the environment: Mexico, NAFTA, and beyond. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
George, C. (2014). Environment and regional trade agreements: Emerging trends and policy drivers. OECD Trade and Environment Working Papers, 2014(2). Retrieved September 23, 2019, from https://tinyurl.com/y3lrebg9.
Gerring, J. (2006). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Haas, E. B. (1980). Why collaborate? Issue-linkage and international regimes. World Politics,32(3), 357–405.
Helfer, L. R. (2004). Regime shifting: The TRIPs agreement and new dynamics of international intellectual property lawmaking. Yale Journal of International Law,29, 1.
Jinnah, S. (2011). Strategic linkages: The evolving role of trade agreements in global environmental governance. The Journal of Environment & Development,20(2), 191–215.
Jinnah, S., & Lindsay, A. (2016). Diffusion through issue linkage: Environmental norms in US trade agreements. Global Environmental Politics,16(3), 41–61.
Jinnah, S., & Morgera, E. (2013). Environmental provisions in American and EU free trade agreements: A preliminary comparison and research agenda. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law,22(3), 324–339.
Jinnah, S., & Morin, J. F. (2020). Greening through trade: How American trade policy is linked to environmental protection abroad. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Johnson, T. (2015). Information revelation and structural supremacy: The World Trade Organization’s incorporation of environmental policy. The Review of International Organizations,10(2), 207–229.
Johnson, T., & Urpelainen, J. (2012). A strategic theory of regime integration and separation. International Organization,66(4), 645–677.
Kim, R. E. (2013). The emergent network structure of the multilateral environmental agreement system. Global Environmental Change,23(5), 980–991.
Lechner, L. (2016). The domestic battle over the design of non-trade issues in preferential trade agreements. Review of International Political Economy,23(5), 840–871.
Martínez-Zarzoso, I., & Oueslati, W. (2018). Do deep and comprehensive regional trade agreements help in reducing air pollution? Politics, Law and Economics International Environmental Agreements, 18(6), 743–777.
Michaels, R., & Pauwelyn, J. (2011). Conflict of norms or conflict of laws: Different techniques in the fragmentation of public international law. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law,22, 349.
Milewicz, K., Hollway, J., Peacock, C., & Snidal, D. (2016). Beyond trade: The expanding scope of the nontrade agenda in trade agreements. Journal of Conflict Resolution,62(4), 743–773.
Mitchell, R. B. (2003). International environmental agreements: A survey of their features, formation, and effects. Annual Review of Environment and Resources,28(1), 429–461.
Mitchell, R. B. (2018). International environmental agreements (IEA) database project. Retrieved September 23, 2019, from https://iea.uoregon.edu/.
Morin, J. F., Dür, A., & Lechner, L. (2018). Mapping the trade and environment Nexus: Insights from a new data set. Global Environmental Politics,18(1), 122–139.
Morin, J. F., & Gauquelin, M. (2016). Trade agreements as vectors for the Nagoya Protocol’s implementation. CIGI Paper 115.
Morin, J. F., & Jinnah, S. (2018). The untapped potential of preferential trade agreements for climate governance. Environmental Politics,27(3), 541–565.
Morin, J. F., Pauwelyn, J., & Hollway, J. (2017). The trade regime as a complex adaptive system: Exploration and exploitation of environmental norms in trade agreements. Journal of International Economic Law,20(2), 365–390.
Morin, J. F., & Rochette, M. (2017). Transatlantic convergence of preferential trade agreements environmental clauses. Business and Politics,19(4), 621–658.
Morse, J. C., & Keohane, R. O. (2014). Contested multilateralism. The Review of International Organizations,9(4), 385–412.
Oberthür, S., & Gehring, T. (2006). Institutional interaction in global environmental governance: The case of the Cartagena Protocol and the World Trade Organization. Global Environmental Politics,6(2), 1–31.
OECD. (2007). Joint working party on trade and environment: Regional trade agreements and environment. COM/ENV/TD(2006)47/FINAL. Retrieved September 23, 2019, from https://tinyurl.com/yynuwbfl.
Pauwelyn, J. (2003). Bridging fragmentation and unity: International Law as a universe of inter-connected islands. Michigan Journal of International Law,25, 903.
Poletti, A., & Sicurelli, D. (2016). The European Union, preferential trade agreements, and the international regulation of sustainable biofuels. Journal of Common Market Studies,54(2), 249–266.
Postnikov, E. (2019). Unravelling the puzzle of social standards’ design in EU and US trade agreements. New Political Economy,24(2), 181–196.
Prieur, M. (2011). De l’urgente nécessité de reconnaître le principe de non régression en droit de l’environnement. In C. C. D. Oliveira & R. S. D. R. Sampaio (Eds.), A economia verde no contexto do desenvolvimento sustentável: a governança dos atores públicos e privados (pp. 249–272). Rio de Janeiro: FGV, Direito Rio.
Raustiala, K., & Victor, D. G. (2004). The regime complex for plant genetic resources. International Organization,58(2), 277–309.
Rehbinder, E. (2012). Contribution to the development of environmental law. Environmental Policy and Law,42, 210–219.
Sabel, C. F., & Zeitlin, J. (2008). Learning from difference: The new architecture of experimentalist governance in the EU. European Law Journal,14(3), 271–327.
Swepston, L. (1990). A new step in the international law on indigenous and tribal peoples: ILO Convention No. 169 of 1989. Oklahoma City University Law Review,15, 677.
Vogler, J. (2005). The European contribution to global environmental governance. International Affairs,81(4), 835–850.
Young, A. R. (2005). Picking the wrong fight: Why attacks on the World Trade Organization pose the real threat to national environmental and public health protection. Global Environmental Politics,5(4), 47–72.
Yoo, I. T., & Kim, I. (2016). Free trade agreements for the environment? Regional economic integration and environmental cooperation in East Asia. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics,16(5), 721–738.