WTO机制下欧盟碳边境调节机制合法性研究
A Study on the Legality of EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism under WTO Mechanism
DOI: 10.12677/DS.2022.83083, PDF,   
作者: 龙美玲:华东政法大学,国际法学院,上海
关键词: CBAMWTO规则气候贸易措施一般例外条款 CBAM The WTO Rules Climate Trade Measures General Exception Clause
摘要: 气候变化时代,气候与贸易结合越来越密切。多边的应对气候变化协议效果有限,不少国家采取单边的气候应对措施。而这些单边气候措施不可避免的涉及到贸易领域,实际上具有气候加贸易措施的双重属性。欧盟于2021年推出的碳边境调节机制就是气候贸易措施的典型代表,作为一项单边的贸易措施,必须要符合WTO现有的机制。通过对碳边境调节机制的法律性质界定,其与WTO一般例外条款兼容性分析,可以得出该机制将很可能违反WTO的国民待遇规则,并且很难通过一般例外条款取得豁免的结论。尽管欧盟将面对WTO现有机制的挑战,但是气候贸易时代正面临着贸易游戏规则的革新,这对于欧盟来说更是一次掌握规则制定权的机遇。
Abstract: In the era of climate change, climate and trade are increasingly integrated. Multilateral agreements on climate change have lim-ited effect, and many countries have adopted unilateral climate response measures. These unilat-eral climate measures inevitably involve trade, and in fact have the dual attributes of climate and trade measures. The carbon border adjustment mechanism launched by the EU in 2021 is a typical representative of climate trade measures. As a unilateral trade measure, it must comply with the existing WTO mechanism. By defining the legal nature of the carbon border adjustment mechanism and analyzing its compatibility with the WTO general exceptions, it can be concluded that the mechanism will likely violate the WTO’s national treatment rules, and it is difficult to obtain ex-emptions through the general exceptions. Although the EU will face the challenge of the existing WTO mechanism, the climate trade era is facing the reform of the rules of the trade game, which is an opportunity for the EU to master the rule-making power.
文章引用:龙美玲. WTO机制下欧盟碳边境调节机制合法性研究[J]. 争议解决, 2022, 8(3): 614-621. https://doi.org/10.12677/DS.2022.83083

参考文献

[1] Zane, S.N. (2011) Leveling the Playing Field: The International Legality of Carbon Tariffs in the EU. Boston College In-ternational and Comparative Law Review, 34, 199-225.
[2] Marcu, A., Egenhofer, C., et al. (2013) Carbon Leakage: An Overview. CEPS Special Report, No. 79.
[3] 张红. 海关法[M]. 北京: 对外经济贸易大学出版社, 2002: 275.
[4] GATT Working Party (1970) Border Tax Adjustments, Reported on 2 December 1970, L/3464, BISD 18S/97-109.
[5] United States—Taxes on Petroleum and Certain Imported Substances (L/6175-34S/136), Report of the Panel Adopted on 17 June 1987.
[6] 龙英锋. 论世界贸易组织规则下碳税边境调整的合法性[J]. 税务研究, 2021(10): 102-105.
[7] WTO (1996) Report of the Appellate Body, Japan—Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R. 20.
[8] WTO (2001) Appellate Body Report, European Commu-nities—Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products. WT/DS135/AB/R.
[9] Charnovitz, S. (1991) Exploring the Environmental Exceptions in GATT Article XX. Journal of World Trade, 25, 38-55.
[10] Sindico, F. (2008) The EU and Carbon Leakage: How to Reconcile Border Adjustments with the WTO. European Energy and En-vironmental Law Review, 17, 328-340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[11] WTO (1989) Report of the Appellate Body, United States—Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, BISD 36S/345.
[12] WTO (2000) Ko-rea-Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef, WT/DS161/AB/R. 162-163.
[13] WTO (2001) Ap-pellate Body Report, European Communities—Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products. WT/DS135/AB/R.
[14] WTO (1998) report of Appellate Body, United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R.
[15] Das, K. (2011) Can Border Carbon Adjustments Be WTO-Legal. Manchester Journal of International Economic Law, 8, 65-97.
[16] WTO (1998) Report of Appellate Body, United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R.
[17] WTO (1996) Report of Appellate Body, United States-Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R.
[18] WTO (1998) Report of Appellate Body, United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R.
[19] 李晓玲, 陈雨松. “碳关税”与WTO规则相符性研究[J]. 国际经济合作, 2010(3): 77-81.
[20] 姜婷婷, 徐海燕. 欧盟碳边境调节机制的性质、影响及我国的应对举措[J]. 国际贸易, 2021(9): 38-44.