The World Trade Organization (WTO) law and the environment

Résumé du document

In 1979 the Brandt Commission recommended that an international trade organization incorporating both GATT and UNCTAD was the objective towards which the international community should work. This dream came true in January 1995 when the World Trade Organization (WTO) became the successor to GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. But the WTO can not deal with trade in isolation since it is linked with many other fields: labor, development or environment. If the importance of protecting the environment is clearly acknowledged in the preamble of the agreement that established the WTO, it doesn't seem to be the main concern in the negotiations. Two different conceptions concerning the impact of trade on environment are usually referred to: while environmentalists (mainly NGOs) think that the WTO works against the interests of the environment by supporting non-restricted trade that curbs environment-friendly policies, the WTO asserts that environment protection and trade can be mutually supportive. The WTO can argue that substantial rules created to permit environment protection do exist: beyond the "general exceptions" recognized in stalwart WTO rules, many agreements dealing with one specific field (technical barriers, biosafety, and services) aim at ensuring cooperation and protecting the environment.
But the WTO role concerning environment, the efficiency of its legal codes and procedures have often been questioned. If one can first consider the environment-friendly aspect of WTO law and processes, one must also point out that trade can tend to hamper environment protection as shown in the numerous disputes occurred between WTO members about the conflict between trade and environmentalist policies

Extraits

[...] But if the US arguments had been accepted, then any ban on imports from a country could be taken because of different environmental policies. This would be the gateway to the application of unilateral trade restrictions, to a possible flood of protectionist abuses. This would conflict with the main purpose of the multilateral trading system: to achieve predictability through trade rules. It was not asked whether the policy was environmentally correct or not. The panel suggested that the US policy could be made compatible with GATT rules. [...]

[...] It mostly addresses the relationship between trade rules and multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). Many people stood for the creation of the CTE and expectations were high that it would find solutions too many of the problems emerging through what seemed to be a conflict of interests in the formulation of trade and environmental policy. Yet, this committee has been deeply criticized and accused of failing in its task to enhance the combination of environment protection and trade liberalization. The committee has a broad-based responsibility covering all areas of the multilateral trading system (goods, services and intellectual property). [...]

[...] Bibliography The World Trade Organization and the Environment par P. K. Rao Integrating Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Rules of the World Trade Organization par David R. [...]

[...] Lower agricultural returns from agriculture can account for poverty and environmental degradation. On the contrary, according to the WTO, increased returns caused by liberalization would lead to higher national income for developing areas while it would give them the ability to enforce sustainable farming practices. Besides, the energy sector could provide us with a relevant example of a win-win-win situation: existing taxation and subsidies should be removed so that polluting sources are penalized and not favoured. The fisheries sector is recognized to be of the almost importance: some Members assert that subsidies are the main cause of over-exploitation of fisheries. [...]

[...] Parties to the dispute can comment on both the draft descriptive report and the interim full report. Panel reports may be subject to appeal to the appelate body, a permanent group of seven experts in trade issues and trade law who are in charge of reviewing the legal aspects of reports issued by panels. When a panel or the appelate body concludes that a measure is inconsistent with a covered argument, it must recommend that the member concerned bring the measure into conformity with that agreement. [...]