Rasim Huseynov
Managing Editor of Seamless Trade and International Trade Consultant at Tevolution Ltd
As the world confronts the climate crisis, the need to reconcile environmental concerns with international trade law becomes increasingly urgent. At the heart of this challenge is the World Trade Organisation (WTO), a body designed to liberalise trade, but also to ensure that trade is based on principles of non-discrimination, national treatment, and equality. The complexities of integrating climate change considerations into the WTO framework highlight the tension between these fundamental principles and the broad, precautionary nature of environmental law.
The WTO’s Role: More Than Free and Open Trade
It is important to understand that the WTO is not simply a vehicle for promoting free trade. The organisation is built on foundational principles that require equal treatment of all member states and non-discrimination in trade practices. This system is carefully structured with checks and balances to protect trading parties from unsubstantiated claims, disguised discrimination, and other unfair trade practices.
Tensions Between Climate Change Law and WTO Exceptions
One of the most significant challenges to integrating climate change law into the WTO framework lies in the nature of the exceptions permitted under Article XX of the GATT. These exceptions are typically granted for measures aimed at protecting human, animal, and plant health or conserving exhaustible natural resources. However, climate change is a long-term, uncertain, and complex problem, making it difficult to fit neatly within these categories.
The broad application of the precautionary principle, which allows states to act before all scientific evidence is clear, raises concerns. Climate change, by its nature, involves uncertainties, with its impacts playing out over decades. This differs from the more immediate threats to human or animal health, where the harm can be directly observed and scientifically proven. As a result, climate measures are more vulnerable to challenges at the WTO, where parties may argue that the environmental measures are disproportionate, or even protectionist, because they address uncertain, long-term risks.
Overcoming the Tensions: Potential Solutions
To address this tension, the WTO and its member states must consider several options:
Clarifying Climate Change as a Legitimate Exception: One solution could involve explicitly recognising climate change mitigation as a valid exception under Article XX. This would involve updating the language of the GATT or developing new WTO guidelines that reflect the unique, long-term nature of climate risks.
Applying the Precautionary Principle More Uniformly: The precautionary principle should be applied more consistently across WTO rulings to ensure that long-term environmental risks, such as those posed by climate change, are considered legitimate reasons for trade restrictions. This could involve the development of a body of decisions that solidifies the principle’s use for environmental protection, ensuring that trade measures aimed at reducing emissions are not unfairly challenged.
Strengthening the Doctrine of Abuse of Rights: To prevent the misuse of environmental exceptions for protectionist purposes, the doctrine of "abuse of rights" should be more rigorously applied. This doctrine helps ensure that countries invoking environmental protections are genuinely motivated by climate concerns, rather than using them to create trade barriers.
The Challenge of Balancing Trade and Environmental Protections
The WTO has witnessed several cases where environmental measures have been challenged as unfair trade restrictions. A prime example is the Shrimp-Turtle case, in which the United States imposed a ban on shrimp imports from countries that did not use turtle-excluder devices in their fishing practices. Initially, the WTO ruled against the U.S., citing discriminatory application of the ban. However, after the U.S. revised its policies to ensure consistent enforcement, the WTO compliance panel ruled in favour of the U.S., allowing the ban under Article XX(g). This ruling was significant because it allowed the U.S. to restrict imports based on the production process (how the shrimp were caught) rather than the product itself.
This process vs. product distinction became a landmark issue, reinforcing the idea that countries could impose trade restrictions based on environmental concerns related to production methods, provided such measures are applied uniformly. The implications of this case echo in today’s discussions about climate change and carbon emissions, where countries are increasingly focusing on regulating imports based on the carbon footprint of their production processes. The Shrimp-Turtle case highlights the contentious issue of regulating imports based on how a product is made, a debate that extends to concerns over goods produced with forced labour or high carbon emissions.
Similarly, the EC-Asbestos case saw the European Union imposing a ban on asbestos products to protect human health. Canada, a major asbestos exporter, challenged the ban as an unfair trade barrier. The WTO ultimately ruled in favour of the EU, recognising that the ban was justified under Article XX of the GATT as a necessary measure to protect public health.
International Investment Law and Corporate Pressure on Environmental Measures
Another dimension to this issue comes from international investment law. Investment treaties often include clauses that allow foreign investors to bring claims against governments if they feel their investments have been harmed by regulatory changes, including environmental or public health measures. This has led to an increase in cases where corporations have challenged environmental regulations, putting significant pressure on governments to balance protection measures with investor interests.
For instance, in the Philip Morris case, the tobacco company sued Uruguay under a bilateral investment treaty (BIT), arguing that Uruguay’s anti-tobacco regulations, which mandated large health warnings on cigarette packaging, harmed its investments. Philip Morris contended that Uruguay’s measures were excessive and could have been more reasonable. However, the tribunal found that Uruguay’s regulations were legitimate public health measures aimed at protecting its citizens and dismissed Philip Morris’s claims. The ruling reinforced the idea that states can implement public health policies without breaching their investment obligations.
Similarly, the Vattenfall case, involving the Swedish energy company, is a notable example of how environmental regulations can be challenged under investment law. Vattenfall sued Germany under an investment treaty after the country decided to phase out nuclear energy following the Fukushima disaster. Vattenfall claimed that the closure of its nuclear plants caused significant financial losses and that the environmental measures were unfair. The case was eventually settled, with Germany agreeing to pay substantial compensation, demonstrating the difficult balance governments must strike between protecting the environment and honoring investment obligations.
These cases illustrate the critical challenge: while international investment law allows legitimate claims for the protection of investors, it also enables companies to pressure governments, potentially compromising valid environmental or public health measures. This dynamic often disregards the interests of environmental protection and the valid concerns of the communities affected by environmental degradation.
Conclusion
As the world grapples with the complexities of climate change, international trade and investment law must adapt to support necessary environmental policies. The Shrimp-Turtle case illustrates how regulating imports based on production processes has become a contentious yet vital issue, one that resonates with modern challenges surrounding climate change and carbon emissions. The precautionary principle and investment protections, while essential, are broad and susceptible to abuse, making it difficult to scrutinise measures and claims effectively. By strengthening the application of the abuse of rights doctrine and developing clearer guidelines for environmental exceptions and investor claims, the WTO and investment bodies can play a crucial role in resolving the tensions between trade, investment, and climate goals.
Further Reading
These works offer valuable perspectives on the interaction between societal values and WTO law, covering a wide range of relevant laws that intersect with normative societal values. For readers who wish to explore these issues further, the following books provide in-depth insights:
Csongor Istvan Nagy (Ed): Global Values and International Trade Law (Routledge, 2022).
Donatella Alessandrini: Developing Counties and Multilateral Trading Regime: The Failure and Promise of the WTO's Development Mission (Hart, 2010).
Joost Pauwelyn: Conflict of Norms in Public International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2008).
Ronnie R.F. Yearwood: The Interaction between World Trade Organisation (WTO) Law and External International Law (Routledge, 2013).
Comments