Advertisement

Negotiating environmental protection in trade agreements: A regime shift or a tactical linkage?

  • Noémie LaurensEmail author
  • Jean-Frédéric Morin
Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Trade agreements International environmental agreements Tactical linkages Institutional interactions Regime shifting 

Abbreviations

CAFTA

Central America Free Trade Agreement

CBD

Convention on Biological Diversity

CCAMLR

Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources

CITES

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora

COMESA

Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa

EC

European Communities

IEA

International environmental agreement

MARPOL

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships

MEA

Multilateral environmental agreement

NAFTA

North American Free Trade Agreement

OECD

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

PTA

Preferential trade agreement

TREND

TRade and ENvironment Database

UNFCCC

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

VCLT

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

WTO

World Trade Organization

Notes

References

  1. Aggarwal, V. K. (2013). US free trade agreements and linkages. International Negotiation,18(1), 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bastiaens, I., & Postnikov, E. (2017). Greening up: The effects of environmental standards in EU and US trade agreements. Environmental Politics,26(5), 847–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhagwati, J. (1995). Trade liberalisation and ‘fair trade’ demands: Addressing the environmental and labour standards issues. World Economy,18(6), 745–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borgen, C. J. (2005). Resolving treaty conflicts. The George Washington International Law Review,37, 573–648.Google Scholar
  5. Conca, K. (2000). The WTO and the undermining of global environmental governance. Review of International Political Economy,7(3), 484–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Durán, G. M., & Morgera, E. (2012). Environmental integration in the EU's external relations: Beyond multilateral dimensions. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Eckersley, R. (2004). The big chill: The WTO and multilateral environmental agreements. Global Environmental Politics,4(2), 24–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gallagher, K. (2004). Free trade and the environment: Mexico, NAFTA, and beyond. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 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.
  13. Gerring, J. (2006). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haas, E. B. (1980). Why collaborate? Issue-linkage and international regimes. World Politics,32(3), 357–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Helfer, L. R. (2004). Regime shifting: The TRIPs agreement and new dynamics of international intellectual property lawmaking. Yale Journal of International Law,29, 1.Google Scholar
  16. Jinnah, S. (2011). Strategic linkages: The evolving role of trade agreements in global environmental governance. The Journal of Environment & Development,20(2), 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jinnah, S., & Lindsay, A. (2016). Diffusion through issue linkage: Environmental norms in US trade agreements. Global Environmental Politics,16(3), 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jinnah, S., & Morin, J. F. (2020). Greening through trade: How American trade policy is linked to environmental protection abroad. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson, T., & Urpelainen, J. (2012). A strategic theory of regime integration and separation. International Organization,66(4), 645–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim, R. E. (2013). The emergent network structure of the multilateral environmental agreement system. Global Environmental Change,23(5), 980–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mitchell, R. B. (2018). International environmental agreements (IEA) database project. Retrieved September 23, 2019, from https://iea.uoregon.edu/.
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morin, J. F., & Gauquelin, M. (2016). Trade agreements as vectors for the Nagoya Protocol’s implementation. CIGI Paper 115.Google Scholar
  31. Morin, J. F., & Jinnah, S. (2018). The untapped potential of preferential trade agreements for climate governance. Environmental Politics,27(3), 541–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Morin, J. F., & Rochette, M. (2017). Transatlantic convergence of preferential trade agreements environmental clauses. Business and Politics,19(4), 621–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morse, J. C., & Keohane, R. O. (2014). Contested multilateralism. The Review of International Organizations,9(4), 385–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.Google Scholar
  37. Pauwelyn, J. (2003). Bridging fragmentation and unity: International Law as a universe of inter-connected islands. Michigan Journal of International Law,25, 903.Google Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Postnikov, E. (2019). Unravelling the puzzle of social standards’ design in EU and US trade agreements. New Political Economy,24(2), 181–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. Raustiala, K., & Victor, D. G. (2004). The regime complex for plant genetic resources. International Organization,58(2), 277–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rehbinder, E. (2012). Contribution to the development of environmental law. Environmental Policy and Law,42, 210–219.Google Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.Google Scholar
  45. Vogler, J. (2005). The European contribution to global environmental governance. International Affairs,81(4), 835–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Political Science DepartmentUniversité LavalQuébecCanada

Personalised recommendations