Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Positive Integration - EU and WTO Approaches Towards the "Trade and" Debate pp 121–144Cite as

Adjudication and Positive Integration: The Role of the European Court of Justice and the Dispute Settlement Body in the “Trade and Environment” Debate

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((Spec. Issue))

Abstract

The relationship between the two goals trade and environment is complex and has been analysed by the so called “trade and environment” debate. This debate has mainly focused on the WTO with the inclusion of some comparison with the EU. Especially with regard to the quasi-judicial organs of the WTO, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) and the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the comparison has concentrated on negative integration, the removal of trade barriers between countries by striking down Member State measures via adjudication. This has led to a narrow comparison of judicial reasoning to the trade and environment interdependence, leaving aside the other side of the same coin, positive integration, in the sense of the establishment of common rules. Even so courts can not enact common rules, the paper argues, the ECJ and to some extent also the DSB can play pivotal roles by changing the status quo and providing an opportunity structure for environmental change and foster positive integration in this way. In order to allow for a broader comparison, the paper will first analyse the different standing rights before the ECJ and the DSB. In a second step, the different possible roles the ECJ or the panels and the Appellate Body can play in promoting positive integration will be outlined: rule enforcement, clarification of the room to manoeuvre and facilitator of positive integration. In a third step, these possible roles are exemplified by different settings and cases from the EU and the WTO. These cases show that positive integration can also be fostered through adjudication. For comprehensive comparisons this perspective has to be included in our “trade and environment” debate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Krämer-Hoppe (2019).

  2. 2.

    For an overview of the literature and the current debate see Shahbaz et al. (2017), p. 222 f.

  3. 3.

    Shahbaz et al. (2017), p. 222.

  4. 4.

    Esty (1994).

  5. 5.

    To name just one with further references Pauwelyn (2004), p. 575 ff.

  6. 6.

    Reid (2015), Notora (2003) and Wiers (2003).

  7. 7.

    Höpner (2011).

  8. 8.

    For an overview of this research see Stone Sweet (2010).

  9. 9.

    Sands (1990), p. 695; This early assessment has been lately confirmed by Brouers (2012), p. 91.

  10. 10.

    Reid (2019) in this special issue.

  11. 11.

    Stone Sweet (2010), p. 8.

  12. 12.

    Steiner et al. (2012), p. 43.

  13. 13.

    Craig and De Búrca (2011), p. 415.

  14. 14.

    Vedder (2010), p. 296.

  15. 15.

    Krämer (2014), p. 6.

  16. 16.

    European Commission (2012), p. 2.

  17. 17.

    Karpenstein (2015), para 3.

  18. 18.

    Craig and De Búrca (2011), p. 433.

  19. 19.

    Steiner et al. (2012), p. 216.

  20. 20.

    Craig and De Búrca (2011), p. 491.

  21. 21.

    Schoukens (2015).

  22. 22.

    ECJ joined cases C-401/12 P to C-403/12 P Council and Others v Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht, ECLI:EU:C:2015:4.

  23. 23.

    Van den Bossche and Prévost (2016), p. 263 ff.

  24. 24.

    Van den Bossche and Prévost (2016), p. 265.

  25. 25.

    For an overview of the selection process see Shaffer et al. (2016), p. 6 ff.

  26. 26.

    Van den Bossche and Prévost (2016), p. 266.

  27. 27.

    For an overview of this questions in the field of trade and environment see Khoury (2012).

  28. 28.

    Van den Bossche and Prévost (2016), p. 267.

  29. 29.

    Van den Bossche and Prévost (2016), p. 269.

  30. 30.

    See https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/stats_e.htm (last accessed 21 May 2019).

  31. 31.

    Court of Justice of the European Union (2015), p. 93.

  32. 32.

    Chayes (1976), p. 1281.

  33. 33.

    Scott and Sturm (2006), p. 568.

  34. 34.

    Von Bogdandy and Venzke (2013).

  35. 35.

    Alter (2012), p. 6 ff.

  36. 36.

    Peel and Osofsky (2015), p. 28 ff.

  37. 37.

    Sax (1971), p. 108.

  38. 38.

    Sax (1971), p. 108 ff.

  39. 39.

    See https://www.eufje.org/images/DocDivers/Johannesburg%20Principles.pdf (last accessed 21 May 2019).

  40. 40.

    Peel and Osofsky (2015).

  41. 41.

    Keleman (2001), p. 622.

  42. 42.

    Scharpf (1999), p. 45.

  43. 43.

    Kelsen (1929), p. 56.

  44. 44.

    To name just a few ECJ cases: ECJ C-28/09 Commission vs Austria, ECR 2011, I-13567; ECJ C-217/99 Commission vs Belgium, ECR 2000, I-10251; ECJ C-203/96 Dusseldorp, ECR 1998, I-04075; ECJ C-209/98 Sydhavnens Sten & Grus, ECR 2000, I-03743.

  45. 45.

    For the ECJs tendency to be environmental friendly see for example Jacobs (2006), pp. 185–205.

  46. 46.

    Scharpf (1999); Höpner and Schäfer (2010), pp. 344–368.

  47. 47.

    Appellate Body Report, EC - Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products, WT/DS/135/AB/R, adopted 12 March 2001.

  48. 48.

    Appellate Body Report, United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS/58/AB/R, adopted 12 October 1998; Appellate Body Report, European Communities — Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products, WT/DS/400/AB/R, adopted 18 June 2014.

  49. 49.

    Scharpf (1999), p. 49.

  50. 50.

    Krämer-Hoppe (2019).

  51. 51.

    Joanne Scott and Susan Sturm label the role of the courts for a similar situation, Scott and Sturm (2006), pp. 565–594.

  52. 52.

    Cichowski (2007), p. 131; Edwards (2013), pp. 515–530.

  53. 53.

    ECJ C-302/86 Commission v Denmark, ECR 1998, 4607.

  54. 54.

    For an overview see about sanctions see Charnowitz (2001), pp. 792–832.

  55. 55.

    De Bièvre and Polletti (2015), p. 3.

  56. 56.

    Goldstein and Martin (2000), pp. 603–632.

  57. 57.

    Poletti et al. (2015), pp. 33–58.

  58. 58.

    De Bièvre (2006), pp. 851–866.

  59. 59.

    For an overview of the case law see Reid (2019) in this special issue.

  60. 60.

    ECJ C-120/78 Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (Cassis), ECR 1979, I-649.

  61. 61.

    Alter and Meunier-Aitsahalia (1994).

  62. 62.

    ECJ C-302/86 Commission v Denmark, ECR 1998, 4607.

  63. 63.

    ECJ C-120/78 Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (Cassis), ECR 1979, I-649.

  64. 64.

    For an overview how this justification developed further in ECJ jurisprudence see Jacobs (2006), pp. 185–205.

  65. 65.

    Louka (2004), p. 231.

  66. 66.

    ECJ C-379/98 PreussenElektra AG v Schleswag AG, ECR 2001, I-2159.

  67. 67.

    Bechberger and Reiche (2007), pp. 31–50.

  68. 68.

    For an overview of the case law see Reid (2019) in this special issue.

  69. 69.

    Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products, WT/DS/401/AB/R, adopted 18 June 2014.

  70. 70.

    Krämer-Hoppe and Krüger (2017), pp. 535–550.

  71. 71.

    Cambridge Dictionary, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/facilitator (last assessed 21 May 2019).

  72. 72.

    Kunzlik (2003), pp. 175–201.

  73. 73.

    For the developments see Krämer (2013), p. 83 ff.

  74. 74.

    ECJ C-513/99 Concordia Bus Finland Oy Ab, ECR 2002, I-07213.

  75. 75.

    ECJ C-513/99 Concordia Bus Finland Oy Ab, ECR 2002, I-07213.

  76. 76.

    ECJ C-368/10 Commission v Netherlands (Dutch Coffee), ECR 2012, I-000.

  77. 77.

    Van den Bossche and Prévost (2016), p. 101 f.

  78. 78.

    Appellate Body Report, United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R, adopted 20 May 1996.

  79. 79.

    Appellate Body Report, United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R, adopted 20 May 1996.

  80. 80.

    Appellate Body Report, United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted October 12 1998.

  81. 81.

    Appellate Body Report, United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted October 12 1998.

  82. 82.

    Appellate Body Report, United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted October 12 1998.

  83. 83.

    For an overview of the different positions see Condon (2018), pp. 73–110.

  84. 84.

    Van den Bossche and Prévost (2016).

  85. 85.

    Condon (2018), p. 76.

  86. 86.

    Howse (2002), p. 491; Scott (2001).

  87. 87.

    Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna Products (US-Tuna II), WT/DS381/AB/R, adopted 16 May 2012.

  88. 88.

    Weimer (2017), pp. 901–924; Crowley and Howse (2014), pp. 338–342; Partiti (2013), pp. 86–93.

  89. 89.

    Panel Report, EC - Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/R/USA, circulated 18 August 1997.

  90. 90.

    Landwehr (2007), para 2.

  91. 91.

    Marceau and Trachtman (2002), p. 839; Viktor (2000), pp. 885–895.

  92. 92.

    Du (2010), p. 312.

  93. 93.

    Appellate Body Report, EC - Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, adopted 13 February 1998.

References

  • Alter K (2012) The multiple roles of international courts and tribunals: enforcement, dispute settlement, constitutional and administrative review. Buffett Center for International and Comparative Studies Working Paper Series (12):1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Alter K, Meunier-Aitsahalia S (1994) Judicial politics in the European community – European integration and the pathbreaking Cassis de Dijon decision. Comp Polit Stud 26(4):535–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechberger M, Reiche D (2007) The spread of renewable energy feed-in tariffs (REFITs) in the EU-25. In: Mez L (ed) Green power markets: support schemes, case studies and perspectives. Multi-Science Publishing, Brentwood, pp 31–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouers C (2012) Der Einfluss der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofes auf die europäische Umweltpolitik und das europäische Umweltrecht. Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnowitz S (2001) Rethinking WTO trade sanctions. Am J Int Law 95(4):792–832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chayes A (1976) The role of the judge in public law litigation. Harv Law Rev 89(7):1281–1316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cichowski RA (2007) The European court and civil society - litigation, mobilization and governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Condon BJ (2018) Does international economic law impose a duty to negotiate? Chin J Int Law 17(1):73–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Court of Justice of the European Union (2015) Annual Report 2014. Luxemburg European Union

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig P, De Búrca G (2011) EU law text, cases and materials, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crowley A, Howse R (2014) Tuna-Dolphin II: a legal and economic analysis of the Appellate Body report. World Trade Rev 13:321–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Bièvre D (2006) The EU regulatory trade agenda and the quest for WTO enforcement. J Eur Public Policy 13(6):851–866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Bièvre D, Polletti A (2015) Judicial politics in international trade relations. World Trade Rev 14:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du MM (2010) Reducing product standards heterogeneity through international standards in the WTO: how far across the river? J World Trade 44(2):295–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards V (2013) A review of the Court of Justice’s case law in relation to waste and environmental impact assessment: 1992–2011. J Environ Law:515–530

    Google Scholar 

  • Esty DC (1994) Greening the GATT – trade, environment, and the future. Institute for International Economics, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2012) Updating the handling of relations with the complainant in respect of the application of Union law. COM 154 final

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein J, Martin LL (2000) Legalization, trade liberalization, and domestic politics: a cautionary note. Int Organ 54(03):603–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Höpner M (2011) Der Europäische Gerichtshof als Motor der Integration: Eine akteursbezogene Erklärung. Berliner Journal für Soziologie 21(2):203–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Höpner M, Schäfer A (2010) A new phase of European integration: organised capitalisms in Post-Ricardian Europe. West Eur Polit 33(2):344–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howse R (2002) The Appellate Body rulings in the Shrimp/Turtle case: a new legal baseline for the trade and environment debate. Columbian J Environ Law 27:491–522

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs F (2006) The role of the European Court of Justice in the protection of the environment. J Environ Law 18(2):185–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpenstein U (2015) Artikel 259. In: Grabitz E, Hilf M, Nettersheim M (eds) Das Recht der Europäischen Union. EL. C.H. Beck, München, p 57

    Google Scholar 

  • Keleman D (2001) Limits of judicial power: trade-environment disputes in the GATT/WTO and the EU. Comp Polit Stud 34(6):622–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen H (1929) Wesen und Entwicklung der Staatsgerichtsbarkeit. In: Triepel H, Kelsen H, Layer M, Von Hippel E (eds) Veröffentlichung der Vereinigung der deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer, Heft 5. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, pp 30–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Khoury ME (2012) The role of environmentalist NGOs in the democratisation of the WTO dispute settlement procedure. South Cross Univ Law Rev 15:53–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Krämer R (2013) Die Koordinierung zwischen Umweltschutz und Freihandel im Mehrebenenrechtsverbund am Beispiel des Vergaberecht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Krämer L (2014) EU enforcement of environmental laws: from great principles to daily practice – improving citizen involvement. Environ Policy Law 44(1/2):247–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Krämer-Hoppe R (2019) Positive integration: EU and WTO approaches towards the ‘trade and’ debate. EYIEL. In: Krämer-Hoppe R (ed) Positive integration - EU and WTO approaches towards the “trade and” debate. Springer, Cham, pp 1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Krämer-Hoppe R, Krüger T (2017) International adjudication as a mode of Eu external governance? The WTO seal case. J Common Mark Stud 55(3):535–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunzlik P (2003) Making the market work for the environment: acceptance of (some) ‘green’ contract award criteria in public procurement. J Environ Law:175–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Landwehr O (2007) Article 3 SPS Agreement. In: Wolfrum R, Stoll PT, Seibert-Fohr A (eds) WTO-technical barriers and SPS measures. Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Louka E (2004) Conflicting integration: the environmental law of the European Union. Intersentia, Antwerp

    Google Scholar 

  • Marceau G, Trachtman JP (2002) The technical barriers to trade agreement, the sanitary and phytosanitary measures agreement, and the general agreement on tariffs and trade – a map of the world trade organization law of domestic regulation of goods. J World Trade 36(5):811–881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Notora N (2003) Judicial approaches to trade and environment: the EC and the WTO. Cameron May, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Partiti E (2013) The Appellate Body report in US-Tuna II and its impact on eco-labelling and standardization. Leg Issues Econ Integr 40(1):73–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauwelyn J (2004) Recent books on trade and environment: GATT phantoms still haunt the WTO. Eur J Int Law 15(3):575–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peel J, Osofsky HM (2015) Climate change litigation: regulatory pathways to cleaner energy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Poletti A, De Bièvre D, Chatagnier JT (2015) Cooperation in the shadow of the WTO law: why litigate when you can negotiate. World Trade Rev 14:33–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid E (2015) Balancing human rights, environmental protection and international trade –lessons from the EU experience. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid E (2019) Negative integration and the courts – balancing and the room to manoeuvre trade and environment in the EU and WTO: legitimacy, proportionality and institutional power play. EYIEL. In: Krämer-Hoppe R (ed) Positive integration - EU and WTO approaches towards the “trade and” debate. Springer, Cham, pp 87–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Sands P (1990) European community environmental law: legislation, the European Court of Justice and common-interest groups. Mod Law Rev 53(5):685–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sax JL (1971) Defending the environment: a strategy for citizen action. Alfred A. Knopf, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf FW (1999) Governing in Europe: effective and democratic? Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schoukens H (2015) Access to justice in environmental cases after the rulings of the Court of Justice of 13 January 2015: Kafka revisited? Utrecht J Int Eur Law 31(81):46–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott J (2001) On Kith and Kine (and Crustaceans): trade and environment in the EU and the WTO. In: Weiler JHH (ed) The EU, the WTO, and the NAFTA: towards a common law of international trade? Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 125–168

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Scott J, Sturm S (2006) Courts as catalysts: re-thinking the judicial role in new governance. Columbia J Eur Law 13:565–594

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer G, Elsig M, Puig S (2016) The law and politics of WTO dispute settlement. Leg Stud Res Paper Ser (10):1–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahbaz M, Nasreen M, Ahmed K (2017) Trade openness-carbon emission nexus: the importance of turning points of trade openness for country panels. Energy Econ 61:221–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner J, Woods L, Watson P (2012) EU law, 11th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone Sweet A (2010) The European Court of Justice and the judicialization of EU governance. Living Rev Eur Gov 5(2):1–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bossche P, Prévost D (2016) Essentials of WTO law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vedder H (2010) The Treaty of Lisbon and European environmental law and policy. J Environ Law 22(2):285–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viktor DG (2000) The sanitary and phytosanitary agreement of the World Trade Organization: an assessment after five years. N Y Univ J Int Law Policy 32:865–937

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Bogdandy A, Venzke I (2013) On the functions of international courts: an appraisal in light of their burgeoning public authority. Leiden J Int Law 26:49–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weimer M (2017) Reconciling regulatory space with external accountability through WTO adjudication trade, environment and development. Leiden J Int Law 30(4):901–924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiers J (2003) Trade and environment in the EC and the WTO – a legal analysis. European Law Publishing, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I gratefully acknowledge helpful comments from all the participants of the workshop “Trade and Environment – Positive Integration in the EU and the WTO” 9.–10. May 2016 at the Ruhr-University Bochum especially from Adelheid Puttler.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

    Rike Krämer-Hoppe

Authors
  1. Rike Krämer-Hoppe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rike Krämer-Hoppe .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

    Rike Krämer-Hoppe

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Krämer-Hoppe, R. (2020). Adjudication and Positive Integration: The Role of the European Court of Justice and the Dispute Settlement Body in the “Trade and Environment” Debate. In: Krämer-Hoppe, R. (eds) Positive Integration - EU and WTO Approaches Towards the "Trade and" Debate. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25662-3_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25662-3_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-25661-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-25662-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation