‘The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.’ Lessons on Methodology in Legal Analysis from the Recent WTO Litigation on Renewable Energy Subsidies



This article is about methodology in legal analysis. In particular, it is about the importance of integrity and coherence in legal methodology.


World Trade Organization Legal Reasoning Market Definition Legal Analysis Legal Interpretation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The author wishes to thank for comments on previous drafts, and conversation on the topic, Stefano Bertea, Aaron Cosbey, Claus Dieter Ehlermann, Bernard Hoekman, Gary Horlick, Petros Mavroidis, Jorge Piernas Lopez. He also thanks Tina Martin for her assistance. This article develops the working paper: ‘What does the recent WTO litigation on renewable energy subsidies tell us about methodology in legal analysis? The good, the bad, and the ugly’, RSCAS 2014/05, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, January 2014, and was already published in the Journal of World Trade 48, no. 5 (2014): 895–938. Some initial ideas of this article were presented at a CTEI workshop in Geneva (June 2013), at the DISSETTLE Workshop in Brussels (September 2013), at the second meeting of E-15 Clean Energy and the Trade System group in Geneva (October 2013) and at a seminar of the Global Governance Programme, European University Institute, Florence (December 2013). The author wishes to thank their participants for useful reaction and comments. The usual disclaimers apply.


  1. Aerni P et al (2010) Climate change and international law: exploring the linkages between human rights, environment, trade and investment. German Handb Int Law 53:139–188Google Scholar
  2. Bahar H, Egeland J, Steenblik R (2013) Domestic Incentive Measures for Renewable Energy with Possible Trade Implications. OECD Trade and Environment Working Papers 2013/01Google Scholar
  3. Bengoextea J, Moral Soriano L, McCormick N (2001) Integration and integrity and legal reasoning of the European Court of Justice. In: De Burca G, Weiler JHH (eds) The European Court of Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 43–44Google Scholar
  4. Bigdeli SZ (2011) Resurrecting the dead? The expired non-actionable subsidies and the lingering question of ‘Green Space’. Manchester J Int Econ Law 8(2):2–37Google Scholar
  5. Biondi A (2013) State aid is falling down, falling down: an analysis of the case law on the notion of aid. Common Mark Law Rev 50(6):1719–1744Google Scholar
  6. Bishop W (2005) From Trade to Tutelage: State Aid and Public Choice in the European Union. Presentation to Conference to ACE, Copenhagen, 2 Dec 2005Google Scholar
  7. Breckenridge A (2013) A Matter of Definition. Commentary of Aspects of the Appellate Body’s Ruling on the Canada–Renewable Energy Case in the WTO. Frontier Economics October 2013: 4–5Google Scholar
  8. Broude T, Levy PI (2013) Do You Mind if I Don’t Smoke? Products, Purpose and Indeterminacy in US–Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes. International Law Forum, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Research Paper No. 11–13Google Scholar
  9. Busch ML, Pelc KJ (2011) Ruling not to rule – the use of judicial economy by WTO panels. In: Broude T, Busch ML, Porges A (eds) The politics of international economic law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 257–279Google Scholar
  10. Butler L, Neuhoff K (2008) Comparison of feed-in tariff, quota and auction mechanisms to support wind power development. Renew Energy 33(8):1854–1867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell S (2013) Ontario Slashes Samsung Deal Following WTO Ruling. Windpower Monthly, 24 Jun 2013Google Scholar
  12. Cartland M, Depayre G, Woznozski J (2012) Is something going wrong in the WTO dispute settlement? J World Trade 46:979Google Scholar
  13. Casier L, Morenhout T (2013) WTO Members, Not the Appellate Body, Need to Clarify Boundaries in Renewable Energy Support. International Institute for Sustainable Development, 24 July 2013Google Scholar
  14. CBS News (2012) WTO Rules Ontario Green Energy Tariff Unfair. CBS News, 19 Nov 2012. Accessed 20 July 2015
  15. Charnovitz S, Fischer C (2015) Canada – Certain measures affecting the renewable energy generation sector; Canada – Measures relating to the feed-in tariff program. World Trade Rev 14:177Google Scholar
  16. Cosbey A, Mavroidis PC (2014) A turquoise mess: green subsidies, blue industrial policy and renewable energy: the case for redrafting the subsidies agreement of the WTO. J Int Econ Law: 1–37Google Scholar
  17. Cosbey A, Rubini L (2013) Does it FIT? An assessment of the effectiveness of renewable energy measures and of the implications of the Canada – Renewable Energy/FIT disputes. Geneva, ICTSD, E-15 Initiative, Clean Energy and Trade Group, October 2013Google Scholar
  18. Deutsche Bank Climate Change Advisors (2010) Global energy transfer feed-in tariffs for developing countries. Deutsche Bank, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Dworkin RM (1986) Law’s Empire. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland OregonGoogle Scholar
  20. European Commission (1998) Commission notice on the application of state aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation. Off J Eur Communities 384:3–6Google Scholar
  21. European Commission (2012) EU Welcomes WTO Report on Ontario’s Energy Programme. Accessed 15 Jan 2014
  22. European Commission (2013) Ontario’s Energy Programme: EU Welcomes WTO Ruling in Support of Clean Energy. Accessed 15 Jan 2014
  23. Farrell J, Shapiro C (2010) Antitrust evaluation of horizontal mergers: an economic alternative to market definition. BE J Theor Econ 10(1):1–39. Accessed 15 Jan 2014
  24. Fouquet D, Johansson TB (2008) European renewable energy policy at crossroads—focus on electricity support mechanisms. Energy Policy 36(11):4079–4092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Horlick GN, Clarke PA (2010) WTO subsidies disciplines during and after the crisis. J Int Econ Law 13(3):859–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Howlett K, D’Aliesio R (2011) How Samsung Became an Ontario Election Flashpoint. The Globe and Mail, 29 Sep 2011Google Scholar
  27. Howse R (2001) The most dangerous branch? The scope and limits of judicial power in the WTO. In: Cottier T, Mavroidis PC (eds) The role of the judge in international trade law. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, p 111Google Scholar
  28. Howse R (2010a) Climate mitigation subsidies and the WTO legal framework: a policy analysis. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Accessed 24 May 2015
  29. Howse R (2010b) Do the World Trade Organisation disciplines on domestic subsidies make sense? The case for legalising some subsidies. In: Bagwell KW, Bermann GA, Mavroidis PC (eds) The law and economics of contingent protection in international trade. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Hufbauer GC et al (2013) Content requirements: a global problem. Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. Inside US Trade (2011) USTR Cautious on Japan’s WTO challenge of Canadian green energy law. Inside US Trade, 23 June 2011Google Scholar
  32. Inside US Trade (2013) Environmental Groups Wary of WTO Ruling on Canada Energy Program. Inside US Trade, 18 Jan 2013Google Scholar
  33. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (2010) Japan Challenges Canadian Renewable Energy Incentives at WTO. Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, 14(31). Accessed 20 July 2015
  34. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (2011) Major green disputes move ahead at WTO. Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, 15(29)Google Scholar
  35. Lipp J (2007) Lessons for effective renewable electricity policy from Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom. Energy Policy 35(11):5481–5495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Llewllyn KN (1960) The common law tradition: deciding appeals. Little, Brown and Company, Boston and TorontoGoogle Scholar
  37. MacCormick N (1978) Legal reasoning and legal theory. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  38. MacCormick N (1984) Coherence in legal justification. In: Peczenick A et al (eds) Theory of legal science. Reidel Publishing, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  39. Maclnnis L (2010) Japan Starts WTO Dispute with Canada on Clean Power. Reuters, 13 Sep 2010. Accessed 20 July 2015
  40. Mavroidis PC (2001) Amicus Curiae Briefs Before the WTO: Much Ado about Nothing. NYU Jean Monnet Working Paper 2/2001, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Mavroidis PC (2013) ‘Driftin’ too far from shore – why the test for compliance with the TBT agreement developed by the TWO appellate body is wrong and what should the AB have done instead. World Trade Rev 12(3):509–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mesa Power Group, LLC v. Government of Canada (2011), UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2012-17Google Scholar
  43. Motegi T (2013) Statement by Minister Motegi, Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry on circulation of the WTO Appellate Body Report on Certain Local Content Requirements under the Feed-In Tariff Program in Ontario, Canada. Accessed 15 Jan 2014
  44. Nitsche R, Heidhues P (2006) Study on methods to analyse the impact of state aid on competition. European Commission Economic Paper 244: 122Google Scholar
  45. Oxtoby D (2011) Energy in FITs and Starts. The Globe and Mail, 23 Feb 2011Google Scholar
  46. Pauwelyn J, Elsig M (2013) The politics of treaty interpretation: variations and explanations across international tribunals. In: Dunoff J, Pollack M (eds) Interdisciplinary perspectives on international law and international relations: the state of art. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 445–473Google Scholar
  47. Posner E (2009) The perils of global legalism. Chicago University Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Public Citizen, Sierra Club (2013) Ontario’s feed-in tariff: will the WTO trump climate imperatives? Accessed 24 May 2015
  49. Raz J (1979) The authority of law. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  50. Raz J (1994) The relevance of coherence. In: Raz J (ed) Ethics in the public domain. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  51. Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (2013) Renewables 2013 – Global Status Report. REN 21, ParisGoogle Scholar
  52. Rubini L (2009) The elusive frontier: regulation under state aid rules. Eur State Aid Law Q 3:277–298Google Scholar
  53. Rubini L (2012) Ain’t Wastin’ Time No More. Subsidies for renewable energy, the SCM agreement, policy space, and law reform. J Int Econ Law 15(2):525–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schiavello A (2001) On ‘Coherence’ and ‘Law’: an analysis of different models. Ratio Juris 14(2):233–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Soriano LM (2003) A modest notion of coherence in legal reasoning. A model for the European Court of Justice. Ratio Juris 16(3):296–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Steger DP (2010) The subsidies and countervailing measures agreement: ahead of its time or time for reform? J World Trade 44(4):779–796Google Scholar
  57. Stewart T et al (2013) The increasing recognition of problems with WTO appellate body decision-making: will the message be heard? Global Trade Customs J 8(11/12):390–412Google Scholar
  58. Sunstein CR (1996) Legal reasoning and political conflict. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  59. Sykes A (2010) The questionable case for subsidies regulation: a comparative perspective. J Leg Anal 2(2):473–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Van Loan P (2010) Opening Markets across the Atlantic: The Next Step in Canadian free trade. Address by Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to Economic Club of Canada, Toronto, 30 Apr 2010Google Scholar
  61. Wu M, Salzman J (2014) The next generation of trade and environment disputes: the rise of green industrial policy. Northwest Univ Law Rev 108(2):401–474Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Reader in International Economic Law, School of LawUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations