140 likes | 346 Views
Globalization, Environment, and the “Battle of Seattle” (1999). New alliances of globalization: labor, environment, “anti-globalists” Worries about governance: non-accountable role of large corporations and of WTO itself Loss of local networks and control
E N D
Globalization, Environment, and the “Battle of Seattle” (1999) • New alliances of globalization: labor, environment, “anti-globalists” • Worries about governance: non-accountable role of large corporations and of WTO itself • Loss of local networks and control • Loss of jobs: concern for both South and North • Lowering of environmental standards • Race to the bottom: in pay; in labor standards; in environmental quality ESPP-78
Institutions of Global Governance • Spheres of action: • Political: United Nations • Economic: World Trade Organization (also World Bank, International Monetary Fund) • Environmental: Many institutions have a slice of the pie • Types of international legal frameworks • Soft law: not binding (e.g., codes of conduct, Global Compact, Agenda 21) • Treaties: binding powers delegated by nation states • Constitution: living federal system (EU?) • Successive treaties but also practices • Current strains ESPP-78
WTO and the Environment Can free trade and environmental protection co-exist effectively? Are the WTO’s governing principles sound? What needs to be reformed? Is a new institution required? ESPP-78
History and Functions of the WTO • Successor to GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) 1947, created in Uruguay Round (1994) • New global norm “trade liberalization” • Expansion from 50 countries to 185 • Legalization of trade disputes • Compulsory adjudication • Binding outcomes, with serious monetary sanctions • Dispute Settlement Panel • Appellate Body • Dispute Settlement Body (“reverse consensus”): must go ahead unless there is consensus against it ESPP-78
Central Assumption of “Free Trade”: Product Equivalence ESPP-78
Conflicts between Trade and Environment • Environmental regulations may operate as non-tariff barriers (NTBs) to trade: -- e.g., EPA requires turtle-friendly trawlers • Cultural preferences may conflict with harmonized regulations: -- e.g., Genetically Modified Organisms, hormone-fed beef ESPP-78
WTO’s Governing Principle: Equal Treatment (except when…) • Overall aims • Freer trade, through rounds of negotiation • Predictable environment for trade • More competitive trading, through elimination of “unfair” practices • More beneficial for developing countries, with adjustment opportunities and special privileges where needed • National Treatment • Imported and locally produced goods to be treated equally • Most Favored Nation (MFN) status • Members are required to treat all nations equally ESPP-78
Greening the WTO • Preamble language (cited in Shrimp-Turtle case) “. . . expanding the production of and trade in goods and services, while allowing for the optimal use of the world's resources in accordance with the objective of sustainable development . . .” ESPP-78
Environmental Exceptions • Article XX So long as “such measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination, . . . .this Agreement shall not be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by any contracting party of measures . . . (b) necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health; . . . (g) relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources if such measures are made effective in conjunction with restrictions on domestic production or consumption. . . .” • Shrimp-Turtle case (1998) - tests scope of Art. XX • Dolphin-Tuna case (1991 panel report) • “Product” not “process” ESPP-78
Trade in Food: The SPS Agreement • Goals: harmonization, technical rationalization • Key language and features: • “based on scientific principles and is not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence” • “Members shall base their sanitary or phytosanitary measures on international standards” (Codex Alimentarius Commission, UN) • If not in compliance with international standards, then must “justify” deviation. • Level of protection must be “based on risk assessment” as developed by the relevant international organizations (5.1) • IsEurope’sprecautionary approach justified (e.g., beef hormone case)? ESPP-78
How “democratic” is the WTO? • 153 members in mid-2008 • U.S.A. as 800 lb. gorilla • Unclear role of citizens: transparency; standing; amicus briefs • Who decides law? Not bound by precedent. • Who decides (e.g., dispute settlement panels)? • Validity of basic principles? ESPP-78
Do we need a Global Environmental Organization? • For • Need explicit authority for environment • WTO’s trade bias • Economist values may override environmental ones • Against • Unnecessary? • Unwieldy? • Unrepresentative? • Unscientific? • Unrealistic? ESPP-78