Climatic Change

, Volume 133, Issue 3, pp 407–417 | Cite as

Border Tax adjustment – legal perspective

  • Rolf H. Weber


Border tax adjustment is a second-best solution for improving climate mitigation measures as long as international cooperation does not function to a satisfactory degree. However, the implementation of such measures can legally be problematic under the angle of the legal framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO) which aims at liberalizing international trade and at avoiding trade barriers. In particular, border tax adjustment might come into conflict with the National Treatment principle and the discipline on subsidies. These legal problems can only be overcome if the specific legal justification reasons provided for in WTO law for the promotion of climate sustainability (such as conservation of exhaustible resources and protection of human, animal or plant health) are interpreted in a broad way.


World Trade Organization Much Favoured Nation Carbon Leakage Appellate Body World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement 
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.


  1. (2006) The stern review on the economic effects of climate change. Popul Dev Rev 32(4):793–798Google Scholar
  2. Cottier T et al (2013) Border Tax Adjustments, Can energy and carbon taxes be adjusted at the border? Schlussbericht zuhanden des Staatsekretariats für Wirtschaft SECO und der Eidgenössischen Finanzverwaltung EFVGoogle Scholar
  3. Hsueh CW (2013) A greener trade agreement: approaches to environmental issues to the TPP negotiations. Asian J WTO Int Health Law Policy 8(2):521–542Google Scholar
  4. Hufbauer GC, Charnovitz S, Kim J (2009) Global warming and the world trade system. Peterson Institute for International Economics, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  5. Kaufmann C, Weber RH (2011) Carbon-related border tax adjustment: mitigating climate change or restricting international trade? World Trade Rev 10(4):497–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lay A (2012) Massnahmen zum Ausgleich der Kosten des europäischen Emissionszertifikatehandels. Dissertation, University of ZurichGoogle Scholar
  7. Pauwelyn J (2007) U.S. Federal climate policy and competition concerns: the limits and the options of international trade law. Working paper 07–02, Duke UniversityGoogle Scholar
  8. Pauwelyn J (2009) Statement of Joost Pauwelyn, testimony before the subcommittee on trade of the house committee on ways and means, US House of Representatives, Washington, DC, 24 MarchGoogle Scholar
  9. Weber RH (2014) Designing trade rules to promote climate sustainability. J Energy Power Eng 8:612–619Google Scholar
  10. Weber RH and Menoud V (2008) The information society and the digital divide. ZIK vol. 40, Zurich GenevaGoogle Scholar
  11. WTO-UNEP Report (2009) Trade and climate change. World Trade Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations