Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Use of Trade Remedies on Green Goods

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Greening Trade Remedies

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EYIELMONO,volume 31))

  • 57 Accesses

Abstract

The imposition of trade remedies is an important obstacle to the development of the green goods and renewable energy sectors. This chapter considers how trade remedy policy can alleviate this burden. An important step in the liberalisation of green goods sectors would be shielding environmental goods from the imposition of trade remedy duties. This chapter explores mechanisms to discipline or even halt the imposition of trade remedy measures by posing three questions: How can environmental goods be defined, how can the use of trade remedies be restricted on environmental goods, and which options are available to WTO Members to implement such restrictions?

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

Access this chapter

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
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Doha Development Agenda, para. 31 (emphasis added).

  2. 2.

    Kennedy (2009), p. 532.

  3. 3.

    Doha Development Agenda, para. 31(i) and 31(ii).

  4. 4.

    Doha Development Agenda, para. 51.

  5. 5.

    In November 2020, 53 WTO Members launched the Trade and Environmental Sustainability Structured Discussions (TESSD); negotiations on an Agreement on Climate Change. See WTO News, First meeting held to advance work on trade and environmental sustainability, 5 March 2021, available at https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news21_e/tessd_08mar21_e.htm (last accessed 21 June 2023). Moreover, New Zealand, Costa Rica, Fiji, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland have launched negotiations on an Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability (ACCTS), which aims to lower tariff barriers on environmental goods and services by means of a binding ceiling on the potential tariff. See https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/free-trade-agreements/trade-and-climate/agreement-on-climate-change-trade-and-sustainability-accts-negotiations/ (last accessed 21 June 2023).

  6. 6.

    UNCTAD’s classification of NTBs includes “Contingent trade-protective measures” as a category of non-technical measures. See UNCTAD (2014), pp. 18 ff. Similarly, the OECD defined core NTBs in 1997 including anti-dumping and countervailing actions. See Deardorff and Stern (1997).

  7. 7.

    See Sect. 2.4.1.1 above.

  8. 8.

    The Peterson Institute for International Economics quantified in 2014 that trade remedies on environmental goods reduced trade in such goods by approximately $14 billion annually. See UNCTAD (2014), pp. 12–13.

  9. 9.

    Meléndez-Ortiz (2016), p. 11; Horlick (2013), p. 69.

  10. 10.

    Brewster et al. (2016), p. 328.

  11. 11.

    See Zhang (2013), pp. 677 ff.

  12. 12.

    Vikhlyaev (2004), p. 103.

  13. 13.

    Appellate Body report, European Communities – Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts, WT/DS269/AB/R, adopted 12 September 2005, para. 198.

  14. 14.

    For the status as a source of public international law in the WTO jurisprudence, see Matsushita et al. (2015), p. 226.

  15. 15.

    HS 2022, the 7th edition of the HS, shall enter into force on 1 January 2022. Addressing environmental and social issues of global concern was one of the major features of the HS 2022 amendments. See WCO Newsroom, The new 2022 Edition of the Harmonized System has been accepted, 8 January 2020, available at http://www.wcoomd.org/en/media/newsroom/2020/january/the-new-2022-edition-of-the-harmonized-system-has-been-accepted.aspx (last accessed 21 June 2023).

  16. 16.

    In the EU, for instance, the ECJ has confirmed these play an important role in the EU for ensuring uniform application of the tariffs. See ECJ, Daiber v. Hauptzollamt Reutlingen, Case 200/84, judgment of 10 October 1985, ECLI:EU:C:1985:403, para. 14.

  17. 17.

    They are also used for custom tariff administration, collection of international trade statistics, rules of origin, collection of international taxes, transport tariffs and statistics, monitoring of controlled goods etc.

  18. 18.

    Art. 3(3) HS Convention (emphasis added).

  19. 19.

    Mavroidis and Neven (2019), p. 377.

  20. 20.

    See GATT Panel report, Spain – Tariff Treatment of Unroasted Coffee, L/5135, BISD 28S/102, adopted 11 June 1981, para. 4.4. The Panel found all unroasted, non-decaffeinated coffee beans like products. Differently, see GATT Panel report, Canada/Japan – Tariff on Imports of Spruce, Pine, Fir (SPF) Dimension Lumber, L/6470, BISD 36S/167, adopted 19 July 1989, para. 5.8. The Panel found that both varieties of lumber were not like products.

  21. 21.

    OECD, The OECD Environment Industry: Situation, Prospects and Government Policy, 1992; OECD, The Global Environment Goods and Services Industry, 1996.

  22. 22.

    Zhang (2013), p. 677.

  23. 23.

    Vikhlyaev (2004), p. 96.

  24. 24.

    Ibid, p. 96.

  25. 25.

    The APEC includes 21 so-called Member Economies: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, United States and Vietnam. See https://www.apec.org/About-Us/About-APEC/Member-Economies (last accessed 21 June 2023).

  26. 26.

    APEC List of Environmental Goods, Annex C to the 2012 Leaders’ Declaration, November 2012, available at https://www.apec.org/Meeting-Papers/Leaders-Declarations/2012/2012_aelm/2012_aelm_annexC.aspx (last accessed 21 June 2023). For a comparison between the OECD and the APEC Lists, see Steenblik (2005).

  27. 27.

    Mavroidis and Neven (2019), p. 377.

  28. 28.

    Ibid, p. 378.

  29. 29.

    Committee on Trade and Environment Special Session, Report by the Chairman, TN/TE/20, para. 11.

  30. 30.

    See Executive Office of the President, The President’s Climate Action Plan, June 2013, pp. 19–20.

  31. 31.

    Frey (2016), p. 459.

  32. 32.

    de Melo and Solleder (2020), p. 335.

  33. 33.

    Sugathan (2013).

  34. 34.

    The EGA includes 46 Members (many of which are also part of the APEC initiative: Australia, Canada, China, Costa Rica, European Union, Hong Kong, Iceland, Israel, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Chinese Taipei, Turkey, and the United States. See World Trade Organization, Map of EGA participants, available at https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/ega_map_e.htm (last accessed 21 June 2023).

  35. 35.

    de Melo and Solleder (2020), p. 336.

  36. 36.

    The European Commission has imposed and maintained anti-dumping investigations on bicycles from China since 1996 until (at least) 2024. See, most recently, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1379 of 28 August 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China, OJ 2019 L 225/1.

  37. 37.

    Eliason (2019), p. 568.

  38. 38.

    Wu (2014), pp. 173–174.

  39. 39.

    See Steenblik and Droege (2019).

  40. 40.

    Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, the WCO published a list of goods that expressed policy considerations, (the “HS classification reference for Covid-19 medical supplies”) to facilitate management of cross-border movement of medical goods, apply contingent tariff and non-tariff measures, survey and combat movement falsified supplies, and address shortages. See WCO, HS classification reference for Covid-19 medical supplies, 2nd edition, as updated 9 April 2020.

  41. 41.

    Report from the 14th round of negotiations for an Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA), available at https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/july/tradoc_154784.pdf (last accessed 21 June 2023).

  42. 42.

    Wouters et al. (2020), pp. 16–17.

  43. 43.

    de Melo and Solleder (2020), p. 338.

  44. 44.

    See Sect. 4.3.1 above.

  45. 45.

    de Melo and Solleder (2020), p. 341.

  46. 46.

    Cosbey (2014).

  47. 47.

    There have been attempts to define the concept of “environmental services” in the literature. See for instance Gelosso Grosso (2007); Vikhlyaev (2004), pp. 108 ff.

  48. 48.

    See GATT Panel report, United States – Restrictions on the Importation of Sugar and Sugar-Containing Products Applied Under the 1955 Waiver and Under the Headnote to the Schedule of Tariff Concessions, BISD 36S/331, adopted 7 November 1990, para. 5.2; Appellate Body report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/AB/R, adopted 25 September 1997, para. 153–158. See Hoekman and Mavroidis (2017), pp. 392 ff.

  49. 49.

    Doelle (2004), p. 95.

  50. 50.

    The seminal Tuna/Dolphin cases seemed to close the door on considering PPMs in likeness determination under Art. I or III GATT. In Salmon and Herring, PPMs were considered relevant under Art. XX GATT, but Panels did not consider PPMs for the scope of application of Art. I GATT. In Shrimp/Turtle, the Appellate Body found a violation of Art. XI GATT, thereby effectively escaping the PPM question under Art. I and III GATT. Hence, the question whether PPMs are a basis for distinguishing between products remains open, in absence of a definitive ruling in that direction. Ultimately, The WTO chose to tackle the differentiation under Art. XX GATT where PPM differences are specifically allowed. See also Sect. 4.3.3.2 below.

  51. 51.

    The meaning of the term ‘like product’ under both provisions is identical. See Potts (2008), pp. 11–12.

  52. 52.

    GATT Panel report, United States – Restrictions on Imports of Tuna, 3 September 1991, unadopted, BISD 39S/155, para. 5.15.

  53. 53.

    Potts (2008), pp. 14–15.

  54. 54.

    See Appellate Body report, European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Products Containing Asbestos, WT/DS135/AB/R, adopted 5 April 2001, para. 91; Appellate Body/Panel report, Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, adopted 1 November 1996, para. 28–37 and 67–75. Nothing prevents addition of additional sustainable development-oriented criteria for like product interpretations. Potts (2008), p. 14: Based on evolutionary approach and WTO principle of sustainable development, there may be compelling arguments to do so.

  55. 55.

    Potts (2008), p. 14.

  56. 56.

    Doelle (2004), p. 95.

  57. 57.

    Appellate Body report, European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, WT/DS135/AB/R, adopted 5 April 2001.

  58. 58.

    Ibid, para. 109 ff.

  59. 59.

    Appellate Body report, Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, adopted 1 November 1996, para. 25.

  60. 60.

    GATT Panel report, Canada/Japan — Tariff on Imports of Spruce, Pine, Fir (SPF) Dimension Lumber, L/6470, adopted 19 July 1989, para. 5.11–5.12.

  61. 61.

    Mavroidis and Neven (2019), p. 386.

  62. 62.

    Ibid.

  63. 63.

    Appellate Body report, Argentina – Measures Relating to Trade in Goods and Services, WT/DS453/AB/R, adopted 9 May 2016.

  64. 64.

    Potts (2008).

  65. 65.

    Zhang (2013), p. 682.

  66. 66.

    See for instance, Panel report, China – Measures related to the Exportation of Rare Earths, Tungsten, and Molybdenum, WT/DS431/R, WT/DS432/R, WT/DS433/R, adopted 29 August 2014, para. 7.261; Appellate Body report, China – Measures related to the Exportation of Rare Earths, Tungsten, and Molybdenum, WT/DS431/AB/R, WT/DS432/AB/R, WT/DS433/AB/R, adopted 29 August 2014, para. 5.94. Van den Bossche and Zdouc (2017), pp. 543–582.

  67. 67.

    GATT Panel report, United States – Restrictions on Imports of Tuna, DS21/R, 3 September 1991, unadopted, para. 5.531–5.532; GATT Panel report, United States – Restrictions on Imports of Tuna, DS29/R, 16 June 1994, unadopted, para. 5.20; the Panel in US – Shrimp did not address the issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction.

  68. 68.

    Appellate Body report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, para. 121.

  69. 69.

    Appellate Body report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, para. 133.

  70. 70.

    Panel report, United States – Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products, WT/DS381/R, adopted 13 June 2002, para. 7.444; Appellate Body report, United States – Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products, WT/DS381/AB/R, adopted 13 June 2012, para. 338; Panel report, United States – Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products, Recourse to Article 21.5 by Mexico, WT/DS381/RW, adopted 3 December 2015, para. 7.524–7.525.

  71. 71.

    Appellate Body report, European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products, WT/DS400/AB/R and WT/DS401/AB/R, adopted 16 June 2014, para. 5.214.

  72. 72.

    Limenta (2020), p. 335.

  73. 73.

    Appellate Body report, Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres, WT/DS332/AB/R, adopted 17 December 2007, para. 210; Appellate Body report, European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products, WT/DS400/AB/R and WT/DS401/AB/R, adopted 16 June 2014, para. 5.200 ff.

  74. 74.

    Appellate Body report, European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products, WT/DS400/AB/R and WT/DS401/AB/R, adopted 16 June 2014, para. 5.209, overturning Appellate Body report, Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres, WT/DS332/AB/R, adopted 17 December 2007, para. 121.

  75. 75.

    Appellate Body report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, para. 128.

  76. 76.

    Ibid, para. 141.

  77. 77.

    See Appellate Body report, European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products, WT/DS400/AB/R and WT/DS401/AB/R, adopted 16 June 2014; GATT Panel report, Canada – Measures Affecting Exports of Unprocessed Salmon and Herring, L/6268-35S/98, adopted 22 March 1988; GATT Panel report, United States – Prohibition of Imports of Tuna and Tuna Products from Canada, L/5198-29S/91, adopted 22 February 1982; GATT Panel report, United States – Restrictions on Imports of Tuna, DS21/R, 3 September 1991, unadopted.

  78. 78.

    Appellate Body report, United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R, adopted 20 May 1996, p. 16.

  79. 79.

    See Condon (2009), p. 912; Douma (2016), p. 301.

  80. 80.

    Appellate Body report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, para. 135–136; Appellate Body report, China – Measures related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials, WT/DS394/AB/R, WT/DS395/AB/R, WT/DS398/AB/R, adopted 22 February 2012, para. 355; Appellate Body report, China – Measures related to the Exportation of Rare Earths, Tungsten, and Molybdenum, WT/DS431/AB/R, WT/DS432/AB/R, WT/DS433/AB/R, adopted 29 August 2014, para. 5.90.

  81. 81.

    Appellate Body report, United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R, adopted 20 May 1996, p. 18.

  82. 82.

    Appellate Body report, United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R, adopted 20 May 1996, pp. 20–21; Appellate Body report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, para. 144.

  83. 83.

    Liu and Maughan (2012), p. 998.

  84. 84.

    Appellate Body report, China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials, WT/DS394/AB/R, WT/DS395/AB/R, WT/DS398/AB/R, adopted 22 February 2012, para. 360.

  85. 85.

    Panel report, Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres, WT/DS332/R, adopted 17 December 2007, para. 7.107.

  86. 86.

    Appellate Body report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, para. 156.

  87. 87.

    Appellate Body report, Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres, WT/DS332/R, adopted 17 December 2007, para. 229–230.

  88. 88.

    Appellate Body report, United States – Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products, WT/DS381/AB/R, adopted 13 June 2012, para. 7.316; Panel report, European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries, WT/DS246/R, adopted 1 December 2003, para. 7.228–7.229, 7.232 and 7.234.

  89. 89.

    Appellate Body report, United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R, adopted 20 May 1996, p. 25.

  90. 90.

    See Appellate Body report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, recourse to Article 21.5 by Malaysia, WT/DS58/AB/RW, adopted 21 November 2001, para. 115–134.

  91. 91.

    Potts (2008), p. 26.

  92. 92.

    Doelle (2004), p. 99.

  93. 93.

    See, generally, E15 Expert Group on Clean Energy Technologies and the Trade System (2013).

  94. 94.

    Wu and Salzman (2014).

  95. 95.

    Kampel (2017).

  96. 96.

    See Sect. 2.4.1.1 above.

  97. 97.

    Niels (2000), pp. 470–471.

  98. 98.

    Ibid.

  99. 99.

    Bloningen and Prusa (2001), pp. 27 ff.; Lima-Campos and Vito (2004); Bloningen and Prusa (2016), p. 142.

  100. 100.

    Horlick (2013), pp. 69–70.

  101. 101.

    Meléndez-Ortiz (2016), p. 11; Wu and Salzman (2014), p. 471; Kampel (2017), p. 20. See for instance, Singapore-Jordan FTA, Art. 2.8(f).

  102. 102.

    UNCTAD (2014), p. 15.

  103. 103.

    Art. 11.3 ADA; Art. 21.3 ASCM.

  104. 104.

    See Panel report, United States – Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea, WT/DS99/R, adopted 19 March 1999, para. 6.41.

  105. 105.

    See Art. 11.2, 11.3 and 9.5 ADA; Art. 21.2, 21.2 ASCM.

  106. 106.

    See Sect. 2.4.1.1 above.

  107. 107.

    Meléndez-Ortiz (2016), p. 11; UNCTAD (2014), p. 15; Kampel (2017), p. 19.

  108. 108.

    Kampel (2017), p. 19.

  109. 109.

    Wu and Salzman (2014), pp. 470–471; Kampel (2017), pp. 19–20.

  110. 110.

    Wu and Salzman (2014), pp. 471–472.

  111. 111.

    Horlick (2013), p. 70.

  112. 112.

    See Sect. 4.4.2.4 below.

  113. 113.

    Kampel (2017), p. 19.

  114. 114.

    Art. 5.9 ADA; Art. 11.9 ASCM.

  115. 115.

    See for instance Singapore-Jordan FTA, Art. 2.8(a).

  116. 116.

    See Horlick (2013), p. 70.

  117. 117.

    Andersen (2009), pp. 72 ff.

  118. 118.

    See Adamantopoulos and De Notaris (2000), pp. 36–38.

  119. 119.

    It is often held that “a major proportion” instead of the major proportion would mean that the domestic industry must not represent more than 50% of the domestic producers. See Vermulst (2005), p. 67; see, for instance, Panel report, European Communities – Measures Affecting Importation of Certain Poultry Products, WT/DS69/R, adopted 23 July 1998, para. 7.341.

  120. 120.

    Meléndez-Ortiz (2016), p. 10.

  121. 121.

    Ibid.

  122. 122.

    See, in detail, Choi (2002).

  123. 123.

    Bronckers and McNelis (2000), pp. 345–385.

  124. 124.

    Other factors include actual and potential decline in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, or utilization of capacity; factors affecting domestic prices; actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital or investments and, in the case of agriculture, whether there has been an increased burden on government support programmes. See Art. 3.4 ADA; Art. 15.4 ASCM.

  125. 125.

    See also Sect. 8.2.1 below.

  126. 126.

    Howse (2013), p. 51.

  127. 127.

    Meléndez-Ortiz (2016), p. 11.

  128. 128.

    Kasteng (2013), p. 66.

  129. 129.

    UNCTAD (2014), p. 15.

  130. 130.

    European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation, COM(2013) 192 final, 10 April 2013.

  131. 131.

    Vermulst and Sud (2018), pp. 73–75.

  132. 132.

    Art. 7(2a), subpara. 5 BADR.

  133. 133.

    For a detailed discussion of the new rules in the EU, see Sect. 4.5.4 below.

  134. 134.

    Art. 3.5 ADA; Art. 15.5 ASCM.

  135. 135.

    Kasteng (2013), p. 66.

  136. 136.

    Kampel (2017), p. 20.

  137. 137.

    Barthelemy and Peat (2015), pp. 462 ff.; Kasteng (2013), p. 66.

  138. 138.

    Kampel (2017), p. 19; UNCTAD (2014), p. 16.

  139. 139.

    See Sect. 3.2.3.1 above.

  140. 140.

    Art. 19.2 ASCM.

  141. 141.

    Meléndez-Ortiz (2016), p. 11; Kasteng (2013), pp. 65–66; UNCTAD (2014).

  142. 142.

    Kampel (2017), p. 26.

  143. 143.

    Meléndez-Ortiz (2016); Horlick (2013), pp. 69–73.

  144. 144.

    See Sect. 4.4.1 above.

  145. 145.

    Kampel (2017), p. 19.

  146. 146.

    Art. 8.3 ADA and Art. 18.3 ASCM. See also Panel report, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, WT/DS217/R, adopted 27 January 2003, para. 7.80–7.81.

  147. 147.

    Art. 8.5 ADA. See also Art. 18.5 ASCM.

  148. 148.

    See also Panel report, European Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China, WT/DS397/R, adopted 28 July 2011, fn. 279.

  149. 149.

    Kampel (2017).

  150. 150.

    Art. 8(3) BADR.

  151. 151.

    Van Bael & Bellis (2019), pp. 278–279.

  152. 152.

    Kasteng (2013), pp. 60–68; Espa and Marín Durán (2018), pp. 137–138; Meléndez-Ortiz (2016), pp. 10–11.

  153. 153.

    Ibid.

  154. 154.

    For instance, to influence the application of the public interest test. See Sect. 4.4.2.8 above.

  155. 155.

    Espa and Marín Durán (2018), pp. 137–138.

  156. 156.

    Kampel (2017), p. 26.

  157. 157.

    Kasteng (2013), p. 66; Meléndez-Ortiz (2016), p. 11.

  158. 158.

    Espa and Marín Durán (2018), p. 641.

  159. 159.

    Ibid.

  160. 160.

    See Wu and Salzman (2014), p. 468; Lester and Watson (2013); Meléndez-Ortiz (2016), p. 11; UNCTAD (2014); Kampel (2017).

  161. 161.

    See WTO Negotiating Group on Rules, New Draft Consolidated Chair Texts of the AD And SCM Agreements, TN/RL/W/236, 19 December 2008, para. 18–19.

  162. 162.

    European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament on the EU’s Anti-Dumping, Anti-Subsidy and Safeguard activities and the Use of trade defence instruments by Third Countries targeting the EU in 2018, 27 March 2019, COM(2019) 158 final, p. 5.

  163. 163.

    See Sect. 4.4.2.4 below.

  164. 164.

    Nairobi Decision to eliminate agricultural export subsidies (2015), TRIPS amendment (2017), Trade Facilitation Agreement (2017), ongoing Fisheries Subsidies negotiations (ongoing). Moreover, two plurilateral agreements were agreed upon: Expansion of Information Technology Agreement (2015), Revision of the Government Procurement Agreement (2014).

  165. 165.

    Art. 8.2(c) ASCM: “assistance to promote adaptation of existing facilities to new environmental requirements imposed by law and/or regulations which result in greater constraints and financial burden on firms” were non-actionable, provided the particular requirements are fulfilled.

  166. 166.

    Art. 31 ASCM.

  167. 167.

    Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held on 1–2 November 1999, G/SCM/M/24, 26 April 2000, para. 47.

  168. 168.

    Doha Development Agenda, para. 10.2.

  169. 169.

    See for instance Kasteng (2013), pp. 60–68; Cosbey and Rubini (2013), pp. 39–46; Kennedy (2009); Horlick (2013), pp. 69–73; Kampel (2017); Farah and Cima (2015), p. 536; Matsushita et al. (2015), p. 736.

  170. 170.

    Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, Notification provisions under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, Background note by the Secretariat, G/SCM/546/Rev.11, 1 May 2020, para. 18.

  171. 171.

    Shadikhodjaev (2015), p. 494.

  172. 172.

    However, the Panel in US – Large Civil Aircraft addressed Art. 8(2)(a) ASCM. It disregarded the EU’s argument that the notion of R&D subsidies in Art. 8 ASCM necessarily implies that governmental purchases of R&D services are covered by the ASCM. See Panel report, United States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft – Second Complaint, WT/DS353/RW, adopted 23 March 2012, para. 7.958.

  173. 173.

    See Art. 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5 ASCM.

  174. 174.

    Cosbey and Mavroidis (2017), pp. 3–43; Rubini (2012).

  175. 175.

    Ibid.

  176. 176.

    See Appellate Body report, China – Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products, WT/DS363/AB/R, adopted 19 January 2010, para. 230 and 233. Absent a textual reference to the GATT, general exceptions do not apply. See Appellate Body report, China – Measures related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials, WT/DS394/AB/R, WT/DS395/AB/R, WT/DS398/AB/R, adopted 22 February 2012, para. 307.

  177. 177.

    See also footnote 24 to Article 18.1 ADA.

  178. 178.

    Shadikhodjaev (2015), pp. 499–500.

  179. 179.

    Appellate Body report, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, WT/DS217/AB/R, adopted 27 January 2003, para. 262.

  180. 180.

    Meléndez-Ortiz (2016), p. 10.

  181. 181.

    Ibid, pp. 10–11.

  182. 182.

    Lee (2016), pp. 209 ff.

  183. 183.

    See Sect. 4.3.2.1 above.

  184. 184.

    Kampel (2017), p. 36.

  185. 185.

    Ultimately, also a stand-alone agreement outside the framework of the WTO can be considered. ICTSD has launched such potential project in 2011. See Brewer (2012).

  186. 186.

    Mavroidis and de Melo (2015), p. 234.

  187. 187.

    Art. II:3 WTO Agreement.

  188. 188.

    Art. X:9 WTO Agreement.

  189. 189.

    Mavroidis and Neven (2019), p. 382.

  190. 190.

    Frey (2016), p. 460.

  191. 191.

    In the Trade Facilitation Agreement, the critical mass was set at 90%. For the APEC, Parties did not even wait until the critical mass was reached.

  192. 192.

    Sugathan (2013), p. 3.

  193. 193.

    Art. XXIV GATT.

  194. 194.

    Van den Bossche and Zdouc (2017), pp. 677–678.

  195. 195.

    Voon (2010).

  196. 196.

    Art. 28(1) TFEU. See Teh et al. (2009), pp. 166–248.

  197. 197.

    See, for instance, EFTA-Chile Art. 18.1 and 18.2 (anti-dumping), EFTA-Ukraine, Art. 2.14 (anti-dumping).

  198. 198.

    Mavroidis and Neven (2019), p. 382.

  199. 199.

    Zhang (2013), p. 692.

  200. 200.

    Appellate Body report, Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products, WT/DS34/AB/R, adopted 19 November 1999, para. 48.

  201. 201.

    See, for instance, Singapore-Jordan FTA, Art. 2.8.

  202. 202.

    Ibid.

  203. 203.

    Kampel (2017), p. 61.

  204. 204.

    Current sustainability inclusions in new EU trade policy are outlined in the TREND database, available at https://klimalog.die-gdi.de/trend/ (last accessed 21 June 2023).

  205. 205.

    See Van Vaerenbergh (2018), pp. 227–228.

  206. 206.

    Espa and Marín Durán (2018), p. 147.

  207. 207.

    See Sect. 3.3.2 above.

  208. 208.

    Espa and Marín Durán (2018), pp. 140 ff.

  209. 209.

    Ibid, pp. 140 ff.

  210. 210.

    EU-Ukraine AA, Art. 48 or EU-Singapore FTA, Art. 3.4, or similarly EU-Vietnam FTA, Art. 3.3.

  211. 211.

    EU-Korea FTA, Art. 3.10.

  212. 212.

    CETA, Art. 3.3(1), EU-Central America AA, Art. 94 EU-Japan FTA, Art. 5.13.

  213. 213.

    EU-Japan FTA, Art. 5.13, EU-COPE FTA, Art. 39.

  214. 214.

    But see EU-Ukraine AA which does have consultations (Art. 50bis) and institutional dialogue on trade remedies (Art. 51). The AA/DCFTA between EU-Moldova and EU-Georgia largely follow the provisions of the EU-Ukraine FTA on the topic of trade remedies, albeit with minor differences. See Van der Loo (2016), pp. 243–245. Also outside the EU, similar provisions exist. See for instance US-Korea FTA, Art. 10.8 and Canada-Korea FTA, Art. 7.8, both providing for a forum for Parties to exchange information on trade remedies.

  215. 215.

    Espa and Marín Durán (2018), p. 146.

  216. 216.

    See, generally, Bucholtz (1995).

  217. 217.

    Meléndez-Ortiz (2016), p. 11.

  218. 218.

    See, for instance, US-Korea FTA, Art. 10.7.3(a) and 10.8, Canada-Korea FTA, Art. 7.7.2 and 7.8.

  219. 219.

    Kampel (2017), p. 58.

  220. 220.

    See, for instance, EFTA-South Korea FTA, Art. 2.10(2) and Art. 2.11(10).

  221. 221.

    See Sect. 3.3.1 above.

  222. 222.

    See Sect. 3.3.2 above.

  223. 223.

    This test exists in the EU since the very beginning in 1962 and was confirmed in the later versions of the Basic Regulations. See Melin (2016), p. 90; Wellhausen (2001), pp. 1032 f and 1046 f.

  224. 224.

    Art. 21(1) BADR.

  225. 225.

    DG Trade Working Document, Draft Commission guidelines on the Union interest test, not adopted, para. 5–6.

  226. 226.

    Ibid, para. 21.03. See ECJ, T.KUP SAS v Belgium, case C-349/16, judgment of 15 June 2017, ECLI:EU:C:2017:469, para. 44; General Court, VTZ OAO and Others v Council, T-432/12, Order of 17 May 2017, ECLI:EU:T:2017:397, para. 143.

  227. 227.

    European Commission, Commission Clarification Paper on the Community Interest Test in Anti-dumping and Anti-subsidy Proceedings, TRADE.B.1/AS D(2005) D/568, 13 January 2006.

  228. 228.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 893/2008 of 10 September 2008 maintaining the anti-dumping duties on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in Belarus, the People’s Republic of China, Saudi Arabia and Korea following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, OJ 2008 L 247/1, rec. 80.

  229. 229.

    European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Modernisation of Trade Defence Instruments adapting trade defence instruments to the current needs of the European economy, COM(2013) 191 final, 10 April 2013.

  230. 230.

    Melin (2016), p. 110; Sinnaeve (2007), p. 162.

  231. 231.

    Melin (2016), p. 109.

  232. 232.

    Van Bael & Bellis (2019), pp. 281–282.

  233. 233.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2005 of 10 March 2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China and Saudi Arabia, amending Regulation (EC) No 2852/2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the Republic of Korea and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of such imports originating in Taiwan, OJ 2005 L 71/1, rec. 278–281.

  234. 234.

    Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 152/2013 of 19 December 2012 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards on capital requirements for central counterparties, OJ 2013 L 152/37, rec. 257–258.

  235. 235.

    Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1953 of 29 October 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain grain-oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel originating in the People’s Republic of China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the United States of America, OJ 2015 L 284/109, rec. 144.

  236. 236.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 of 16 July 2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China, OJ 2001 L 195/8, rec. 36–46.

  237. 237.

    Hoffmeister (2015), p. 375.

  238. 238.

    Van Bael & Bellis (2019), p. 277.

  239. 239.

    Kotsiubska (2011), p. 28.

  240. 240.

    See, e.g. Sinnaeve (2007), pp. 176–177; Kommerskollegium (2013).

  241. 241.

    Van Bael & Bellis (2019), pp. 278–279. For an exemplary list of cases, see Müller et al. (2009), para. 21.62.

  242. 242.

    Sinnaeve (2007), p. 177.

  243. 243.

    European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Modernisation of Trade Defence Instruments adapting trade defence instruments to the current needs of the European economy, COM(2013) 191 final, 10 April 2013, pp. 9–12.

  244. 244.

    Sinnaeve (2007), p. 177.

  245. 245.

    See, for instance, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1953 of 29 October 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain grain-oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel originating in the People’s Republic of China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the United States of America, OJ 2015 L 284/109, rec. 110–112, 147–149 and 169.

  246. 246.

    See, for instance, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/367 of 1 March 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council and terminating the partial interim review investigation pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036, OJ 2017 L 56/131, rec. 334–335.

  247. 247.

    Committee on Safeguards, Notification under Article 12.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards on Finding a Serious Injury or Threat Thereof Caused by Increased Imports, Notification under Article 12.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards on Taking a Decision to Apply a Safeguard Measure, Notification Pursuant to Article 9, Footnote 2, of the Agreement on Safeguards, Ukraine, Motor cars, Supplement, G/SG/N/8/UKR/3/Suppl.2, G/SG/N/10/UKR/3/Suppl.3, G/SG/N/11/UKR/1/Suppl.2, 27 February 2015.

  248. 248.

    Merlo (2021).

  249. 249.

    UNCTAD (2014), p. 16.

References

  • Adamantopoulos K, De Notaris D (2000) The future of the WTO and the reform of the anti-dumping agreement: a legal perspective. Fordham Int Law J 24(1/2):30–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen H (2009) EU dumping determinations and WTO law. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Barthelemy C, Peat D (2015) Trade remedies in the renewable energy sector: normal value and double remedies. J World Invest Trade 16(3):436–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloningen BA, Prusa TJ (2001) Antidumping. NBER Working Paper No. 8398

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloningen BA, Prusa TJ (2016) Dumping and antidumping duties. In: Bagwell K, Staiger RW (eds) Handbook of commercial policy, volume 1, Part B. North-Holland/Elsevier, Amsterdam/Oxford, pp 107–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer T (2012) International technology diffusion in a Sustainable Energy Trade Agreement (SETA). E15 Initiative

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewster R, Brunel C, Mayda AM (2016) Trade in environmental goods: a review of the WTO Appellate Body’s Ruling in US – Countervailing Measures (China). World Trade Rev 15(2):327–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronckers M, McNelis N (2000) Rethinking the “like product” definition in GATT 1994: anti-dumping and environmental protection. In: Cottier T, Mavroidis PC (eds) Regulatory barriers and the principle of non-discrimination in world trade law. University of Michigan Press, Michigan, pp 345–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucholtz B (1995) Sawing off the third branch: precluding judicial review of anti-dumping and countervailing duty assessments under free trade agreements. Maryland J Int Law Trade 19(2):175–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi WM (2002) ‘Like Products’ in International Trade Law, Toward a Consistent GATT/WTO Jurisprudence. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Condon BJ (2009) Climate change and unresolved issues in WTO law. J Int Econ Law 12(4):895–926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cosbey A (2014) The Green Goods Agreement: neither green nor good? IISD Commentary

    Google Scholar 

  • Cosbey A, Mavroidis PC (2017) A turquoise mess: green subsidies, blue industrial policy and renewable energy: the case for redrafting the subsidies agreement of the WTO. EUI Working Papers RSCAS 2014/17

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. In: E15 Expert Group on Clean Energy Technologies and the Trade System (ed) Clean energy and the trade system: proposals and analysis. ICTSD/WEF, Geneva, pp 39–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Deardorff AV, Stern RM (1997) Measurement of non-tariff barriers. OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 179

    Google Scholar 

  • de Melo J, Solleder JM (2020) The EGA Negotiations: Why They Are Important, Why They Are Stalled, and Challenges Ahead. J World Trade 54(3):333–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doelle M (2004) Climate change and the WTO: opportunities to motivate state action on climate change through the World Trade Organization. Rev Eur Comp Int Environ Law 13(1):85–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douma WT (2016) The WTO and climate change. In: Farber DA, Peeters M (eds) Climate change law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham/Northampton, pp 298–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Eliason A (2019) Using the WTO to facilitate the Paris Agreement: a tripartite approach. Vanderbilt J Transnatl Law 52(3):545–575

    Google Scholar 

  • Espa I, Marín Durán G (2018) Renewable energy subsidies and WTO law: time to rethink the case for reform beyond Canada – renewable energy/fit program. J Int Econ Law 21(4):621–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farah PD, Cima E (2015) The World Trade Organization, renewable energy subsidies, and the case of feed-in tariffs: time for reform toward sustainable development. Georgetown Int Environ Law Rev 27(4):515–537

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey C (2016) Tackling climate change through the elimination of trade barriers for low-carbon goods: multilateral, plurilateral and regional approaches. In: Mauerhofer V (ed) Legal aspects of sustainable development. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 449–468

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gelosso Grosso M (2007) Regulatory principles for environmental services and the general agreement on trade in services. ICSTD Issue Paper No. 6

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoekman B, Mavroidis PC (2017) MFN clubs and scheduling additional commitments in the GATT: learning from the GATS. Eur J Int Law 28(2):387–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeister F (2015) Modernising the EU’s trade defence instruments: mission impossible? In: Herrmann C, Simma B, Streinz R (eds) Trade policy between law, diplomacy and scholarship. Liber Amicorum in memoriam Horst G. Krenzler. Springer, Cham, pp 365–376

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Horlick G (2013) Trade remedies and development of renewable energy. In: E15 Expert Group on Clean Energy Technologies and the Trade System (ed) Clean energy and the trade system: proposals and analysis. ICTSD/WEF, Geneva, pp 69–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Howse R (2013) Securing policy space for clean energy under the SCM agreement: alternative approaches. In: E15 Expert Group on Clean Energy Technologies and the Trade System (ed) Clean energy and the trade system: proposals and analysis. ICTSD/WEF, Geneva, pp 47–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Kampel K (2017) Options for disciplining the use of trade remedies in clean energy technologies. ICTSD Issue Paper

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasteng J (2013) Trade remedies on clean energy: a new trend in need of multilateral initiatives. In: E15 Expert Group on Clean Energy Technologies and the Trade System (ed) Clean energy and the trade system: proposals and analysis. ICTSD/WEF, Geneva, pp 60–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy KC (2009) The status of the trade-environment-sustainable development triad in the Doha Round negotiations and in recent U.S. trade policy. Indiana Int Comp Law Rev 19(3):529–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kommerskollegium (2013) Eliminating anti-dumping measures in regional trade agreements, the European Union example. National Board of Trade, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotsiubska V (2011) Public interest consideration in domestic and international antidumping disciplines. World Trade Institute Thesis

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee J (2016) Green subsidies and countervailing duty investigations: some implications from recent examples of Korea. In: Park DY (ed) Legal issues on climate change and international trade law. Springer, Cham, pp 197–218

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lester S, Watson KW (2013) Free trade in environmental goods: the trade remedy problem. Free Trade Bulletin No. 54

    Google Scholar 

  • Lima-Campos A, Vito A (2004) Abuse and discretion. The impact of anti-dumping and countervailing duty proceedings on Brazilian exports to the United States. J World Trade 38(1):37–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Limenta M (2020) Palm oil for fuels: WTO rules and environmental protection. Global Trade Cust J 15(7):321–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu HW, Maughan J (2012) China’s rare earths export quotas: out of the China-raw materials gate, but past the WTO’s finishing line? J Int Econ Law 15(4):974–1005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsushita M, Schoenbaum T, Mavroidis P, Hahn M (2015) The World Trade Organization, law, practice, and policy, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Mavroidis PC, de Melo J (2015) Climate change policies and the WTO: greening the GATT, revisited. In: Barrett S, Carraro C, de Melo J (eds) Towards a workable and effective climate regime. CEPR Press, London, pp 225–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Mavroidis PC, Neven DJ (2019) Greening the WTO environmental codes agreement, tariff concessions, and policy likeness. J Int Econ Law 22(1):373–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meléndez-Ortiz R (2016) Enabling the energy transition and scale-up of clean energy technologies: options for the global trade system. E15 Expert Group on Clean Energy Technologies and the Trade System, Policy Options Paper

    Google Scholar 

  • Melin Y (2016) Users in EU trade defence investigations: how to better take their interests into account, and the new role of Member States as user champions after comitology. Global Trade Cust J 11(3):88–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merlo D (2021) Climate change and trade remedies. Fieldfisher Insight. https://www.fieldfisher.com/en/insights/climate-change-and-trade-remedies. Accessed 224 June 2023

  • Müller W, Khan N, Scharf T (2009) EC and WTO anti-dumping law. A handbook, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Niels G (2000) What is antidumping policy really about? J Econ Surv 14(4):476–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potts J (2008) The legality of PPMs under the GATT. Challenges and opportunities for sustainable trade policy. IISD, Winnipeg

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubini L (2012) Ain’t wasting time no more: subsidies for renewable energy, the SCM Agreement, policy space, and law reform. J Int Econ Law 15(2):525–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shadikhodjaev S (2015) Renewable energy and government support: time to ‘Green’ the SCM Agreement? World Trade Rev 14(3):479–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinnaeve A (2007) The ‘community interest test’ in anti-dumping investigations: time for reform? Global Trade Cust J 2(4):157–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steenblik R (2005) Environmental goods: a comparison of the APEC and OECD lists. OECD Trade and Environment Working Paper No. 2005-04

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenblik RP, Droege S (2019) Time to ACCTS? Five countries announce new initiative on trade and climate change. IISD blog. https://www.iisd.org/articles/insight/time-accts-five-countries-announce-new-initiative-trade-and-climate-change. Accessed 24 June 2023

  • Sugathan M (2013) Lists of environmental goods: an overview. ICTSD Information Note

    Google Scholar 

  • Teh R, Prusa TJ, Budetta M (2009) Trade remedy provisions in regional trade agreements. In: Estevadeordal A, Suominen K, Teh R (eds) Regional rules in the global trading system. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 166–248

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCTAD (2014) Trade remedies: targeting the renewable energy sector. UNCTAD, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Bael & Bellis (2019) EU anti-dumping and other trade defence instruments, 6th edn. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bossche P, Zdouc W (2017) The law and policy of the World Trade Organization. Text, cases and materials, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Loo G (2016) The EU-Ukraine Association Agreement and deep and comprehensive free trade area. A new legal instrument for EU integration without membership. Brill/Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Vaerenbergh P (2018) The role of trade defence instruments in EU trade agreements: theory versus practice. Zeitschrift für Europarechtliche Studien 21(2):217–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermulst E (2005) The WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vermulst E, Sud JD (2018) The new rules adopted by the European Union to address “significant distortions” in the anti-dumping context. In: Bungenberg M, Hahn M, Herrmann C, Müller-Ibold T (eds) The future of trade defence instruments. Global policy trends and legal challenges. Springer, Cham, pp 63–87

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vikhlyaev A (2004) Environmental goods and services: defining negotiations or negotiating definitions? J World Trade 38(1):93–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voon T (2010) Eliminating trade remedies from the WTO: lessons from regional trade agreements. Int Comp Law Q 59(3):625–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellhausen M (2001) The community interest test in antidumping proceedings of the European Union. Am Univ Int Law Rev 16(4):1027–1082

    Google Scholar 

  • Wouters J, Raina A, Hegde V (2020) The future of global economic governance: the European Union, the World Trade Organization and the crisis of multilateralism. Leuven CGGS Working Paper No. 219

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu M (2014) Why developing countries won’t negotiate: the case of the WTO Environmental Goods Agreement. Trade Law Dev 6(1):93–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu M, Salzman J (2014) The next generation of trade and environment conflicts: the rise of green industrial policy. Northwest Univ Law Rev 108(2):401–474

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Z (2013) Trade in environmental goods, with focus on climate-friendly goods and technologies. In: Prévost D, Van Calster G (eds) Research handbook on environment, health and the WTO. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham/Northampton, pp 673–699

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Brussels, Belgium

    Pieter Van Vaerenbergh

Authors
  1. Pieter Van Vaerenbergh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Van Vaerenbergh, P. (2023). The Use of Trade Remedies on Green Goods. In: Greening Trade Remedies. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(), vol 31. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38172-0_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38172-0_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-38171-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-38172-0

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation