WTO视野下边境碳调节措施的法律问题研究
|
摘要
2009年6月,美国众议院通过《清洁能源与安全法案》后,一种俗称为“碳关税”的国际贸易措施开始进入人们的视野,进而引发了国际社会的激烈讨论。有相当一部分意见认为,此种贸易措施违背了WTO的相关规则,但又缺乏详细的论证。于是笔者希望对该措施的内涵、提出背景及其与WTO相关规则的相符性进行研究,还希望从中得到一些有益于我国今后应对气候变化的启示。文章分为四个部分：
第一部分介绍了现有的、关于边境碳调节措施的一些主张,并在此基础上,笔者尝试着对其进行了法律界定。笔者认为,“碳关税”一词并不能正确揭示此种争议措施的真实内涵,“边境碳调节措施”才是这一类措施合理的称谓,它是指一种由已经承担减排义务的国家出于维护其国内企业和相关行业竞争力、防止碳泄露的双重目的而发起的、旨在针对来自尚未减排国家的进口商品苛征一定负担的措施。在现行国际气候制度下,它又通常被认为是一种发达国家针对发展中国家所采取的措施。
第二部分分析了边境碳调节措施产生的背景。从直观上看,该措施是基于竞争力的担忧而产生的；但从实质上看,它实则反映了发达国家对现行国际气候制度的不认同,揭露了这些国家试图通过国际贸易手段逼迫发展中国家承担与其不相适应的减排义务的企图。
第三部分比较了边境碳调节措施现有的制度设计与WTO相关规则的相符性。笔者认为,现有的边境碳调节措施很可能构成对最惠国待遇、国民待遇、关税减让、取消数量限制等WTO规则的违背,且不能成功援引一般例外条款,故是一种不能被WTO所接受的贸易措施。
最后一部分,笔者探讨了边境碳调节措施对提高我国今后应对气候变化能力所产生的启示。当低碳经济已成为不可逆转的发展潮流,我国在积极参与未来国际气候谈判的同时,应加速转变经济增长方式、加强国内应对气候变化法制建设,从而不断提高应对气候变化的能力,在气候变化问题上体现我国在气候变化问题上的负责态度,在经济发展方面谋求自身合理、正当的发展权益。
After the《American Clean Energy and Security Act》was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on June,2009, a new kind of international trade measure so-called "carbon tariff"became to be known and triggered great dispute in the international community. Now some experts views that the measure would violate the rules of WTO but do not provide sufficient and detailed arguments. According to this, the author tries to do some research on this sensitive topic. What's more, maybe this measure can give us some fairly useful suggestions and do some help to enhance our ability to address climate change. The paper is consist of four sections:
In the first section, the author introduces the backgrounds of the measures and the legal concept of was defined. The author believes that compared to"carbon tariff', "Border Carbon Adjustments(BCAs)" could be a more reasonable definition of this controversial measures. In order to maintain their domestic enterprises'competitiveness on the international market and prevent "carbon leakage", countries which have already undertook the duty of cutting down CO2 emissions tries to make an excess burden on the imported products from the countries that haven't lowered their greenhouse gas emission. The key to this problem is, under the current international climate regime,BCAs actually can be thought of a kind of measure took by developed countries, but aiming at developing countries.
SectionⅡanalyses the backgrounds of BCAs. Of course, competitiveness worries could be a important renson, but in essence the author believes that, BCAs is a sort of international trade tool invented by developed countries to try to change the emission-cutting duties regime, and force developing countries to do "equivalent" emission-reduction obligations.
SectionⅢis the core of this paper, it wants to compare the BCAs to the WTO rules. From the author's view of point, BCAs are likely to violate the principles of MFN, national treatment, tariff reduction and elimination of quantitative restrictions of WTO rules. What's worse, it may not succeed in quoting the general exceptional item, so it's a kind of illegal international trade measure.
But the question is far from over. The author also discusses about the actions that we should take because "low-carbon economy" has become an irreversible trend of development in the world. We should actively participate in the international climate negotiations, accelerate the transformation of economic growth and improve our legal system to address climate change. Only in this way can we take responsible to the problem of climate change and successfully gain the opportunity to develop our social economy continuously.
第一部分介绍了现有的、关于边境碳调节措施的一些主张,并在此基础上,笔者尝试着对其进行了法律界定。笔者认为,“碳关税”一词并不能正确揭示此种争议措施的真实内涵,“边境碳调节措施”才是这一类措施合理的称谓,它是指一种由已经承担减排义务的国家出于维护其国内企业和相关行业竞争力、防止碳泄露的双重目的而发起的、旨在针对来自尚未减排国家的进口商品苛征一定负担的措施。在现行国际气候制度下,它又通常被认为是一种发达国家针对发展中国家所采取的措施。
第二部分分析了边境碳调节措施产生的背景。从直观上看,该措施是基于竞争力的担忧而产生的；但从实质上看,它实则反映了发达国家对现行国际气候制度的不认同,揭露了这些国家试图通过国际贸易手段逼迫发展中国家承担与其不相适应的减排义务的企图。
第三部分比较了边境碳调节措施现有的制度设计与WTO相关规则的相符性。笔者认为,现有的边境碳调节措施很可能构成对最惠国待遇、国民待遇、关税减让、取消数量限制等WTO规则的违背,且不能成功援引一般例外条款,故是一种不能被WTO所接受的贸易措施。
最后一部分,笔者探讨了边境碳调节措施对提高我国今后应对气候变化能力所产生的启示。当低碳经济已成为不可逆转的发展潮流,我国在积极参与未来国际气候谈判的同时,应加速转变经济增长方式、加强国内应对气候变化法制建设,从而不断提高应对气候变化的能力,在气候变化问题上体现我国在气候变化问题上的负责态度,在经济发展方面谋求自身合理、正当的发展权益。
After the《American Clean Energy and Security Act》was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on June,2009, a new kind of international trade measure so-called "carbon tariff"became to be known and triggered great dispute in the international community. Now some experts views that the measure would violate the rules of WTO but do not provide sufficient and detailed arguments. According to this, the author tries to do some research on this sensitive topic. What's more, maybe this measure can give us some fairly useful suggestions and do some help to enhance our ability to address climate change. The paper is consist of four sections:
In the first section, the author introduces the backgrounds of the measures and the legal concept of was defined. The author believes that compared to"carbon tariff', "Border Carbon Adjustments(BCAs)" could be a more reasonable definition of this controversial measures. In order to maintain their domestic enterprises'competitiveness on the international market and prevent "carbon leakage", countries which have already undertook the duty of cutting down CO2 emissions tries to make an excess burden on the imported products from the countries that haven't lowered their greenhouse gas emission. The key to this problem is, under the current international climate regime,BCAs actually can be thought of a kind of measure took by developed countries, but aiming at developing countries.
SectionⅡanalyses the backgrounds of BCAs. Of course, competitiveness worries could be a important renson, but in essence the author believes that, BCAs is a sort of international trade tool invented by developed countries to try to change the emission-cutting duties regime, and force developing countries to do "equivalent" emission-reduction obligations.
SectionⅢis the core of this paper, it wants to compare the BCAs to the WTO rules. From the author's view of point, BCAs are likely to violate the principles of MFN, national treatment, tariff reduction and elimination of quantitative restrictions of WTO rules. What's worse, it may not succeed in quoting the general exceptional item, so it's a kind of illegal international trade measure.
But the question is far from over. The author also discusses about the actions that we should take because "low-carbon economy" has become an irreversible trend of development in the world. We should actively participate in the international climate negotiations, accelerate the transformation of economic growth and improve our legal system to address climate change. Only in this way can we take responsible to the problem of climate change and successfully gain the opportunity to develop our social economy continuously.
引文
6李海东：《从边缘到中心：美国气候变化政策演变》,载于《美国研究》2010年第1期。
7 World Bank, International Trade and Climate Change:Economic,Legal, and Institutional Perspectives,Washington, D. C.,2007.
8东艳：《全球气候变化博弈中的碳边界措施研究》,载于《世界经济与政治》2010年第7期。
9 B. Lockwood, J. W halley, (Carbon Mot ivated Border Tax Adjustments:Old Wine in Green Bottles?)), NBER Working Paper, No.14025,2008.
10 Working Party was established by the Council on 28 March 1968 to examine the provisions of the GATT relevant to border tax adjustments, the practices of contracting parties in relation to such adjustments and the possible eff ects of such adjustments on international trade. In light of this examination, the Working Party had to consider any proposals and suggestions that had been put forward and report its findings and conclusions on these matters to the Council or to the CONTRACTING PARTIES. See GATT Working Party (1970), para.1.
11参见瑞士学者凯特林娜·霍尔泽：《Proposals on Carbon-related Border Adjustments:Prospects for WTO Compliance)), The Carbon& Climate Law Review, Vo.l 4, No.1,2010, pp.51-64.
12谢来辉、陈迎：《碳泄漏问题评析》,《气候变化研究进展》2007年7月,第214页。
14东艳：《全球气候变化博弈中的碳边界措施研究》,载于《世界经济与政治》2010年第7期。
15参见《联合国气候变化框架公约》(中文译本),第四条第7款,第9页。
22该案的基本案情是：1987年,美国政府根据《1973年濒危物种法》发布规章,要求所有美国的拖网虾船在对海龟有重大伤害的规定地域捕虾时使用批准的海龟驱逐装备,以避免附带杀死海龟。1989年11月美国制定了“第609节”国内法。根据该法,没有安装海龟驱逐装备的拖网捕虾渔船所捕获的海虾及其产品禁止进入美国市场。印度、马来西亚、巴基斯坦和泰国诉至WTO,请求裁定美国的措施违反了GATT第1条、第11条和第13条。
23该案基本案情是：根据美国1990年《空气清洁法》(修正案),美国环境保护署于1993年颁布了关于汽油成分与排放物的新汽油规则。该规则规定,自1995年1月1日起,只允许在美国严重污染地区销售精炼汽油,在其它地区则只能销售不比在基准年1990年所售汽油清洁度低的汽油(即传统汽油)。该项汽油规则不仅适用于全美汽油炼油厂和合成厂,而且适用于美国的进口商。巴西和委内瑞拉作为汽油的出国大国,所产汽油无法满足美国标准而备受打击,遂诉至WTO。
24 Panel Report on US-Gasoline, para.6.37.
[1]吴玲俐.WTO体制下的绿色贸易壁垒法律问题研究.中国政法大学出版社2009年4月版。
[2]莫神星.节能减排机制法律政策研究.中国时代经济出版社,2008年2月版。
[3](美)约斯特·鲍威林.国际公法规则之冲突：WTO法与其他国际法规则如何联系.法律出版社2005年10月版。
[4]孙琬钟、高永富.WTO法与中国论丛(2010年卷).知识产权出版社.2010年10月版。
[5]庄贵阳、陈迎.国际气候制度与中国.世界知识出版社,2005年12月版。
[6]郑玉琳.多边贸易体制下的贸易与环境,中国社会科学出版社,2008年6月版。
[7]林云华.国际气候合作与排放权交易制度研究.中国经济出版社,2007年9月版。
[8]美国应对气候变化的战略和立法--分析发展动向及其对中国的启示.气候变化展望,2009年第1期.
[9]吉尔伯特·E·梅特卡夫：“美国控制温室气体排放的市场化政策选择”,张进铭、陶然译,中央编译局,http://www.cctb.net.
[1]袁媛.碳关税在WTO中的合法性问题探析.经济与法,2010,12：230
[2]蔡高强,胡斌.论WTO体制下的碳关税贸易措施及其应对.湘潭大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2010,5：34-39
[3]高静.从边境调节税初探“碳关税”法律制度.研究生法学,2010,6：107-118
[4]陈迎,庄贵阳.《京都议定书》的前途及其国际经济和政治影响.世界经济与政治,2010,6：39-45
[5]曹静,陈粹粹.“碳关税”：当前热点争论与研究综述.经济学动态,2010,1：79-83
[6]胡国珠,张蕾.边境碳调节措施的贸易与环境效应的局部均衡.国际经贸探索, 2010,1：62-67
[7]东艳.全球气候变化博弈中的碳边界调节措施研究.世界经济与政治,2010,7：65-157
[8]沈可挺.碳关税争端及其对中国制造业的影响.中国工业经济,2010,1：65-74
[9]谢来辉,陈迎.碳泄漏问题评析.气候变化研究进展,2007,7：214-219
[10]谢来辉,陈迎.中国对碳关税问题过度担忧了吗?.国际经济评论,2010,4：135-147
[11]苏苗罕.美国气候变化立法进展及其对我国的启示.生态文明与林业法治,2010,5：694-705
[12]徐驰.碳关税对国际贸易的影响分析及应对措施—以中美贸易为例.技术监督教育学刊,2009,1：75-80
[13]陈立新.美国碳关税法案的法理透视.中国外资,2009,11：206-207
[14]汪曾涛.碳税征收的国际经验比较与经验借鉴.理论探索,2009,4：68-71
[15]郭毅.碳关税：责任督促还是贸易壁垒.WTO经济导刊,2009,8：78-79
[16]黄志雄.国际贸易新课题：边境碳调节措施与中国的对策.中国软科学学,2009,10：1-5
[17]雷蒙.贸易与气候变化的关系.拉巴德之声,2009,11：94
[18]谢来辉.欧盟应对气候变化的边境调节税：新的贸易壁垒.国际贸易问题,2009,11：65-71
[19]夏璐.国际法框架下“碳关税”合法性分析.法制与社会,2010,3：103-104
[20]冯相昭,田春秀.高度重视气候变化与国际贸易关系新动向.国际瞭望,2008,12：76-80
[21]李威.碳关税的国际法与国际机制研究.国际政治研究,2009,4：40-52
[22]孙法柏,丁丽.后京都时代气候变化协议缔约国义务配置研究.山东科技大学学报,2009,6：59-70
[23]赵玉焕.多边贸易体制在应对气候变化中的作用.世界贸易组织动态与研究,2009.11：43-52
[24]孙晓芳.边境税收调节制度研究.吉林大学硕士学位论文,2006,10
[25]王瑞彬.美国气候政策之辩(2001-2008)--支持联盟框架视角.外交学院博士论文,2009,5
[26]张丹枫.气候变化、国内控制政策与WTO.吉林大学硕士论文,2007,4
[27]李响.“碳关税”合法性分析及中国的对策.外交学院硕士论文,2010,6
[28]唐启宁.WTO体制下碳关税问题研究.西南政法大学硕士论文,2010,3
[1]Aaron Cosbey. Border Carbon Adjustment:Question and Answers(But More of the Former). International Institute of Sustainable Development, Jun 2008.
[2]Bradly J.Condon, Environmental Sovereignty and the WTO:Trade Sanctions and International Law, Transnational Publishers,2006.
[3]Robert E. Scott. Climate Change Policy--Border Adjustment Key to U.S. Trade and Manufacturing Jobs. Economic Policy Institute, October 1,2009
[4]Sorkin& L.Brainard. Climate Change, Trade, and Competitiveness-Is a Collision Inevitable? Brookings Institution Press,2009.
[5]Reinhard. Quick. Border Tax Adjustment to Combat Carbon Leakage:A Myth.
[6]Romain Duval. Is there a Case for Carbon-Based Border Tax Adjustment: An Applied General Equilibrium Analysis. See on http://ideas.repec.Org/p/oec/ecoaaa/794-en.html
[1]Analysis of H.R.2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act(ACES). NRDC Legislative Facts,september 2009.
[2]Discussion Draft Summary-THE AMERICAN CLEAN AND SECURITY ACT OF 2009. U.S.HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
[3]Section-by Section on Discussion Draft of THE AMERICAN CLEAN AND SECURITY ACT OF 2009". U.S.HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
[4]Border Adjustments.Pricing carbon efficiently and equitably. http://www.carbontax. org/issues/border-adjustments/
[5]G.C.Hufbauer, S.Charnovitz&J.Kim, Global Warming and the World Trading System, Peterson Institute for International Economics,2009
[6]S.Switzer, Environmental Protection and the Generalized System of Preferences-A Legal and Appropriate Linkage? International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.57, Cambridge UniversityPress,2008.
[7]J.L.Ozbirn, The Climate Security Act of 2008 and Other Carbonbased Trade Restrictions-Are They Legal Under International Law? Loyola University Chicago International Law Review, Vol.7, No.1,2009.
[8]K.R. Richards& S.Richards, The Evolution and Anatomy of Recent Climate Change Bills in theU.S.Senate-Critique and Recommendations, Working Paper, Center for Research in Energy and the Environment,2009.
[9]A.Green, Climate Change, Regulatory Policy and the WTO-How Constraining Are TradeRules? Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.8, No.1, Oxford University Press,2005.
7 World Bank, International Trade and Climate Change:Economic,Legal, and Institutional Perspectives,Washington, D. C.,2007.
8东艳：《全球气候变化博弈中的碳边界措施研究》,载于《世界经济与政治》2010年第7期。
9 B. Lockwood, J. W halley, (Carbon Mot ivated Border Tax Adjustments:Old Wine in Green Bottles?)), NBER Working Paper, No.14025,2008.
10 Working Party was established by the Council on 28 March 1968 to examine the provisions of the GATT relevant to border tax adjustments, the practices of contracting parties in relation to such adjustments and the possible eff ects of such adjustments on international trade. In light of this examination, the Working Party had to consider any proposals and suggestions that had been put forward and report its findings and conclusions on these matters to the Council or to the CONTRACTING PARTIES. See GATT Working Party (1970), para.1.
11参见瑞士学者凯特林娜·霍尔泽：《Proposals on Carbon-related Border Adjustments:Prospects for WTO Compliance)), The Carbon& Climate Law Review, Vo.l 4, No.1,2010, pp.51-64.
12谢来辉、陈迎：《碳泄漏问题评析》,《气候变化研究进展》2007年7月,第214页。
14东艳：《全球气候变化博弈中的碳边界措施研究》,载于《世界经济与政治》2010年第7期。
15参见《联合国气候变化框架公约》(中文译本),第四条第7款,第9页。
22该案的基本案情是：1987年,美国政府根据《1973年濒危物种法》发布规章,要求所有美国的拖网虾船在对海龟有重大伤害的规定地域捕虾时使用批准的海龟驱逐装备,以避免附带杀死海龟。1989年11月美国制定了“第609节”国内法。根据该法,没有安装海龟驱逐装备的拖网捕虾渔船所捕获的海虾及其产品禁止进入美国市场。印度、马来西亚、巴基斯坦和泰国诉至WTO,请求裁定美国的措施违反了GATT第1条、第11条和第13条。
23该案基本案情是：根据美国1990年《空气清洁法》(修正案),美国环境保护署于1993年颁布了关于汽油成分与排放物的新汽油规则。该规则规定,自1995年1月1日起,只允许在美国严重污染地区销售精炼汽油,在其它地区则只能销售不比在基准年1990年所售汽油清洁度低的汽油(即传统汽油)。该项汽油规则不仅适用于全美汽油炼油厂和合成厂,而且适用于美国的进口商。巴西和委内瑞拉作为汽油的出国大国,所产汽油无法满足美国标准而备受打击,遂诉至WTO。
24 Panel Report on US-Gasoline, para.6.37.
[1]吴玲俐.WTO体制下的绿色贸易壁垒法律问题研究.中国政法大学出版社2009年4月版。
[2]莫神星.节能减排机制法律政策研究.中国时代经济出版社,2008年2月版。
[3](美)约斯特·鲍威林.国际公法规则之冲突：WTO法与其他国际法规则如何联系.法律出版社2005年10月版。
[4]孙琬钟、高永富.WTO法与中国论丛(2010年卷).知识产权出版社.2010年10月版。
[5]庄贵阳、陈迎.国际气候制度与中国.世界知识出版社,2005年12月版。
[6]郑玉琳.多边贸易体制下的贸易与环境,中国社会科学出版社,2008年6月版。
[7]林云华.国际气候合作与排放权交易制度研究.中国经济出版社,2007年9月版。
[8]美国应对气候变化的战略和立法--分析发展动向及其对中国的启示.气候变化展望,2009年第1期.
[9]吉尔伯特·E·梅特卡夫：“美国控制温室气体排放的市场化政策选择”,张进铭、陶然译,中央编译局,http://www.cctb.net.
[1]袁媛.碳关税在WTO中的合法性问题探析.经济与法,2010,12：230
[2]蔡高强,胡斌.论WTO体制下的碳关税贸易措施及其应对.湘潭大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2010,5：34-39
[3]高静.从边境调节税初探“碳关税”法律制度.研究生法学,2010,6：107-118
[4]陈迎,庄贵阳.《京都议定书》的前途及其国际经济和政治影响.世界经济与政治,2010,6：39-45
[5]曹静,陈粹粹.“碳关税”：当前热点争论与研究综述.经济学动态,2010,1：79-83
[6]胡国珠,张蕾.边境碳调节措施的贸易与环境效应的局部均衡.国际经贸探索, 2010,1：62-67
[7]东艳.全球气候变化博弈中的碳边界调节措施研究.世界经济与政治,2010,7：65-157
[8]沈可挺.碳关税争端及其对中国制造业的影响.中国工业经济,2010,1：65-74
[9]谢来辉,陈迎.碳泄漏问题评析.气候变化研究进展,2007,7：214-219
[10]谢来辉,陈迎.中国对碳关税问题过度担忧了吗?.国际经济评论,2010,4：135-147
[11]苏苗罕.美国气候变化立法进展及其对我国的启示.生态文明与林业法治,2010,5：694-705
[12]徐驰.碳关税对国际贸易的影响分析及应对措施—以中美贸易为例.技术监督教育学刊,2009,1：75-80
[13]陈立新.美国碳关税法案的法理透视.中国外资,2009,11：206-207
[14]汪曾涛.碳税征收的国际经验比较与经验借鉴.理论探索,2009,4：68-71
[15]郭毅.碳关税：责任督促还是贸易壁垒.WTO经济导刊,2009,8：78-79
[16]黄志雄.国际贸易新课题：边境碳调节措施与中国的对策.中国软科学学,2009,10：1-5
[17]雷蒙.贸易与气候变化的关系.拉巴德之声,2009,11：94
[18]谢来辉.欧盟应对气候变化的边境调节税：新的贸易壁垒.国际贸易问题,2009,11：65-71
[19]夏璐.国际法框架下“碳关税”合法性分析.法制与社会,2010,3：103-104
[20]冯相昭,田春秀.高度重视气候变化与国际贸易关系新动向.国际瞭望,2008,12：76-80
[21]李威.碳关税的国际法与国际机制研究.国际政治研究,2009,4：40-52
[22]孙法柏,丁丽.后京都时代气候变化协议缔约国义务配置研究.山东科技大学学报,2009,6：59-70
[23]赵玉焕.多边贸易体制在应对气候变化中的作用.世界贸易组织动态与研究,2009.11：43-52
[24]孙晓芳.边境税收调节制度研究.吉林大学硕士学位论文,2006,10
[25]王瑞彬.美国气候政策之辩(2001-2008)--支持联盟框架视角.外交学院博士论文,2009,5
[26]张丹枫.气候变化、国内控制政策与WTO.吉林大学硕士论文,2007,4
[27]李响.“碳关税”合法性分析及中国的对策.外交学院硕士论文,2010,6
[28]唐启宁.WTO体制下碳关税问题研究.西南政法大学硕士论文,2010,3
[1]Aaron Cosbey. Border Carbon Adjustment:Question and Answers(But More of the Former). International Institute of Sustainable Development, Jun 2008.
[2]Bradly J.Condon, Environmental Sovereignty and the WTO:Trade Sanctions and International Law, Transnational Publishers,2006.
[3]Robert E. Scott. Climate Change Policy--Border Adjustment Key to U.S. Trade and Manufacturing Jobs. Economic Policy Institute, October 1,2009
[4]Sorkin& L.Brainard. Climate Change, Trade, and Competitiveness-Is a Collision Inevitable? Brookings Institution Press,2009.
[5]Reinhard. Quick. Border Tax Adjustment to Combat Carbon Leakage:A Myth.
[6]Romain Duval. Is there a Case for Carbon-Based Border Tax Adjustment: An Applied General Equilibrium Analysis. See on http://ideas.repec.Org/p/oec/ecoaaa/794-en.html
[1]Analysis of H.R.2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act(ACES). NRDC Legislative Facts,september 2009.
[2]Discussion Draft Summary-THE AMERICAN CLEAN AND SECURITY ACT OF 2009. U.S.HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
[3]Section-by Section on Discussion Draft of THE AMERICAN CLEAN AND SECURITY ACT OF 2009". U.S.HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
[4]Border Adjustments.Pricing carbon efficiently and equitably. http://www.carbontax. org/issues/border-adjustments/
[5]G.C.Hufbauer, S.Charnovitz&J.Kim, Global Warming and the World Trading System, Peterson Institute for International Economics,2009
[6]S.Switzer, Environmental Protection and the Generalized System of Preferences-A Legal and Appropriate Linkage? International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.57, Cambridge UniversityPress,2008.
[7]J.L.Ozbirn, The Climate Security Act of 2008 and Other Carbonbased Trade Restrictions-Are They Legal Under International Law? Loyola University Chicago International Law Review, Vol.7, No.1,2009.
[8]K.R. Richards& S.Richards, The Evolution and Anatomy of Recent Climate Change Bills in theU.S.Senate-Critique and Recommendations, Working Paper, Center for Research in Energy and the Environment,2009.
[9]A.Green, Climate Change, Regulatory Policy and the WTO-How Constraining Are TradeRules? Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.8, No.1, Oxford University Press,2005.