Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:23:04.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - A Cross-Cutting Legal Analysis of the European Union Preferential Trade Agreements’ Chapters on Sustainable Development

Further Steps Towards the Attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals?

from Part I - Penetration and Diffusion of the Sustainable Development Goals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2020

By
Giovanna Adinolfi
Edited by
Cosimo Beverelli ,
Jürgen Kurtz  and
Damian Raess
Cosimo Beverelli
Affiliation:
World Trade Organization
Jürgen Kurtz
Affiliation:
European University Institute, Florence
Damian Raess
Affiliation:
World Trade Institute, University of Bern
Get access

Summary

The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) established under the 2030 Agenda espouse a notion of sustainable development articulated along three integrated dimensions: economic development, social development and environmental protection. When exploring relevant trade regimes, the 2030 Agenda considers exclusively the role of the WTO. In this way, significant evolutions in the international trade agenda are overlooked, in particular the growing efforts on the conclusion of trade liberalisation deals on a preferential basis. One distinctive feature of these negotiations is the emergence of a common will to reach an agreement on sustainable development issues. As a result, most recent preferential trade agreements (PTAs) usually include a chapter on trade and sustainable development (TSD) covering both the promotion of labour rights and the protection of the environment. In view of this evolution, the question arises as to whether and to what extent the PTAs contribute to the attainment of the SDGs. Against this background, this chapter offers a legal appraisal of the environmental provisions included in the TSD chapters of the latest EU PTAs. This practice is relevant, in view of the role the EU has been playing in the setting of the current network of PTAs and in the negotiations for multilateral environmental agreements.

Keywords

preferential trade agreementssustainable developmentmultilateral environmental agreementsmutual supportivenessright to regulatedispute settlement
Type
Chapter
Information
International Trade, Investment, and the Sustainable Development Goals
World Trade Forum
 , pp. 15 - 49
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akiko, Y. (2014). ‘Environmental Provisions in Japanese Regional Trade Agreements with Developing Countries’. IDE Discussion Paper 2014–03-01. Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization.Google Scholar
Allen, L. (2018). ‘Reassessing the ‘Green’ in NAFTA’. Journal of World Trade 52: 557–74.Google Scholar
Araujo, B. M. (2018). ‘Labour Provisions in EU and US Mega-regional Trade Agreements: Rhetoric and Reality’. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 67: 233–253.Google Scholar
Bartels, L. (2013). ‘Human Rights and Sustainable Development Obligations in EU Free Trade Agreements’. Legal Issues of Economic Integration 40: 297–313.Google Scholar
Bartels, L. (2015). ‘The Chapeau of General Exceptions in the WTO GATT and GATS Agreements: A Reconstruction’. American Journal of International Law 109: 95–129.Google Scholar
Berger, A., Brandi, C., Bruhn, D. and Chi, M. (2017). ‘Towards “Greening” Trade? Tracking Environmental Provisions in the Preferential Trade Agreements of Emerging Markets’, German Development Institute Discussion Paper 2/2017.Google Scholar
Boisson de Chazournes, L. and Moise Mbengue, M. (2007). ‘A propos du soutien mutuel: les relations entre le Protocol de Cartagena et les accords de l’OMC’. Revue Générale de Droit International Public 4: 829–862.Google Scholar
Charnovitz, S. (1994). ‘The NAFTA Environmental Side Agreement: Implications for Environmental Cooperation, Trade Policy and American Treatymaking’. Temple International and Comparative Law Journal 8: 257–314.Google Scholar
Cremona, M. (2004). ‘The Union as a Global Actor: Roles, Models and Identity’. Common Market Law Review 41: 553–573.Google Scholar
De Micco, P. (2014). ‘The US and EU Free Trade Agreement with Peru and Colombia: A Comparison’. DG EXPO/B/PolDep/Note/2014_23 February 2014, PE 522.326.Google Scholar
Douma, Th. W. (2017). ‘The Promotion of Sustainable Development Through EU Trade Instruments’. European Business Law Review 28: 197–216.Google Scholar
Dupuy, P.-M. and Viñuales, J. E., eds. (2015). International Environmental Law. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2006). COM (2006) 567 Final, ‘Global Europe: Competing in the World. A Contribution to the EU’s Growth and Jobs Strategy’, 4 October 2006.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2015). COM (2015) 497 Final, ‘Trade for All. Towards a More Responsible Trade and Investment Policy’, 14 October 2015.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2017a). Non-Report of the Commission Services, ‘Trade and Sustainable development (TSD) Chapters in EU Free Trade Agreements (FTAs)’, 11 July 2017.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2017b). COM (2017) 492 Final, ‘A Balanced and Progressive Trade Policy to Harness Globalisation’, 13 September 2017.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2018). ‘Report on Implementation of EU Free Trade Agreement. 1 January 2017–31 December 2017’. Luxembourg: European Union.Google Scholar
European Parliament. (2016). Resolution of 5 July 2016 on Implementation of the 2010 Recommendations of Parliament on Social and Environmental Standards, Human Rights and Corporate Responsibility, P8_TA(2016)0298.Google Scholar
European Parliament. (2018). Resolution of 30 May 2018 on the Annual Report on the Implementation of the Common Commercial Policy, P8_TA (2018) 0230.Google Scholar
European Parliament (INTA). (2018). Draft Report Containing a Motion for a Non-legislative Resolution on the Proposal for a Council Decision on the Conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, 22 November 2018, 2018/0356 M(NLE).Google Scholar
European Trade Union Confederation. (2017). ‘ETUC Submission on the Non-paper of the Commission services on Trade and Sustainable (TSD) Chapters in EU Free Trade Agreements (FTAs)’, 11 October 2017. Available at www.etuc.org.Google Scholar
Harrison, J., ed. (2014). The European Union and South Korea. The Legal Framework for Strengthening Trade, Economic and Political Relations. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hoekman, B. (2016). ‘Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements’. EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2016/29.Google Scholar
Hoekman, B. (2017). ‘Trade and the Post-2015 Development Agenda’. In Helble, Matthias and Shepherd, Ben (eds.), Win-Win. How International Trade Can Meet the Sustainable Development Goals. Asian Development Bank Institute, pp. 32–57.Google Scholar
Howse, R., Langille, J. and Sykes, K. (2015). ‘Pluralism in Practice: Moral Legislation and the Law of the WTO after Seal Products’. George Washington International Law Review 82: 81–150.Google Scholar
Hradilova, K. and Svoboda, O. (2018). ‘Sustainable Development Chapters in the EU Free Trade Agreements: Searching for Effectiveness’. Journal of World Trade 52: 1019–1042.Google Scholar
ILC (International Law Commission). (2006). ‘Conclusions of the Work of the Study Group on the Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law’. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, vol. II, Part Two, p. 178.Google Scholar
Jinnah, S. and Lindsay, A. (2016). ‘Diffusion Through Issue Linkage: Environmental Norms in US Trade Agreements’. Global Environmental Politics 16: 41–61.Google Scholar
Jinnah, S. and Morgera, E. (2013). ‘Environmental Provisions in American and EU Free Trade Agreements: A Preliminary Comparison and Research Agenda’. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 22: 324–339.Google Scholar
Krajewski, M. and Hoffmann, R. T. (2016). ‘Alternative Model for a Sustainable Development Chapter and Related Provisions in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)’. Available at https://reinhardbuetikofer.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Model-SD-Chapter-TTIP-Second-Draft-July_final.pdf.Google Scholar
Kuijper, P. J. (2010). ‘Conflicting Rules and Clashing Courts. The Case of Multilateral Environmental Agreements, Free Trade Agreements and the WTO’. ICTSD Issue Paper No. 10, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Maljean-Dubois, S. (2016). ‘The Paris Agreement: A New Step in the Gradual Evolution of Differential Treatment in the Climate Regime?’ Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 25: 151–160.Google Scholar
Marín Durán, G. and Morgera, E. (2012). Environmental Integration in EU’s External Relations. Beyond Multilateral Dimension. Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Marx, A., Ebert, F, Hachez, N. and Wouters, J. (2017). ‘Dispute Settlement in the Trade and Sustainable Chapters of EU Trade Agreements’. Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, 2017–01.Google Scholar
Moon, Gillian. (2018). ‘A Fundamental Moral Imperative: Social Inclusion, the Sustainable Development Goals and International Trade Law after Brazil-Taxation’. Journal of World Trade 52: 995–1017.Google Scholar
Morin, J. F., Dür, A., Lechner, L. (2018). ‘Mapping the Trade and Environment Nexus: Insights from a New Data Set’. Global Environmental Politics 18: 122–139.Google Scholar
Morin, J. F., and Mytiam, R. (2017). ‘Transatlantic Convergence of Preferential Trade Agreements Environmental Clauses’. Business and Politics 10: 621–658.Google Scholar
Pauwelyn, J. and Alschner, W. (2015). ‘Forget About the WTO: The Network of Relations between Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) and Double PTAs’. In Dür, Andreas and Elsig, Manfred (eds.), Trade Cooperation: The Purpose, Design and Effects of Preferential Trade Agreements. Cambridge University Press, pp. 497–532.Google Scholar
Pavoni, R. (2010). ‘Mutual Supportiveness as a Principle of International and Law-Making: A Watershed for the “WTO-and-Competing-Regimes” Debate?’ European Journal of International Law 21: 649–679.Google Scholar
Pavoni, R. (2013). ‘The Nagoya Protocol and WTO Law’. In Morgera, Elisa, Buck, Matthias, and Tsioumani, Elsa, (eds.), The 2010 Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing in Perspective: Implications for International Law and Implementation Challenges. Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 185–216.Google Scholar
Pirker, B. (2017). ‘Implementation of the Aarhus Convention by the EU – An Inconvenient Truth from the Compliance Committee’ European Law Blog, 24 April 2017. Available at https://europeanlawblog.eu/tag/article-9–3-aarhus-convention.Google Scholar
Safrin, S. (2002). ‘Treaties in Collision? The Biosafety Protocol and the World Trade Organization Agreements’. American Journal of International Law 96: 606–628.Google Scholar
Segura Serrano, A. (2016). ‘From External Policy to Free Trade: The EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement’. In Eeckhout, Piet and Lopez-Escudero, Manuel (eds.), The European Union’s External Action in Times of Crisis. Hart Publishing, pp. 483–508.Google Scholar
Stoll, P.-T., Gött, H. and Abel, P. (2018). ‘A Model Labour Chapter or Future EU Trade Agreements’. In Henner, G (ed.), Labour Standards in International Economic Law. Springer, pp. 381–430.Google Scholar
United Nations. (2002). Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development, A/CONF.199/20, 4 September 2002.Google Scholar
United Nations. (2010). UN doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/1, 29 October 2010.Google Scholar
United Nations. (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, A/RES/70/1, 25 September 2015.Google Scholar
Van den Bossche, P. and Zdouc, W. (2018). The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization. Text, Cases and Materials. 4th ed. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van der Loo, G. (2016). The EU-Ukraine Association Agreement and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area. Brill Nijhof.Google Scholar
Vogt, S. J. (2015). ‘The Evolution of Labour Rights and Trade – A Transatlantic Comparison and Lessons for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’. Journal of International Economic Law 18: 827–860.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization. (1996). Singapore Ministerial Declaration, WT/MIN(96)/DEC, 18 December 1996.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization. (2001). Ministerial Declaration, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1, 20 November 2001.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization. (2018). Mainstreaming Trade to Attain the Sustainable Development Goals. Geneva, Switzerland: World Trade Organization.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×