Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:25:24.799Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Environment and International Trade

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2011

David Vogel
David Vogel
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article examines the increasingly important and often contentious relationship between international trade and environmental regulation in the United States. It begins by explaining why these two policy areas have recently become more interdependent and then explores some of the specific controversies surrounding the contemporary linkages between trade policy and environmental regulation. The article concludes by analyzing the long-term political and economic impact of the relationship between trade and environmental policy.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Policy History , Volume 12 , Special Issue 1: Special Issue: Environmental Politics and Policy, 1960s–1990s , January 2000 , pp. 72 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. 2000

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

Notes

1. This is the central theme in Vogel, David, Trading Up: Consumer and Environmental Regulation in a Global Economy (Cambridge, Mass., 1995)Google Scholar.

2. Unless otherwise noted, this section is based on National Research Council, Dolphins and the Tuna Industry (Washington, D.C., 1992), 1–22Google Scholar , and Holland, Kerry L., “Exploitation on Porpoise: The Use of Purse Seine Nets by Commercial Tuna Fishermen in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean,” Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 17 (Spring 1991): 267–79Google Scholar.

3. Housman, Robert and Zaelke, Durwood, “The Collision of the Environment and Trade: The GATT Tuna/Dolphin Decision,” Environmental Law Reporter (April 1992): 10271.Google Scholar

4. Colson, David, “U.S. Policy on Tuna-Dolphin Issues,” U.S. Department of State Dispatch (24 August 1992): 668.Google Scholar

5. Brooke, James, “America—Environmental Dictator,” New York Times, 3 May 1992, 7.Google Scholar

6. Vidal, John, “Global Conservation Threatened as GATT Declares War,” The Guardian, 6 September 1991, 29.Google Scholar

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

9. Quoted in McDorman, Ted, “The U.S.-Mexico GATT Panel Report on Tuna and Dolphin: Implications for Trade and Environmental Conflicts,” North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation 17 (1992): 488Google Scholar.

10. Charnowitz, Steve, “Environmental and Labor Standards in Trade,” The World Economy 15 (May 1992): 336.Google Scholar

11. Ibid., 336.

12. Ibid.

13. The material below is based on Dodwell, David, “Game of Give and Take,” Financial Times, 30 September 1992, 12Google Scholar , and “A Catalogue of Grievances,” Economist, 27 February 1993, 26.Google Scholar See also Wallach, Lori, “Hidden Dangers of GATT and NAFTA,” in Nader, Ralph et al, The Cose Against Free Trade (San Francisco, 1993), 60–91Google Scholar.

14. Roht-Arriaza, Naomi, “Precaution, Participation and the ‘Greening’ of International Trade Law,” Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation (Winter 1991-1992): 75.Google Scholar

15. Gilliam, Harold, “The Real Price of Free Trade,” San Francisco Examiner: This World, 3 January 1994, 14.Google Scholar

16. Steinberg, Richard, “The Uruguay Round: A Legal Analysis of the Final Act,” International Quarterly 6 (April 1994): 35 (italics added).Google Scholar

17. Ibid.

18. Quoted in Esty, Daniel, Greening the GATT (Washington, D.C., 1994), 170.Google Scholar

19. “Decisions Adopted by Ministers in Marrakesh,” Focus: The GATT Newsletter, May 1994, 9.Google Scholar

20. Quoted in “U.S. Auto Fuel-Efficiency Taxes to Be Examined by GATT Panel,” Trade and the Environment: News and Views from the GATT, 3 June 1993, 4.

21. For a more detailed discussion of this trade controversy and the background to it, see Vogel, David, “Trouble for Us and Trouble for Them: Social Regulations as Trade Barriers,” in Comparative Disadvantages? Social Regulations and the Global Economy, ed. Niovola, Pietro (Washington, D.C., 1997), 119–24Google Scholar.

22. The World Trade Organization and Sustainable Development: An Independent Assessment (Winnipeg, Manitoba, 1996), 41.Google Scholar

23. Schoenberger, Chana, “Shrimp Dispute Tests U.S. Use of Trade to Protect Environment,” Wail Street Journal, 18 July 1997, A14.Google Scholar

24. “Congress Considers New Bill to Save Dolphins,” Dolphin Alert (Fall 1992): 2.Google Scholar

25. “Must Try Harder,” Economist, 21 August 1993, 22.Google Scholar

26. Quoted in William Lasch III, “Green Showdown at the WTO,” Contemporary Issues Series #85, Center for the Study of American Business, March 1997, p. 12.

27. Williams, Frances, “US Holding Up Green Trade,” Financial Times, 26 July 1996, 3.Google Scholar

28. Jha, Venna and Zarelli, Simonetta, “Eco-Labeling Initiatives as Potential Barriers to Trade,” in Life-Cycle Management and Trade (Paris: OECD, 1994), 64.Google Scholar

29. Quoted in , Lasch, “Green Showdown at the WTO,” 9.Google Scholar

30. Regnier, Eva, “Trade Policy and the Environment: U.S.-Mexico Free Trade, Journal of the IES 35 (March-April 1992): 83.Google Scholar

31. Pastor, Robert, “NAFTA as the Center of an Integration Process: The Non-Trade Issues,” in Assessing the Impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement, ed. Lustig, Nora (Washington, D.C., 1992), 182.Google Scholar

32. Fraser, Damian, “Environment Hit by Too Much Free Trade,” Financial Times, 2 July 1992, 4.Google Scholar

33. Burke, William, “The Toxic Price of Free Trade in Mexico,” In These Times, 22-28 May 1991, 2.Google Scholar

34. Marshall, Jonathan, “How Ecology Is Tied to Mexico Trade Pact,” San Francisco Chronicle, 25 February 1992, A8.Google Scholar

35. Rothstein, Richard, “Exporting Jobs and Pollution to Mexico,” New Perspectives Quarterly 8 (Winter 1991): 23.Google Scholar

36. Ibid., 20.

37. Ibid.

38. Ibid., 18-19.

39. Suro, Roberto, “In Search of a Trade Pact with the Environment in Mind,” New York Times, 14 April 1991, E4.Google Scholar

40. Ibid., 20.

41. Ibid., 4.

42. Letter to President George Bush from Congressmen Richard Gephardt, 27 March 1991.

43. Bradsher, Keith, “U.S. and Mexico Draft Plan to Fight Border Pollution,” New York Times, 2 April 1991, Cl, C6.Google Scholar

44. Ibid., C6.

45. Kay, Jane, “Environmentalists Urge Tough Mexico Trade Law,” San Francisco Examiner, 9 September 1991.Google Scholar

46. Marshall, Jonathan, “How Ecology Is Tied to Mexico Trade Pact,” San Francisco Chronicle, 25 February 1992, A8.Google Scholar

47. Fraser, Damian, “Environment Hit by Too Much Free Trade,” Financial Times, 2 July 1992, 4.Google Scholar

48. For criticisms of the environmental provisions of both NAFTA and the side agreement, see Hufbauer, Gary and Scott, Jeffrey, NAFTA: An Assessment, rev. ed. (Washington, D.C., 1993), 92–97Google Scholar.

49. Mumme, Stephen, “Environmentalists, NAFTA, and North American Environmental Management, Journal of Environment and Development 2 (Winter 1993): 215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50. Audley, John, Green Politics and Global Trade: NAFTA and the Future of Environmental Politics (Washington, D.C., 1997) 131–32.Google Scholar

51. Steinberg, Richard, “Trade-Environment Negotiations in the EU, NAFTA, and WTO: Regional Trajectories of Rule Development,” American Journal of International Law 91 (1997): 250–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52. Pilling, David, “NAFTA Accord Back on Chile's Agenda,” Financial Times, 27 May 1994, 7.Google Scholar

53. DePalma, Anthony, “NAFTA Environmental Lags May Delay Free Trade Expansion,” New York Times, 21 May 1997, A4.Google Scholar

54. Dunne, Nancy, “Chile's NAFTA Hopes Fade as Trade Pacts Lose US Favor,” Financial Times, 2 October 1997, 6.Google Scholar

55. Sanger, David, “Republicans Say the Trade Bill Is in Big Trouble,” New York Times, 1 October 1997, A14.Google Scholar

56. Dunne, Nancy and Jonquieres, Guy de, “Clinton Boost on Fast-Track,” Financial Times, 1 October 1997, 11.Google Scholar

57. Borrus, Amy, “Business Is in a Hurry for Fast-Track,” Business Week, 15 September 1997, 38–39.Google Scholar

58. Clarke, Tony and Barlow, Maude, “Super NAFTA” Nation, 6 July 1998, 7.Google Scholar

59. See, for example, Birdsall, Nancy and Wheeler, David, “Trade Policy and Industrial Pollution in Latin America: Where Are the Pollution Havens?” in International Trade and the Environment, ed. Low, Patrick (Washington, D.C., 1992), 159–68Google Scholar.

60. For a comprehensive analysis of the impact of trade liberalization on both economic efficiency and environmental quality, see The Greening of World Trade Issues, ed. Anderson, Kym and Blackhurst, Richard (Ann Arbor, 1992)Google Scholar.

61. Dean, Judith, “Trade and the Environment: A Survey of the Literature,” in International Trade and the Environment, ed. Low, World Bank Papers, 1992, p. 15.Google Scholar According to a recent comprehensive study, “there is almost no evidence that investors in developing coun-tries are fleeing environmental costs at home.” Eskeland, Gunnar S. and Harrison, Ann E., “Moving to Greener Pastures? Multinationals and the Pollution-have Hypothesis,” Policy Research Working Paper 1744, the World Bank, 1997.Google Scholar For a contrary position, see Stewart, Richard, “Environmental Regulation and International Competitiveness,” Yale Law Journal 102 (June 1993): 2041–2122CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62. Quoted in Pearson, Charles, “Trade and Environment: The United States Experience” (New York: UN Conference on Trade and Development, January 1994), 52.Google Scholar

63. See Porter, Michael, The Competitive Advantage of Nations (New York, 1990), 685–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; and also Moore, Curtis and Miller, Alan, Green Gold (Boston, 1994)Google Scholar.

64. “The evidence suggests that foreign-owned firms in four developing countries are less polluting than comparable domestic plants.” See Eskeland and Harrison, “Moving to Greener Pastures.”

65. See , Vogel, Trading Up, chap. 8.Google Scholar