Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T05:16:21.786Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

India–Solar Cells: Trade Rules, Climate Policy, and Sustainable Development Goals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2018

MARIANNA KARTTUNEN  and
MICHAEL O. MOORE
MARIANNA KARTTUNEN*
Affiliation:
Regulatory Policy Division, OECD
MICHAEL O. MOORE*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics and Institute for International Economic Policy, George Washington University
*
*Email: [email protected].
**Email [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

India–Solar Cells is one of a growing number of WTO disputes that highlight the continuing tensions between climate change polices (and renewable energy manufacturing initiatives in particular) and established multilateral trading rules. The United States alleged that Indian policies discriminated against foreign solar cell suppliers operating in the Indian market. The Appellate Body broadly rejected India's arguments to justify the measure either under Article III.8 public procurement derogations or as a general exception under ‘short supply’ and ‘compliance with laws and regulations’ provision of Article XX of the GATT. We argue that the Appellate Body was correct both on legal and economic grounds. The case does highlight the continuing need for clarity about the allowed parameters for climate change policies within the multilateral trade system.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , April 2018 , pp. 215 - 237
Copyright
Copyright © Marianna Karttunen and Michael O. Moore 2018 

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.)

Footnotes

The views expressed in this article are strictly personal and do not reflect the position of the OECD. The authors wish to thank participants at the 2017 WTO Case Law Workshop and in particular Chad Bown, Panos Delimatsis, Aksel Erbahar, Ilaria Espa, William Kovacic, Andrea Mastromatteo, Petros Mavroidis, Chloé Papazian, and Edwin Velmust for very helfpul comments. We also thank Yasmina Abdelilah and Yasuhiro Sakuma from the International Energy Agency for sharing useful data.

References

Aust (2007), Modern Treaty Law and Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bhagwati, J. and Mavroidis, P. (2007), ‘Is Action against US Exports for Failure to Sign Kyoto Protocol WTO-legal?’, World Trade Review, 6(2): 299–310.Google Scholar
Brainard, L. and Sorkin, I. (eds.) (2009), Climate Change, Trade and Competitiveness: Is A Collision Inevitable? Washington, DC: Brookings Trade Forum.Google Scholar
Bown, C. P. (2016), ‘Global Antidumping Database’, The World Bank, http://econ.worldbank.org/ttbd/gad/ (accessed 1 May 2017).Google Scholar
Chang, S. W. (2016), ‘Farewell Speech of Seung Wha CHANG at the DSB’, https://tinyurl.com/yb94p383 (accessed 6 July 2017).Google Scholar
Charnovitz, S. (2002), ‘The Law of Environmental “PPMs” in the WTO: Debunking the Myth of Illegality’, Yale Journal of International Law, 27(1).Google Scholar
Charnovitz, S. and Fischer, C. (2015), ‘Canada–Renewable Energy: Implications for WTO Law on Green and Not-So-Green Subsidies’, World Trade Review, 14(2): 177–210.Google Scholar
Conconi, P. and Voon, T. (2016), ‘EC–Seal Products: The Tension between Public Morals and International Trade Agreements’, World Trade Review, 15(2): 211–234.Google Scholar
Davey, W. J. and Sapir, A. (2009), ‘The Soft Drinks Case: The WTO and Regional Agreements’, World Trade Review, 8(1): 5–23Google Scholar
DOE (2017), ‘Strategic Petroleum Reserve’, United States Department of Energy, https://tinyurl.com/y8vbmfx8 (accessed 11 May 2017).Google Scholar
Flett, J. (2010), ‘Collective Intelligence and the Possibility of Dissent: Anonymous Individual Opinions in WTO Jurisprudence’, Journal of International Economic Law, 13(2): 287–320.Google Scholar
Government of India (2008), ‘National Action Plan on Climate Change’, 30 June 2008, https://tinyurl.com/ybnjul5z (accessed 16 July 2017).Google Scholar
Green, A. (2005), ‘Climate Change, Regulatory Policy and the WTO: How Constraining Are Trade Rules?’, Journal of International Economic Law, 8: 143–189.Google Scholar
Houser, T., Bradley, R., Childs, B., Werksman, J., and Heilmay, R. (2009), Leveling the Carbon Playing Field, Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economic Policy.Google Scholar
Howse, R. and Regan, D. (2000), ‘The Product/Process Distinction: An Illusory Basis for Disciplining “Unilateralism” in Trade Policy’, European Journal of International Law, 11(2): 249–289.Google Scholar
Hufbauer, G. C., Charnovitz, S., and Kim, J. (2009), Global Warming and the World Trading System, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
India Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce, Export Import Databank, http://commerce.gov.in/EIDB.aspx (accessed 15 May 2017).Google Scholar
International Energy Agency (IEA) (2016), ‘Snapshot of Global Photovoltaic Markets’, International Energy Agency, Report IEA PVPS T1-31:2017, http://www.iea-pvps.org/ (accessed 30 June 2017).Google Scholar
Klabbers, J. (2017), International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. K. (2012), ‘Dissent as Dialectic: Horizontal and Vertical Disagreement in WTO Dispute Settlement’, Stanford Journal of International Law, 48(1): 1–45.Google Scholar
Marhold, A. (2013), ‘The World Trade Organization and Energy: Fuel for Debate’, ESIL Reflections, 2(8).Google Scholar
Mattoo, A., Subramanian, A., van der Mensbrugghe, D., and He, J. (2009), ‘Reconciling Climate Change and Trade Policy’, Peterson Institute for International Economic Policy Working Paper 09-15.Google Scholar
Mavroidis, P. (2012), Trade in Goods, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mavroidis, P. (2016), The Regulation of International Trade, Volume 1, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Moore, M. O. (2016), ‘Carbon Safeguard? Managing the Friction between Climate Policy and Trade Policy’, Journal of World Trade, 51(1): 43–66.Google Scholar
Moore, M. O. (2010), ‘Implementing Carbon Tariffs: A Fool's Errand?’, World Economy, 34(10): 1679–1702.Google Scholar
National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (2012), ‘Laying the Foundation for a Bright Future: Assessing Progress under Phase 1 of India's National Solar Mission’, National Resources Defense Council, http://tinyurl.com/ydfkbtfo (accessed 3 July 2017).Google Scholar
Rubini, L. (2014), ‘“The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”: Lessons on Methodology in Legal Analysis from the Recent WTO Litigation on Renewable Energy Subsidies’, Journal of World Trade, 48(5): 895–938.Google Scholar
Rubini, L. and Cosbey, A. (2017), ‘E15 Initiative – Does It FIT? An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Renewable Energy Measures and of the Implications of the Canada–Renewable Energy/FIT Disputes’, E15 Initiative, https://tinyurl.com/n6la6xc (accessed 6 July 2017).Google Scholar
Trebilcock, M. J., Howse, R., and Eliason, A. (2013), The Regulation of International Trade, 4th edn, Abingdon: Oxon Publishing; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
UN Comtrade (2017), United Nations Comtrade Database, https://comtrade.un.org/ (accessed 30 May 2017).Google Scholar
US International Trade Commission (USITC) (2015), ‘Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from China and Taiwan’, US International Trade Commission, Publication 4519, Page V-1, https://tinyurl.com/y8slf6e3 (accessed 6 July 2017).Google Scholar
United States Trade Representative (USTR) (2013), ‘United States Challenges India's Restrictions on US Solar Exports’, United States Trade Representative, https://tinyurl.com/yamrn7dp (accessed 6 July 2017).Google Scholar
WTO (2016), ‘Statement by the United States at the Meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body’, Geneva, 23 May 2016, https://tinyurl.com/yaerv87u (accessed 19 July 2017).Google Scholar