The Grounds of Interconnection between International Environmental and International Economic Law in the Context of Russian Concept of International Law

Dr. Daria Boklan holds a Ph.D. from the Institute of State and Law, Russian Academy of Science. Dr. Boklan is currently a lecturer in international law and law of the WTO in the Russian Academy for Foreign Trade, and she has more than 20 academic publications in international law, international economy law and international environmental law

The Grounds of Interconnection between International Environmental and International Economic Law in the Context of Russian Concept of International Law

Dr. Daria Boklan holds a Ph.D. from the Institute of State and Law, Russian Academy of Science. Dr. Boklan is currently a lecturer in international law and law of the WTO in the Russian Academy for Foreign Trade, and she has more than 20 academic publications in international law, international economy law and international environmental law

Eurasian Economic Union Court and WTO Dispute Settlement Body: Two Housewives in One Kitchen

Using the approach of the United Nations International Law Commission, the law of the Eurasian Economic Union and WTO law might be regarded as autonomous complexes of rules. However, in all current disputes the DSB treats the norms of EAEU law as measures adopted by a specific EAEU member, but not as international law within the meaning of the ILC. These disputes concern import tariffs, anti-dumping investigations, and technical regulation and reveal a number of specific features. First, the EAEU measures are attributable to every EAEU member. Second, the WTO members may try to challenge in the DSB the measures adopted by an EAEU member in its national legislation based on EAEU law that affect national legislation of that EAEU member, rather than EAEU law as such. Third, “forum shopping” may arise, for the same measure can be challenged under EAEU law in the EAEU Court and under WTO law in the DSB. Finally, to overcome uncertainty concerning WTO law in EAEU Court jurisprudence, it is necessary to clarify the approach of the EAEU Court. The authors conclude that this approach should provide for the Court’s right to interpret EAEU law relying on WTO law and DSB jurisprudence. Such interpretation should be made within the context and object of the EAEU Treaty. However, the autonomous EAEU legal order cannot be implemented until the Treaty on Functioning of the Customs Union within the Multilateral Trading System is applicable.Using the approach of the United Nations International Law Commission, the law of the Eurasian Economic Union and WTO law might be regarded as autonomous complexes of rules. However, in all current disputes the DSB treats the norms of EAEU law as measures adopted by a specific EAEU member, but not as international law within the meaning of the ILC. These disputes concern import tariffs, anti-dumping investigations, and technical regulation and reveal a number of specific features. First, the EAEU measures are attributable to every EAEU member. Second, the WTO members may try to challenge in the DSB the measures adopted by an EAEU member in its national legislation based on EAEU law that affect national legislation of that EAEU member, rather than EAEU law as such. Third, “forum shopping” may arise, for the same measure can be challenged under EAEU law in the EAEU Court and under WTO law in the DSB. Finally, to overcome uncertainty concerning WTO law in EAEU Court jurisprudence, it is necessary to clarify the approach of the EAEU Court. The authors conclude that this approach should provide for the Court’s right to interpret EAEU law relying on WTO law and DSB jurisprudence. Such interpretation should be made within the context and object of the EAEU Treaty. However, the autonomous EAEU legal order cannot be implemented until the Treaty on Functioning of the Customs Union within the Multilateral Trading System is applicable

Rechtsunsicherheit zulasten von Wirtschaft und Natur: Die Regulierung der Nutzung von Energieressourcen des Kaspischen Meeres und ihre grenzüberschreitende Umweltverträglichkeit

Der Energiereichtum am und im Kaspischen Meer bildet eine wichtige Grundlage für das wirtschaftliche Wohlergehen seiner fünf Anliegerstaaten. Die Entwicklung wird aber seit zwanzig Jahren behindert durch den ungeregelten Rechtsstatus des Gewässers, zum Schaden der Wirtschaft, aber auch der Umwelt. Bislang ist es nicht gelungen, umfassende multilaterale Verträge zu schließen, stattdessen sind aber bilaterale Abkommen und die erfolgreiche Regelung von Einzelfragen zu beobachten. Dies sind Hoffnungszeichen für eine Regelung der (grenzüberschreitenden) Umweltprobleme, eine wirkliche Lösung steht aber noch au

Beyond free trade in raw materials: Reconciling international trade rules with planetary boundaries

© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives CC BY-NC-ND licence, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/International trade rules enshrined in agreements like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) promote free trade, with exceptions for environmental protection. This paper explores the tension between these rules and Earth Systems Science's concept of planetary boundaries, which define environmental tipping points beyond which humanity faces irreversible harm. We analyse GATT's provisions, particularly Article XI's prohibition on trade restrictions and Article XX's exceptions, through the lens of planetary boundaries. Our analysis argues that current interpretations of these articles are inadequate to address the environmental impact of raw material trade. We further examine the concept of permanent sovereignty over natural resources, which grants states autonomy over resource exploitation and trade. We posit that planetary boundaries are not a restriction on sovereignty but a call for modifying state trading behaviour and consequently how international trade rules is structured and interpreted. This analysis demonstrates the complexity of transforming the legal landscape necessary for a global just energy transition, a response to climate change that requires aligning international trade with environmental sustainability.Peer reviewe

ARE RESTRICTIVE MEASURES AND COUNTERMEASURES JUSTIFIABLE BY WTO SECURITY EXCEPTIONS: OBJECTIVE OR SUBJECTIVE APPROACH? RESPONSIBILITY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

INTRODUCTION. This paper is devoted to interpretation of so-called WTO “Security Exception Articles”, namely Article XXI of the GATT, XIV bis of the GATS and 73 of the TRIPS Agreement with respect to their possible applicability to trade restrictive measures adopted against Russia, and Russian countermeasures, based on the assumption that these trade restrictive measures violate WTO disciplines.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The materials for the article were norms of general international law and norms of WTO law, containing so-called security exception provisions and their respective interpretation by international tribunals, international organizations and scholars. The methodological basis of the research consists of general scientific and special methods.RESEARCH RESULTS. Taking into account that there is a lack of WTO jurisprudence and no common view of WTO members regarding the issue at hand, the analysis is based on the scope of Security Exception Articles and on the Panel’s jurisdiction to resolve disputes arising from them. In particular, the paper addresses whether security exceptions are of a self-declaratory nature; and, as it was stated by the GATT Council in 1985 in relation to the US trade embargo against Nicaragua, “the Panel cannot examine or judge the validity or motivation for the invocation of article XXI (b) (iii) by the United States” or whether it is possible to apply an objective test to Security Exception Articles.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. With respect to the objective test, the interpretation of the following notions should be analyzed: “essential security interests”, “emergency in international relations” and “necessary to protect”. The analysis should be based on rules of general international law and the Appellate Body’s approach according to which previously established interpretations of certain provisions of one WTO Agreement can be used to inform the content of the same ‘words’ in another WTO Agreement. With respect to the subjective approach we may face a tendency to interpret “self-judging clause”, in the light of “a good faith” principle and therefore the issue at hand can be subject to the Dispute Settlement Body's analysis