Rodrigo Polanco, Joëlle de Sépibus, Kateryna Holzer

Carbon & Climate Law Review, Volume 11 (2017), Issue 3, Page 206 - 222

In the summer of 2013, the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) launched negotiations for the conclusion of a bilateral free trade agreement, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). There has been no information so far as to whether the parties to TTIP are discussing the inclusion in the agreement of provisions specifically related to climate change. It is also uncertain if TTIP will finally be concluded, given the strong opposition in some EU Member States and the election of Donald Trump as President of the US. The concerns underlying the discussion of TTIP however are part of a broader discourse taking place in many other fora for trade negotiations around the world. The considerations hereafter may be of relevance well beyond the case of TTIP. The article examines the impact that TTIP could have on existing and future climate policies and laws from the inclusion of provisions on investment protection including investor-to-State dispute settlement (ISDS), the reduction of non-tariff barriers and the introduction of rules for trade in energy and raw materials. It argues that from an environmental perspective, ISDS should not necessarily be seen as a regime that goes against the defence of the environment or prevention of climate change. Although it might be used to challenge policies of a home State that increase levels of environmental protection, it can also be used to contest changes in home State’s environmental policies that would reduce the protection of the environment. Benefits for the climate could further be seized from harmonisation of carbon laws at the level of the strictest regulations of two parties and provisions that promote trade in low-carbon technologies and renewables.

Joëlle de Sépibus, Kateryna Holzer

Carbon & Climate Law Review, Volume 8 (2014), Issue 1, Page 13 - 22

Can Increased Involvement of Business and Industry Help Rescue the Multilateral Climate Regime?

Kateryna Holzer, Nashina Shariff

Carbon & Climate Law Review, Volume 6 (2012), Issue 3, Page 246 - 260

Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) are an increasingly important part of the global trading system. At the same time Border Carbon Adjustments (BCAs) are begining to be considered a necessary policy tool to address the carbon leakage and competitiveness concerns associated with emissions pricing systems. This confluence of events raises the question: is there a useful role for BCAs in the implementation of PTAs? This paper argues that the inclusion of BCAs in PTAs has several distinct advantages; it may avoid the trade retaliatory measures that could arise from the unilateral imposition of BCAs, it does not rely on cumbersome and often ineffective multilateral discussions, and it might be legally feasible as it provides a method of, to some extent, circumventing barriers to the unilateral imposition of BCAs posed by WTO rules. The paper also explores options for implementing BCAs in PTAs by looking at the importance of the BCA rate, the role of rules of origin, and the manner in which bilateral negotiations can be beneficial, even in cases where BCAs are, in the end, implemented unilaterally. The paper concludes that PTAs can indeed play a useful role in implementing BCAs, suggesting that this is a policy worth further exploration

Kateryna Holzer

Carbon & Climate Law Review, Volume 4 (2010), Issue 1, Page 14

nsequences of climate change make immediate action to stabilize global temperature, through reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases resulted from human activities, extremely important. Delay in reaching an international agreement on a future global climate regime increases the likelihood that industrialized countries will act on climate change unilaterally, curbing not only domestic industrial emissions but also introducing restrictions on emissions associated with the production of imported products abroad. In the current negotia