IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/iuiwop/0791.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Burden of Proof in National Treatment Disputes and the Environment

Author

Listed:
  • Horn, Henrik

    (Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN))

Abstract

The basic legal instrument in the WTO Agreement regulating domestic environmental policies is the GATT National Treatment (NT) provision. The practical ambit of this clause is largely determined by the allocation of the burden of proof (BoP) in NT disputes. The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of this burden for trade liberalization and for the environment, in a situation where imports may cause environmental damage. The paper finds that there may be a tension between NT and environmental concerns, but that this is not likely to arise in the context of severe threats to the environment. In any event, relieving regulating countries of the BoP will have fundamentally unclear implications for the environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Horn, Henrik, 2009. "The Burden of Proof in National Treatment Disputes and the Environment," Working Paper Series 791, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:iuiwop:0791
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ifn.se/wfiles/wp/wp791.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kamal Saggi & Nese Sara, 2018. "National Treatment At The Wto: The Roles Of Product And Country Heterogeneity," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Kamal Saggi (ed.), Economic Analysis of the Rules and Regulations of the World Trade Organization, chapter 3, pages 46-75, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Horn, Henrik & Mavroidis, Petros C., 2008. "The Permissible Reach of National Environmental Policies," Working Paper Series 739, Research Institute of Industrial Economics, revised 20 Jun 2008.
    3. Hyun Song Shin, 1998. "Adversarial and Inquisitorial Procedures in Arbitration," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 29(2), pages 378-405, Summer.
    4. Ferrara, Ida & Missios, Paul & Murat Yildiz, Halis, 2009. "Trading rules and the environment: Does equal treatment lead to a cleaner world?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 206-225, September.
    5. Henrik Horn, 2006. "National Treatment in the GATT," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(1), pages 394-404, March.
    6. Sumeet Gulati & Devesh Roy, 2008. "National Treatment and the optimal regulation of environmental externalities," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(4), pages 1445-1471, November.
    7. Chris William Sanchirico, 2008. "A Primary-Activity Approach to Proof Burdens," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(1), pages 273-313, January.
    8. Giovanni Maggi & Robert W. Staiger, 2008. "On the Role and Design of Dispute Settlement Procedures in International Trade Agreements," NBER Working Papers 14067, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Robert W. Staiger & Kyle Bagwell, 1999. "An Economic Theory of GATT," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 215-248, March.
    10. Horn, Henrik & Mavroidis, Petros C., 2009. "Burden of Proof in Environmental Disputes in the WTO: Legal Aspects," Working Paper Series 793, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    11. Baksi, S. & Ray Chaudhuri, A., 2008. "Transboundary Pollution, Trade Liberalization, and Environmental Taxes," Other publications TiSEM 74de1971-0381-495c-8d47-5, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Grossman, Gene M. & Horn, Henrik & Mavroidis, Petros C., 2012. "The Legal and Economic Principles of World Trade Law: National Treatment," Working Paper Series 917, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Horn, Henrik, 2011. "The burden of proof in trade disputes and the environment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 15-29, July.
    2. Ferrara, Ida & Missios, Paul & Yildiz, Halis Murat, 2019. "Product quality, consumption externalities, and the role of National Treatment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 1-35.
    3. Doi, Naoshi & Ohashi, Hiroshi, 2017. "Empirical analysis of the national treatment obligation under the WTO: The case of Japanese shochu," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 43-52.
    4. Robert W. Staiger & Alan O. Sykes, 2011. "International Trade, National Treatment, and Domestic Regulation," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 40(1), pages 149-203.
    5. Paul Missios & Ida Ferrara & Halis Murat Yildiz, 2015. "Consumption Externalities, Product Quality, and the Role of National Treatment," Working Papers 048, Toronto Metropolitan University, Department of Economics.
    6. Yang, Deli & Sonmez, Mahmut (Maho), 2018. "Global norm of national treatment for patent uncertainties: A longitudinal comparison between the US and China," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 164-176.
    7. Maggi, Giovanni, 2014. "International Trade Agreements," Handbook of International Economics, in: Gopinath, G. & Helpman, . & Rogoff, K. (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 0, pages 317-390, Elsevier.
    8. Ederington,Josh & Ruta,Michele, 2016. "Non-tariff measures and the world trading system," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7661, The World Bank.
    9. Difei Geng & Kamal Saggi, 2018. "Is there a case for non-discrimination in the international protection of intellectual property?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Kamal Saggi (ed.), Economic Analysis of the Rules and Regulations of the World Trade Organization, chapter 5, pages 109-123, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    10. Robert W. Staiger & Alan O. Sykes, 2009. "International Trade and Domestic Regulation," NBER Working Papers 15541, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Alice Guerra & Barbara Luppi & Francesco Parisi, 2022. "Do presumptions of negligence incentivize optimal precautions?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 349-368, December.
    12. Sergei Guriev & Mikhail Klimenko, 2015. "Duration and Term Structure of Trade Agreements," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 125(589), pages 1818-1849, December.
    13. Ralph Ossa, 2011. "A "New Trade" Theory of GATT/WTO Negotiations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 119(1), pages 122-152.
    14. Russell Hillberry & Phillip McCalman, 2016. "Import dynamics and demands for protection," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(3), pages 1125-1152, August.
    15. Henrik Horn, 2006. "National Treatment in the GATT," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(1), pages 394-404, March.
    16. Grossman, Gene M. & Horn, Henrik & Mavroidis, Petros C., 2012. "The Legal and Economic Principles of World Trade Law: National Treatment," Working Paper Series 917, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    17. Bown, Chad P. & Keynes, Soumaya, 2020. "Why Trump shot the Sheriffs: The end of WTO dispute settlement 1.0," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 799-819.
    18. Henrik Horn & Giovanni Maggi & Robert W. Staiger, 2010. "Trade Agreements as Endogenously Incomplete Contracts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 394-419, March.
    19. Thomas Eichner & Rüdiger Pethig, 2013. "Trade tariffs and self-enforcing environmental agreements," Volkswirtschaftliche Diskussionsbeiträge 161-13, Universität Siegen, Fakultät Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Wirtschaftsinformatik und Wirtschaftsrecht.
    20. Horn, Henrik & Mavroidis, Petros C., 2009. "Burden of Proof in Environmental Disputes in the WTO: Legal Aspects," Working Paper Series 793, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    National treatment; Burden of proof; Environment; GATT; WTO; Trade agreements;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hhs:iuiwop:0791. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Elisabeth Gustafsson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iuiiise.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.