IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/wuppap/133.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Grüne Grenzen für den Welthandel: Eine ökologische Reform der WTO als Herausforderung an eine Sustainable Global Governance

Author

Listed:
  • Santarius, Tilman
  • Dalkmann, Holger
  • Steigenberger, Markus
  • Vogelpohl, Karin

Abstract

Vom 10. bis zum 14. September diesen Jahres verhandelt die Ministerkonferenzder Welthandelsorganisation (WTO) über eine weitere Liberalisierung desWelthandels. Dabei steht für die Umwelt eine Menge auf dem Spiel. Zwar wurdenmit der Doha Deklaration in der gegenwärtigen Verhandlungsrunde einigeVerhandlungen mit Umweltbezug vereinbart. Dies täuscht aber darüber hinweg,dass die WTO noch weit entfernt davon ist, ökologische Aspekte in ihrer Politikangemessen zu berücksichtigen. Vorliegendes Papier analysiert zunächst dieDiskussion über Umweltthemen in der WTO, welche seit über zehn Jahren vorallem im Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) der WTO geführt wird.Die Analyse zeigt auf, dass zahlreiche Umwelteffekte von Handelsliberalisierungen gar nicht diskutiert wurden, Interessengegensätze zwischen Mitglieds-staaten der WTO eine tief gehende Diskussion vereiteln und Ansätze einerökologischen Reform der WTO bislang keine Chance hatten. Vor dem Hinter-grund dieser Analyse wird sodann eine doppelte Strategie entwickelt. Erstens wirddargelegt, warum die WTO aufgrund ihrer umweltpolitischen Defizite denjenigenInstitutionen ihren Handlungsspielraum lassen sollte, die sich aktiv mit Umwelt-politik beschäftigen. Hierzu wird das Konfliktverhältnis multilateraler Umweltab-kommen und der WTO untersucht. Zunächst erfolgt eine Klassifizierung inunbedenkliche und potentiell kritische Konfliktfälle. Dann wird aufgezeigt, wieeinerseits eine Begrenzung der Zuständigkeiten des Streitschlichtungsorgans der WTO sowie andererseits kooperative, politisch-rechtliche Prozesse zur Lösungder Konflikte zwischen den betroffenen Institutionen eine Lösung bieten und zueiner größeren institutionellen Gleichheit in der globalen politischen Arena führenkönnten. Zweitens wird erörtert, wie ökologische Aspekte Schritt für Schritt in dieWTO integriert werden könnten. Hierzu werden Instrumente der strategischenFolgenabschätzung untersucht. Nach einer eingehenden Analyse der Potenzialeund Grenzen von strategischen Folgenabschätzungen werden Empfehlungen zu ihrer Weiterentwicklung formuliert. Anschließend werden Möglichkeiten darge-stellt, wie strategische Folgenabschätzung in die institutionellen Strukturen derWTO integriert werden könnten, um ökologische Aspekte systematisch in die politischen Entscheidungsprozesse einfließen zu lassen und eine verbessertePartizipation der Öffentlichkeit an der Politik der WTO zu gewährleisten. Dabeiwird einerseits eine Integration strategischer Folgenabschätzungen in den Trade Policy Review Mechanism der WTO und andererseits die Einrichtung eines neuenStrategic Impact Assessment Body innerhalb der WTO diskutiert.

Suggested Citation

  • Santarius, Tilman & Dalkmann, Holger & Steigenberger, Markus & Vogelpohl, Karin, 2003. "Grüne Grenzen für den Welthandel: Eine ökologische Reform der WTO als Herausforderung an eine Sustainable Global Governance," Wuppertal Papers 133, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:wuppap:133
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/49101/1/374577374.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helm, Carsten, 1995. "Sind Freihandel und Umweltschutz vereinbar? Ökologischer Reformbedarf des GATT/WTO-Regimes," EconStor Books, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, number 122879, March.
    2. Claude Barfield, 2001. "Free Trade, Sovereignty, Democracy: The Future of the World Trade Organization," Books, American Enterprise Institute, number 52877, September.
    3. Cash, David & Clark, William, 2001. "From Science to Policy: Assessing the Assessment Process," Working Paper Series rwp01-045, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    4. Grossman, G.M & Krueger, A.B., 1991. "Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement," Papers 158, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Public and International Affairs.
    5. repec:aei:rpbook:24252 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Biermann, Frank & Simonis, Udo E., 1998. "Needed now: a world environment and development organization," Discussion Papers, Research Professorship Environmental Policy FS II 98-408, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    7. Nordström, Håkan & Vaughan, Scott, 1999. "Trade and the environment," WTO Special Studies, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division, volume 4, number 4.
    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. Krüger, Timmo, 2013. "Das Hegemonieprojekt der ökologischen Modernisierung," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 41(3), pages 422-456.

    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. Kakali Mukhopadhyay & Debesh Chakraborty, 2005. "Is liberalization of trade good for the environment? Evidence from India," Asia-Pacific Development Journal, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), vol. 12(1), pages 109-136, June.
    2. Wilson,John S. & Tsunehiro Otsuki & Sewadeh, Mirvat, 2002. "Dirty exports and environmental regulation : do standards matter to trade?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2806, The World Bank.
    3. Mongelli, I. & Tassielli, G. & Notarnicola, B., 2006. "Global warming agreements, international trade and energy/carbon embodiments: an input-output approach to the Italian case," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 88-100, January.
    4. Lionel Fontagné & Friedrich von Kirchbach & Mondher Mimouni, 2001. "A First Assessment of Environment-Related Trade Barriers," Working Papers 2001-10, CEPII research center.
    5. Sevil Acar & Ahmet Atil Asici, 2015. "Does Income Growth Relocate Ecological Footprint?," Working Papers 938, Economic Research Forum, revised Sep 2015.
    6. Somlanare Romuald KINDA & Pascale COMBES MOTEL & Jean-Louis COMBES, 2014. "Do Environmental Policies Hurt Trade Performance?," Working Papers 201404, CERDI.
    7. Okelele, Daniel Ochudi & Lokina, Razack & Ruhinduka, Remidius Denis, 2021. "Effect of Trade Openness on Ecological Footprint in Sub-Saharan Africa," African Journal of Economic Review, African Journal of Economic Review, vol. 10(1), December.
    8. Tripathy, Prajukta & Jena, Pabitra Kumar & Mishra, Bikash Ranjan, 2024. "Systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis of energy efficiency," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    9. Nasreen, Samia & Anwar, Sofia & Ozturk, Ilhan, 2017. "Financial stability, energy consumption and environmental quality: Evidence from South Asian economies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 1105-1122.
    10. Song, Tao & Zheng, Tingguo & Tong, Lianjun, 2008. "An empirical test of the environmental Kuznets curve in China: A panel cointegration approach," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 381-392, September.
    11. Giedrė Lapinskienė & Kęstutis Peleckis & Neringa Slavinskaitė, 2017. "Energy consumption, economic growth and greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union countries," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(6), pages 1082-1097, November.
    12. Emrah Kocak & Hayriye Hilal Baglitas, 2022. "The path to sustainable municipal solid waste management: Do human development, energy efficiency, and income inequality matter?," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(6), pages 1947-1962, December.
    13. Jose Mendez & Lewis Gale, "undated". "A Note on the Empirical Relationship Between Trade, Growth and the Environment," Working Papers 2132836, Department of Economics, W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University.
    14. Jingwen Lu & Lihua Dai, 2023. "Examining the Threshold Effect of Environmental Regulation: The Impact of Agricultural Product Trade Openness on Agricultural Carbon Emissions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-21, June.
    15. Löschel, Andreas & Pothen, Frank & Schymura, Michael, 2015. "Peeling the onion: Analyzing aggregate, national and sectoral energy intensity in the European Union," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(S1), pages 63-75.
    16. Jikun Jiang & Shenglai Zhu & Weihao Wang, 2022. "Carbon Emissions, Economic Growth, Urbanization, and Foreign Trade in China: Empirical Evidence from ARDL Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-15, August.
    17. Bradford David F. & Fender Rebecca A & Shore Stephen H. & Wagner Martin, 2005. "The Environmental Kuznets Curve: Exploring a Fresh Specification," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-28, June.
    18. Felician A. Kitole & Jennifer K. Sesabo & Olufunmilola F. Adesiyan & A. O. Ige & Temitope O. Ojo & Chijioke U. Emenike & Nolwazi Z. Khumalo & Hazem S. Kassem & Khalid M. Elhindi, 2024. "Greening the Growth: A Comprehensive Analysis of Globalization, Economic Performance, and Environmental Degradation in Tanzania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-19, December.
    19. Ruqayya Ibraheem & Ismat Nasim, 2021. "Globalization, Energy Use and Environmental Degradation in Thailand," iRASD Journal of Energy and Environment, International Research Association for Sustainable Development (iRASD), vol. 2(1), pages 01-11, June.
    20. Wang, Zheng-Xin & Jv, Yue-Qi, 2021. "A non-linear systematic grey model for forecasting the industrial economy-energy-environment system," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).

    More about this item

    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:zbw:wuppap:133. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wikuede.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.