Skip to main content Skip to page footer
elni logo elni logo

Exploring CETA’ s Relation to Environment Law

Delphine Misonne

elni Review 2016, Issue 2, pp. 46-53. https://doi.org/10.46850/elni.2016.007

This article gives an introduction on the potential impact of CETA on environmental law.
CETA – The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement negotiated between Canada, the European Union and its 28 Member States, still awaiting ratification – is likely to have an impact on environmental law, even if it cannot be categorized as an environmental treaty. CETA provides a definition of what environmental law means, it mentions that “it is inappropriate to encourage trade or investment by weakening the levels of protection afforded in their environmental law,” it establishes a panel of experts which must have specialized knowledge or expertise in environmental law, it reaffirms “the rights of the Parties to regulate to achieve legitimate policy objectives, such as the protection of public health and the environment,” it mentions that “Parties are committed to high levels of protection for the environment” but also adds that this is “in accordance to the TBT Agreement, the SPS Agreement, the GATT 1994, the GATS and this Agreement,” it contains a whole chapter on ‘Trade and Sustainable Development’ and a whole chapter on ‘Trade and Environment.’ But the question must be asked of whether it sufficiently captures and accommodates the possible confrontation between a trade vision and an investment-protection vision. In that regard, scholarship and UNEP have been long quite clear that the transition towards a greener economy, even if fully WTO-consistent, could include considerable drawbacks from the application of investment disciplines – through the possible award of substantial amounts in damages. CETA seeks definitely to carve out more space for environmental regulation within investment disciplines, but does it go far enough?

Access full article

References

  1. Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part.
  2. North-American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation.
  3. R. Svelc, Environmental integration in EU trade policy, in The External Environmental Policy of the European Union (E. Morgera, Ed.), Cambridge University Press, 2012, p. 193.
  4. H. Kong & L. K. Wroth, Nafta and Sustainable Development, Cambridge University Press, 2015.
  5. Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), OJ 2012 C 226/47.
  6. UNEP, Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication, 2011.
  7. J. Vinuales, The environmental regulation of foreign investment schemes under international law, in Harnessing Foreign Investment to Promote Environmental Protection (P. M. Dupuy & J. Vinuales, eds, 2013), Cambridge, pp. 273-274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139344289.015.
  8. K. Gordon & J. Pohl, Environmental Concerns in International Investment Agreements: A Survey, OECD Working Papers on International Investment n°2011/1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/5kg9mq7scrjh-en.
  9. S. Lavallée, L’accord nord-américain de coopération dans le domaine de l’environnement: entre un ‘vécu fantasmé et un vécu réel’, in Pour un droit économique de l’environnement, Frison-Roche, Paris, 2013.
  10. P. Solano, Choosing the Right Whistle – The Development of the Concept of Environmental Law under the Citizen Submissions Process, in Nafta and Sustainable Development. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316157763.004.
  11. P. M. Johnson & A. Beaulieu, The environment and Nafta. Understanding and Implementing the New Continental Law, Island Press, Washington, 1996, p.191.
  12. J. Knox, Neglected lessons of the NAFTA Environmental Regime, (2010) 45 Wake Forest L. Rev.
  13. North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
  14. G. Garver, Forgotten Promises – Neglected Environmental Provisions of the NAFTA and the NAAEC, in Nafta and Sustainable Development. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316157763.002.
  15. Studer, The Nafta Side Agreements: Towards a More Cooperative Approach?, 45 Wake Forest Law Review 469-490 (2010).
  16. L. Collins & D. Boyd, Non-Regression and the Charter Right to a Healthy Environment, JELP.
  17. L. Welts, Form over Substance – Procedural Hurdles to the NAAEC Citizen Submission Process, in Nafta and Sustainable Development. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316157763.006.
  18. European Parliament, 2010, ‘Report on human rights and social and environmental standards in international trade agreements’.
  19. Trade Agreement between the European Union and its member states, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part.
  20. K. Athanasakou, Trade-related incentives: the international negotiations over environmental goods and services, in Harnessing Foreign Investment to Promote Environmental Protection (P.M. Dupuy & J. Vinuales), Cambridge, 2013, pp. 254-270. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139344289.013.
  21. D. Vogel, The Politics of Precaution, Princeton, 2012.
  22. P.T. Stoll, W. Douma, N. de Sadeleer, P. Abel, CETA, TTIP and the Precautionary Principle, study commissioned by Foodwatch, June 2016.
  23. W. Douma, Sustainability and precautionary aspects of CETA dissected, elni Review 02/2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46850/elni.2016.009.
  24. Minutes of the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade Meeting, 21 March 2007, G/TBT/M/41, published on 12 June 2007, pp. 10-11.
  25. CIEL (Center for International Environmental Law), Letter to Mr. P. Magnette, 19 October 2016.
  26. D. Misonne, ‘The Importance of Setting a Target : The EU Ambition of a High Level of Protection’, Transnational Environmental Law, vol. 4, April 2015, pp. 11-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102514000284.
  27. D. Misonne & Isabelle Hachez Simplifier Le droit européen de l’environnement: un processus liberé de toute exigence de non- régression ? In: Isabelle Doussan, Les futurs du droit de l'environnement, Bruylant: Bruxelles, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/pro.356.0095a.
  28. Ankersmit, Lauren, Belgium Requests an Opinion on Investment Court System in CETA, elni Review 02/2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46850/elni.2016.008.
  29. OECD, “Indirect Expropriation” and the “Right to Regulate” in International Investment Law, Working Papers on International Investment, 2004/4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/18151957.
  30. L. Wandahl Mouyal, International Investment Law and the Right to Regulate, Routledge, 2016, pp. 1-264.
  31. D. Misonne, Payer ou renoncer, les investisseurs à l’assaut de la protection de l’environnement, D'urbanisme et d'environnement - Liber amicorum Francis Haumont, Bruylant, 2015, pp. 719-731.
  32. Norvegian BIT model, 2015.