Crafting Trade and Investment Accords

for Sustainable Development: Athena's

Treaties Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/crafting-trade-and-investment-accords-for-sustainable
-development-athenas-treaties-marie-claire-cordonier-segger/
Crafting Trade and Investment Accords
for Sustainable Development
 Crafting Trade and
Investment Accords
for Sustainable
Development
Athena’s Treaties

M A R I E - ​C L A I R E C O R D O N I E R SE G G E R

1
 3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Marie-​Claire Cordonier Segger 2021
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2021
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Crown copyright material is reproduced under Class Licence
Number C01P0000148 with the permission of OPSI
and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2020953018
ISBN 978–​0–​19–​883134–​1
DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780198831341.001.0001
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
 Foreword
Professor Thomas Cottier

For all too long, the fields of international trade and investment, environmental and human
rights law evolved in isolation, dealt with by separate epistemic communities. It is only re-
cently that these fields are finding a common roof in international law for sustainable devel-
opment, and are exposed to mutual interaction and debate. This volume makes a substantial
contribution to this process. It is motivated by the concern that poorly regulated economic
activities and normative contradictions are contributing substantially to global challenges
such as climate change and the collapse of ecological systems, as well as to rising poverty
and disrespect for human rights. It is motivated by the need for in-depth analysis with a
view to bring about greater coherence, interaction, and integration among these fields of
international law in future international agreements.
Professor Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger, senior director of the Centre for International
Sustainable Development Law and Leverhulme Trust visiting professor at the University
of Cambridge, also a full professor of international law in Canada, is a pioneer and one of
the world’s leading legal scholars in interfacing trade, investment, and sustainable develop-
ment. In the initial pages of this volume, she notes that if the ancient Greek goddess Athena,
patroness of justice, wisdom, and the crafts, were to consider the current state of globaliza-
tion, she would be deeply concerned, perhaps even horrified. She likely would induce ora-
cles changing our minds and perceptions. This book is an invitation to do so and to choose
a different path, extended to the thousands of decision-makers, advisors, and academics
whose efforts shape our potential for success in international, regional, and bilateral trade,
investment, and sustainable development endeavours. It is a call for sound scientific assess-
ment, legal schol­arship and analysis; for reasoned legal dialogue and drafting; for careful
and creative legal drafting; for coherent and consistent implementation and compliance;
and for peaceful, ra­tional settlement of disputes.
The author’s extensive law and policy research is inter­national in scope and grounded in
a profoundly humanist, interactional understanding of the law which views legal principles
and rules as both shaping and being shaped by political, economic, and social compromise.
She proposes a series of tailored legal solutions to the challenges wrought by globalization
which, rather than closing borders and building walls, require the careful crafting and nego-
tiation of more effective, sophisticated international accords that integrate social and envi-
ronmental considerations into economic develop­ment endeavours. In her view, by carefully
identifying environmental and social concerns, then crafting and weaving appropriate pro-
visions into trade and investment treaties, the accords themselves become more likely to
succeed over the long term, in essence—more sustainable.
Through carefully researched legal scholarship, the author defends the need for deeper
international collaboration, tracing interactional regimes that extend across nationalist
views and borders and seeking to achieve common goals of integrated economic and so­
cial progress and environmental protection. Her objective is to explore innovative ways to
vi Foreword
extend relationships among communities and States through a well-crafted, just, and more
sustainable globalization. Her work is both analytical and aspirational. It makes a profound
contribution to the dialogue and process of bringing about normative coherence with a
view to produce the public goods required to meet the challenges of our times. I truly rec-
ommend the volume to you.
 Preface
Professor Stephen J Toope

Over the last fifty years or so, we have seen extensive international environmental ­treaty-
making. Many multilateral environmental accords (MEAs) contain provisions to secure
sustainable development in different ways across diverse fields. Parallel to these MEAs, new
international economic treaties are also being negotiated. In principle, as this volume ar-
gues, environmental and social pri­orities should be considered fully in economic develop-
ment decision-making, and in interna­tional trade law and policy as part of that economic
decision-making. While not well-documented before now, more and more trade and in-
vestment accords address the global Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations.
Yet, comparatively little robust scholarly legal analysis exists on how trade and investment
rules affect a State’s potential for sustainable development, and how economic treaties might
foster rather than frustrate sustainable development.
Building on years of careful comparative legal research and sev­eral edited scholarly col-
lections, this volume addresses these gaps. The author argues that in many countries, treaty
decision-makers, negotiators, and their advisors are finding innovative ways to integrate
environmental and social considerations into a new generation of trade and investment
agreements, particularly in regional economic accords. Through this integration, interna-
tional trade and investment law could be better positioned to contribute to sustain­able de-
velopment. In particular, Professor Cordonier Segger examines three key tensions, which
States can address by adopting measures to integrate environmental and social develop-
ment priorities into the economic rules of trade and investment treaties themselves. These
tensions, the author suggests, are interlinked, as each has the potential to build economic
law while, at the same time, explic­itly or implicitly promoting the many facets of sustainable
development. Further, the author proposes, procedural innovations such as impact assess-
ments can assist in identifying, ex-ante, potential social, and environmental effects of a new
economic treaty. Through a trans­parent, inclusive engagement process and reasoned de-
bate, carefully crafted compromises can lead to policy coherence, rather than exacerbating
social and economic marginalization, degradation, and conflict. By acknowledging and ef-
fectively ad­dressing these tensions, international society and domestic citizenry can shape
economic law to further sustainable development. In today’s anxious world, these findings
also have profound significance for areas well beyond the realm of economic law and policy.
The volume explores the interactions between specialities in international law and, more
fundamentally, the essential interactions that inform and lead to the creation of interna-
tional law. Elsewhere, Professor Jutta Brunnée and I have developed an interactional ac-
count of legitimacy and legality in international law. We offer a framework for analysis by
bringing together the concepts of shared understandings of actors and criteria of legality
that build legitimacy in law. Law is then further supported by continuing practices of le-
gality or is undermined if those practices degrade. Applying this framework, this volume
builds on an understanding of international law as inherently interactional. It demonstrates
viii Preface
that without these forms of social interaction, particularly shared understandings of the ac-
tors involved, bringing together the lex specialis of international ec­onomic, human rights
and environmental law is most difficult. However, shared understandings, when connected
with the instantiation of criteria of legality, allow for dialogues across specialties and dis-
ciplines. Within this framework, as the volume demonstrates, legitimacy exists because of
the will and un­derstanding of the Parties even while addressing global challenges from dif-
ferent fields and experiences.
It is a pleasure to commend this volume to readers from many audiences. The book offers
valuable insights in many dimensions. The study of innovations in treaty negotiation can
provide useful advice for the future crafting of trade agreements that take sustainable devel-
opment seriously, for the interpretation of trade treaties and also for the continuing WTO
negotiations. It can also provide those participating in treaty negotiations with essential
lessons as to how inclusive treaty agreements can be created and implemented when there
are multiple—and often competing—identities, constituencies and interests involved. The
lessons of this volume will appeal to those working as officials and analysts in international,
en­vironmental and development-related institutions, where the issues it addresses arise
on a near-daily basis. For academics, professors and students alike, this volume poses and
answers deeply challenging questions that lie at various intersections amongst environ-
mental law, sustainable development, international economics and inter­national political
economy. Practicing lawyers and attorneys, those working in positions as environmental
advisors and those consulting with governments, will find that the volume offers fresh an-
alytical perspectives on difficult law and policy issues, as well as an assessment of the ways
in which they can be addressed now and in the future. Finally, civil society organizations
and foundations, notably those prodding us to meet the world’s sus­tainable development
goals, will find that this volume offers unique insight into process and law. It also points to
where their efforts may best be deployed during treaty negotiations and to fill in the gaps of
existing treaty regimes.
This volume brings the voice of justice and wisdom from antiquity to modernity through
the lens of international law both as an appropriate continuation and in a distinctly novel
manner. It offers a fitting tribute to Athena, and to all the voices for future generations that
continue to strive— across all disciplines and professions— to build a better world to leave
our children and grandchildren.
 Acknowledgements

This volume is the result of nearly twenty years of legal research and comparative inquiry,
with sincere thanks and acknowledgement due to key mentors, including my former
Dean and current Vice-​Chancellor Professor Stephen Toope, Professor Sir Christopher
Greenwood and Professor Markus Gehring at the University of Cambridge; Professor
Armand de Mestral, Professor Richard Janda, Professor Francois Crepeau and Professor
Andrea Bjorklund at McGill University; Professor Daniel C Esty at Yale University; and
especially Professor Vaughan Lowe, Professor Dan Sarooshi, Professor Christopher
McCrudden and Professor Catherine Redgwell who supervised and guided the original in-
ternational law doctoral research at the University of Oxford which laid the foundations
for this volume, as well as Professor Thomas Cottier and Professor Rodrigo Polanco at the
World Trade Institute in the University of Bern; and also Dr Ashfaq Khalfan, valued friend
and Chair of the Centre for International Sustainable Development Law (CISDL) Board of
Governors, along with all my CISDL colleagues. In addition, I am deeply grateful to David
Runnalls, Aaron Cosbey and the late Konrad von Moltke at the International Institute
for Sustainable Development (IISD) whose insights and knowledge shaped this work; to
Ricardo Melendez-​Ortiz whose mentorship and guidance at the International Centre
for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) also significantly strengthened this re-
search; and to Bill Loris, Irene Khan, Paul Crowley, Dr Tom McInerney, Dr Dave Sadoff,
Robert Buergenthal, Dr Ilaria Bottigliero, Erwin van der Borght, Dr Fabiano Andrade de
Correa, Yolando Saito and other colleagues with whom I was privileged to collaborate at the
International Development Law Organization (IDLO). I must especially deeply thank and
recognize the invaluable research and drafting assistance of Emily Morison, Blessing Ajayi,
Sebastien Jodoin, Patrick Reynaud, Oliver Taherzadeh and Rodrigo Mella, among others,
without whose brilliance, long hours of revision and research assistance this volume could
not exist. Finally, I must recognize the invaluable support and guidance provided by the late
Hon Judge Charles D Gonthier, first Chair of the CISDL Board of Governors, and the late
HE Judge CG Weeramantry, Patron of the CISDL, both of whom are deeply missed.
Sincere thanks are also due to Jack McNichol, Vijay Chandrasekaran, also originally John
Louth, from Oxford University Press and their partners, for all their assistance and support
in the publication process.
Finally, this volume is dedicated to Nico Cordonier Gehring and Jona Cordonier
Gehring, two very prominent voices of the future generations that depend on all our efforts
towards sustainable development for their survival.
 Table of Contents

Table of Treaties & Statutes  xiii

Table of Cases  xix
List of Abbreviations  xxi

SE C T IO N O N E : I N T R O D U C T IO N

1. Introduction  3
2. International Trade, Investment and Sustainability  7
3. Advancing Trade and Investment Rules for the World’s Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs)  22

SE C T IO N T WO : E N V I R O N M E N TA L A N D S O C IA L I M PAC T S
O F T R A D E A N D I N V E S T M E N T AG R E E M E N T S

4. Trade and Investment Treaties and their Impacts  31

5. Material Impacts of Trade and Investment on Sustainable Development  34
6. Normative Intersections of Trade, Investment and Sustainability Measures  47

SE C T IO N T H R E E : I N T E G R AT IO N O F E N V I R O N M E N TA L
A N D S O C IA L C O N SI D E R AT IO N S I N T O T R A D E A N D
I N V E S T M E N T AG R E E M E N T S

7. International Legal Reasons for Countries to Address Environmental and

Social Impacts of Trade and Investment Agreements  77
8. Integration as a Principle of European Law, and its Relevance to the
Negotiation of Trade and Investment Agreements  89
9. Policy and ‘Soft Law’ Rationales for Addressing Social and Environmental
Concerns in Trade and Investment Treaties  98
10. International Trade and Investment Agreements in Light of the Integration
Principle  109

SE C T IO N F O U R : W T O P R OV I SIO N S A N D P R O C E S SE S
O N SU S TA I NA B L E D EV E L O P M E N T

11. Development and Environment in Early World Trade Debates  121

12. Sustainable Development Provisions in the 1994 GATT/​WTO Agreements  129
xii Table of Contents
13. Sustainable Development in the 2001 WTO Doha Round Debates
and Beyond  145
14. Sustainable Development in the WTO Institutions and Trade Policy
Review Mechanism (TPRM)  159
15. The Limits of Addressing Sustainable Development in the WTO Regime  162

SE C T IO N F I V E : SU S TA I NA B L E D EV E L O P M E N T- R
​ E L AT E D
I N N OVAT IO N S I N B I L AT E R A L A N D R E G IO NA L T R A D E
A N D I N V E S T M E N T RU L E S
16. Bilateral and Regional Economic Rules and Regimes  167
17. Provisions to Integrate Environmental and Social Considerations into a
Bilateral and Regional Trade and Investment Agreements for Sustainable
Development  176
18. Procedural Innovations Related to Sustainable Development  248

SE C T IO N SI X : T R A D E A N D I N V E S T M E N T
L AW C O N T R I BU T IO N S T O T H E SU S TA I NA B L E
D EV E L O P M E N T G OA L S

19. Trade and Investment Accords for Sustainable Development Goals 1–​5  267
20. Trade and Investment Accords for Sustainable Development Goals 6–​11  277
21. Trade and Investment Accords for Sustainable Development Goals 12–​17  293

SE C T IO N SEV E N : A F U T U R E T R A D E A N D I N V E S T M E N T
L AW F O R SU S TA I NA B L E D EV E L O P M E N T

22. Integrating Social and Environmental Considerations into Trade and

Investment Agreements, for Sustainable Development  313
23. A Future Agenda for Crafting ‘Athena’s Treaties’ on Trade and Investment
for Sustainable Development  324

Annex 1: Table of Environmental Reviews, Environmental Assessments and

Sustainability Impact Assessment Reports  329
Annex 2: Sustainable Development Measures in Bilateral and Regional Economic
Agreements  341
Annex 3: Perspectives on Trade and Sustainable Development from
WTO Members in the Trade Policy Review Mechanism  397
Bibliography  401
Index  427
 Table of Treaties & Statutes

1. INTERNATIONAL TREATIES Canada-​Honduras Free Trade Agreement

(signed 5 November 2015, entered
Table of Bilateral and Regional into force 1 October 2014)������������������������346
Economic Agreements China-​Republic of Korea Free Trade
EU-​UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement Agreement (signed 1 June 2015,
(signed 30 December 2020, provisionally entered into force 20 December 2015) ����� 355
applied 1 January 2021)����������������������������377 Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU)-​Vietnam
UK-​Japan Comprehensive Economic (signed 29 May 2015, entered into force
Partnership Agreement (signed 5 October 2015) ����������������������������������������377
23 October 2020, entered into force Japan-​Mongolia Economic Partnership
31 December 2020) ����������������������������������396 Agreement (signed 10 February 2015,
EU-​Vietnam Trade and Investment entered into force 7 June 2016)����������������379
Agreement (signed 30 June 2019, EU-​Ukraine Deep and Comprehensive Free
yet to be brought into force) ��������������������375 Trade Agreement (signed 27 June 2014,
EU-​Mercosur Trade Agreement entered into force 1 January 2016)����������374
(Political agreement reached on EU-​Republic of Moldova Free Trade
28 June 2019)������������������������� 53, 64, 257, 374 Agreement (signed 27 June 2014,
United States-​Mexico-​Canada Agreement entered into force 1 July 2016) ����������������373
(USMCA) (signed 20 November EU-​Georgia Free Trade Agreement
2018) ���������177, 185, 205, 210, 228, 319, 390 (signed 27 June 2014, entered into
EU-​Singapore Trade and Investment force 1 July 2016) ��������������������������������������372
Protection Agreements (signed Turkey-​Malaysia Free Trade Agreement
19 October 2018, entered into force (signed 17 April 2014, entered into
13 February 2019)�������������������������������������376 force 1 August 2015)���������������������������������390
EU-​Japan Economic Partnership Agreement Republic of Korea-​Australia Free Trade
(signed 17 July 2018, entered into Agreement (signed 8 April 2014,
force 1 February 2019)������������������������������376 entered into force 2 December 2014) ����� 380
EU-​Mexico New Trade Agreement—​The Canada-​Republic of Korea Free Trade
Agreement in Principle (announced Agreement (signed 11 March 2014,
Brussels, 23 April 2018, negotiation entered into force 23 April 2014)�����45, 71, 346
concluded April 28, 2020)��������������� 179, 214 Switzerland-​China Free Trade Agreement
(signed 6 July 2013, entered into force
EU-​Canada Comprehensive Economic and
1 July 2014)������������������������������������������������389
Trade Agreement (CETA) (signed
Bosnia and Herzegovina-​European Free
30 October 2016, entered into force
Trade Association (EFTA) Free Trade
21 Sept 2017)������������������ 9, 19, 269, 270, 277,
Agreement (signed 24 June 2013,
280, 281, 283–​286, 289,
entered into force 1 January 2015)����������361
294–​297, 299, 300, 304, 365
EFTA-​Central America Free Trade
Canada-​Ukraine Free Trade Agreement
Agreement (signed 24 June 2013,
(signed 11 July 2016, entered into
entered into force 19 August 2014)���������289,
force 1 August 2017)���������������������������������344
294, 304, 362
Georgia-​European Free Trade Association Costa Rica-​Colombia Free Trade Agreement
(EFTA) Free Trade Agreement (signed (signed 22 May 2013, entered into force
27 June 2016, entered into force 1 August 2016) ��������������������������������� 185, 209
1 September 2017)������������������������������������362 Iceland-​China Free Trade Agreement
EU-​South African Development (signed 15 April 2013, entered into
Community (SADC) Interim force 1 July 2014) ��������������������������������������378
Economic Partnership Agreement Hong Kong, China-​Chile Free Trade
(signed 10 June 2016, entered into Agreement (signed 7 September 2012,
force 10 October 2016) ����������������������������369 entered into force 9 October 2014)����������378
xiv Table of Treaties & Statutes
Republic of Korea-​Turkey Free Trade EFTA-​Serbia Free Trade Agreement (signed
Agreement (signed 1 August 2012, 17 December 2009, entered into force
entered into force 1 May 2013)����������������381 1 October 2010) ����������������������������������������361
EU-​Central America Association Agreement EFTA-​Albania Free Trade Agreement
(signed 29 June 2012, entered into (signed 7 December 2009, entered into
force 1 August 2013 with Honduras, force 1 November 2010)���������������������������360
Nicaragua and Panama, since 1 October New Zealand-​Malaysia Free Trade
2013 with Costa Rica and El Salvador, Agreement (signed 26 October 2009,
and since 1 December 2013 with entered into force 1 August 2010)������������386
Guatemala)��������������170, 180, 183, 206, 234, Turkey-​Chile Free Trade Agreement
241, 245, 247, 318, 324 (signed 14 July 2009, entered into
China-​Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement force 1 March 2011)����������������������������������354
(signed 8 April 2011, entered into Canada-​Jordan Free Trade Agreement
force 1 August 2011)���������������������������������358 (signed 28 June 2009, entered into
Peru-​Republic of Korea Free Trade force 1 October 2012)�������������������������������345
Agreement (signed 21 March 2011, Peru-​China Free Trade Agreement
entered into force 1 August 2011)�����������270, (signed 28 April 2009, entered into
274, 287, 288, 295, 297, 298, 306, 387 force 1 March 2010)���������������� 268, 271, 272,
India-​Japan Comprehensive Partnership 274, 276, 287, 288, 292, 302, 305, 356
Agreement (signed February 2011, Japan-​Switzerland Economic Partnership
entered into force 1 August 2011)������������378 Agreement (signed 19 February 2009,
EFTA-​Montenegro Free Trade Agreement entered into force 1 September
(signed 3 November 2010, entered into 2009) �����������������278, 280, 285, 294, 295, 379
force 1 September 2012) ��������������������������360 Canada-​Colombia Free Trade Agreement
EU-​South Korea Free Trade Agreement (signed 21 November 2008, entered
(signed 6 October 2010, provisionally into force 15 August 2011)�������������� 169, 209,
entered into force 1 July 2011 and 212, 269, 288, 306, 345
formally ratified in December 2015) ������ 239, EU-​CARIFORUM States Economic
240, 244, 245, 252, 271, Partnership Agreement (signed
281, 307, 309, 370 30 October 2008, entered into force
Ukraine-​European Free Trade Association 29 December 2008) ������������ 25, 71, 170, 181,
(EFTA) Free Trade Agreement 183, 193, 195, 198, 218, 224, 225, 230,
(signed 24 June 2010, entered into 236, 239, 241, 243, 244, 318, 348
force 1 June 2012)��������������������������������������361 Chile-​Australia Free Trade Agreement
EFTA-​Peru Free Trade Agreement (signed 30 July 2008, entered into
(signed 24 June 2010, entered into force 6 March 2009)����������������������������������350
force 1 July 2011) ��������������������������������������360 Canada-​Peru Free Trade Agreement
Bolivia-​Mexico Free Trade Agreement (signed 29 May 2008, entered into
(signed 17 May 2010, entered into forced 1 August 2009) ���������������� 25, 71, 169,
force 7 June 2010)����������������������������� 177, 341 209, 212, 239, 274, 343
Canada-​Panama Free Trade Agreement Peru-​Singapore Free Trade Agreement
(signed 14 May 2010, entered into (signed 29 May 2008, entered into
force 1 April 2013)����������������������������� 43, 347 force 1 August 2009)���������������������������������387
Costa Rica-​Singapore Free Trade Agreement EU-​Serbia Stabilization and Association
(signed 6 April 2010, entered into Agreement (signed 29 April 2008,
force 1 July 2013) ��������������������������������������359 entered into force 1 September 2013)������� 364
EU-​Colombia-​Peru Free Trade Agreement China-​New Zealand Free Trade Agreement
(signed June 2012, entered into force for (signed 7 April 2008 entered into force
Peru 1 March 2013, Colombia 1 August 1 March 2008)��������������������������������������������385
2013 and Ecuador 1 January 2017)���������170, Canada-​EFTA Free Trade Agreement
179, 181, 188, 193, 198, 200, 219, 225, (signed 26 January 2008, entered into
230, 236, 245, 252, 281, 282, 286, 289, force 1 July 2009) ��������������������������������������342
290, 295, 297–​300, 302, 305, 366 EU-​Bosnia and Herzegovina Stabilization
Hong Kong, China-​New Zealand Free and Association Agreement (signed
Trade Agreement (signed 29 March 2010, 1 January 2008, entered into force
entered into force 1 January 2011)����������385 1 July 2008)������������������������������������������������363
 Table of Treaties & Statutes xv
EU-​Montenegro Stabilisation and Association US-​Oman Free Trade Agreement (signed
Agreement (signed 15 October 2007, 19 January 2006, entered into force
entered into force 1 May 2010)����������������364 1 January 2009)������������������������������������������200
Chile-​Japan Agreement for a Strategic MERCOSUR-​Peru Free Trade Agreement,
Economic Partnership (signed ACE No 58 (signed 30 November 2005,
27 March 2007, entered into force entered into force December 2005)��������381
3 September 2007)������������������������������������351 Chile-​China Free Trade Agreement (signed
Japan-​Indonesia Economic Partnership 18 November 2005, entered into force
Agreement (signed 20 August 2007, 1 August 2010) ������������������������������������������350
entered into force 1 July 2008) ����������������380 Guatemala-​Taiwan Free Trade Agreement
Republic of Korea-​United States Free Trade (signed 22 September 2005, entered
Agreement (signed 30 June 2007, into force 1 July 2006) ������������������������������378
entered into force 15 March 2012) ����� 43, 393 Trans-​Pacific Strategic Economic
United States-​Panama Trade Promotion Partnership Agreement (signed
Agreement (signed 28 June 2007, 3 June 2005, entered into force
entered into force 31 October 2012)��������394 28 May 2006)���������������������������� 177, 178, 184,
Brunei Darussalam-​Japan Free Trade 202, 209, 213, 234, 353
Agreement (signed 18 June 2007, Andean-​MERCOSUR Economic
entered into force 31 July 2008) ��������������379 Complementarity Agreement
Free Trade Agreement between the No 59 (signed 18 October 2004, entered
Republic of China (Taiwan), the into force for Paraguay-​Colombia,
Republic of El Salvador and the Republic Ecuador and Venezuela: 19 April 2005,
of Honduras (signed 7 May 2007, entered for Ecuador-​Argentina, Brazil and
into force 3 September 2007, entered into Uruguay: 1 April 2005, for Brazil-​
force for Honduras: 15 July 2008, for Colombia: 1 February 2005, for
El Salvador: 1 March 2008, for Taiwan: Brazil-​Venezuela: 1 February 2005,
1 January 2008)������������������������������������������362 for Colombia-​Argentina: 1 February
Chile-​Colombia Free Trade Agreement 2005, for Colombia-​Uruguay: 1 February
(signed 27 November 2006, entered 2005, for Venezuela-​Argentina: 5
into force 8 May 2009)������������� 169, 209, 350 January 2005, for Venezuela-​Uruguay:
United States-​Colombia Trade 5 January 2005)��������������������������������� 177, 341
Promotion Agreement (signed Mexico-​Japan Free Trade Agreement
22 November 2006, entered into (signed 17 September 2004, entered
force 15 May 2012)��������������������������� 221, 392 into force 1 April 2005) ����������������������������383
Chile-​Peru Free Trade Agreement US-​Bahrain Free Trade Agreement (signed
(signed 22 August 2006, entered 14 September 2004, entered into
into force 1 March 2009)��������������������������353 force 1 January 2006)��������������������������������392
Chile-​Panama Free Trade Agreement Nicaragua-​Chinese Taipei Free Trade
(signed 27 June 2006, entered into Agreement (signed 20 August 2004,
force 7 March 2008)����������������������������������354 entered into force 1 January 2008)���������275,
Southern African Customs Union 278, 279, 283, 286, 294–​296, 302, 304, 356
(SACU)-​European Free Trade US-​Australia Free Trade Agreement
Association (EFTA) Free Trade (signed 18 May 2004, entered into
Agreement (signed 26 June 2006, force 1 January 2005)��������������������������������209
entered into force 1 May 2008)����������������389 CARICOM-​Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement
EU-​Albania Stabilization and Association (signed 9 March 2004, entered into force
Agreement (signed 12 June 2006, for Costa Rica-​Barbados: 1 August 2006,
entered into force 1 April 2009) ��������������363 for Costa Rica-​Guyana: 30 April 2006,
United States-​Peru Trade Promotion for Costa Rica-​Trinidad and Tobago:
Agreement (signed 12 April 2006, 15 November 2005)����������������������������������347
entered into force 1 February 2009)������ 10, 25, Mexico-​Uruguay Free Trade Agreement
71, 169, 177, 206, 207, 212, 221, (signed 15 November 2003, entered
237, 239, 242, 245, 246, 324, 388 into force 15 July 2004) ������������������� 169, 385
Panama-​Singapore Free Trade Agreement Panama-​Taiwan Free trade Agreement
(signed 1 March 2006, entered into (signed 21 August 2003, entered into
force 24 July 2006) ������������������������������������386 force 1 January 2004)��������������������������������386
xvi Table of Treaties & Statutes
Chile-​European Free Trade Association 2005, for Guyana: 6 October 2004, for
(EFTA) Free Trade Agreement (signed Dominican Republic: 5 February 2002,
26 June 2003, entered into force for Barbados: 1 December 2001,
1 December 2004) ������������������������������������351 for Jamaica: 1 December 2001, for
Chile-​US Free Trade Agreement (signed Trinidad and Tobago:
6 June 2003, entered into force 1 December 2001) ������������������������������������347
1 January 2004)������������ 25, 26, 33, 42–​44, 54, Chile-​Mexico Free Trade Agreement
55, 57, 58, 60, 66, 67, 70, 169–​172, ACE No 41 (signed 17 April 1998,
176, 178, 184–​195, 197–​203, 206, 207, entered into force 1 August 1999)������������352
209–​212, 214, 215, 217, 219, 221, 222, Central America-​Dominican Free Trade
233, 227, 228, 230, 231, 233, 238, 241, Agreement (signed 16 April 1998,
242, 250, 254, 256, 257, 259–​262, 319, 354 entered into force for Costa Rica:
US-​Singapore Free Trade Agreement 7 March 2002, for El Salvador: 4 October
(signed 6 May 2003, entered into 2001, for Guatemala: 3 October 2001,
force 1 January 2004)��������������������������������396 for Honduras: 19 December 2001, for
Korea-​Chile Free Trade Agreement Nicaragua: 3 September 2002) ����������������185
(signed 15 February 2003, entered East African Community (EAC) (signed
into force 1 April 2004) ����������������������������352 30 November 1999, entered into
Central America-​Panama Free Trade force 7 July 2000) ��������������������������������������359
Agreement (signed 6 March 2002, Mexico-​Nicaragua Free Trade Agreement
entered into force for Costa Rica-​ (signed 18 December 1997, entered
Panama: 23 November, for 2008 El into force 1 July 1998) ��������������������� 169, 384
Salvador-​Panama: 11 April 2003, for Mexico-​EU Free Trade Agreement (signed
Guatemala-​Panama: 22 June 2009, for 8 December 1997, entered into force
Honduras-​Panama: 9 January 2009, 1 July 2000)������������������������������������������������382
for Nicaragua-​Panama: Bolivia-​MERCOSUR Acuerdo de
21 November 2009)����������������������������������349 Complementación Económica
Canada-​Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement ACE No 36 (signed 17 December
(adopted 23 April 2001, entered into 1996, entered into force
force 1 November 2002)��������� 169, 177, 185, 28 February 1997)���������������������������� 177, 341
196, 203, 206, 213, 216, Canada-​Chile Free Trade Agreement
217, 221, 222, 230, 342 (adopted 5 December 1996, entered into
Mexico-​European Free Trade Association force 5 July 1997) 36 ILM 1079. (The
(EFTA) Free Trade Agreement modernized Canada-​Chile Free Trade
(signed 27 November 2000, entered Agreement (CCFTA) entered into
into force 1 July 2001) ������������������������������381 force on 5 February 2019)���������������� 42, 169,
US-​Jordan Free Trade Agreement (signed 24 177, 185, 192, 196, 203, 206, 213,
October 2000, entered into force 216, 217, 221, 228, 259, 342
17 December 2001) ����������������������������������209 Chile-​MERCOSUR Free Trade Agreement
Mexico-​Northern Triangle Free Trade (signed 25 June 1996, entered into
Agreement (signed 29 June 2000 by force 1 October 1996)�������������������������������352
Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, Colombia-​Mexico Free Trade Agreement
entered into force for El Salvador-​ ACE No 33 (signed 13 June 1994,
Guatemala-​Mexico: 15 March 2001, for entered into force 1 January 1995)����������357
Honduras-​Mexico: 1 June 2001)��������������169 Costa Rica-​Mexico Free Trade Agreement
Mexico-​Israel Free Trade Agreement (signed 5 April 1994, entered into
(adopted 10 April 2000, entered into force 1 January 1995)��������������������������������358
force 1 July 2000) ��������������������������������������383 North American Free Trade Agreement
EU-​South Africa Trade & Development (adopted 17 December 1992, entered
Cooperation Agreement (signed into force 1 January 1994) (1993)
11 October 1999, entered into 32 ILM 289 and 605�����������10, 13, 18, 20, 23,
force 1 May 2004)��������������������� 181, 188, 367 33, 42, 43, 45, 48, 61, 63, 81, 169, 176,
CARICOM-​Dominican Republic Free 177, 179, 185, 190, 192, 201, 203–​206,
Trade Agreement (signed 22 August 1998, 210, 213, 214, 216, 217, 228, 229,
entered into force for Suriname: August 248, 259, 263, 319, 343
 Table of Treaties & Statutes xvii
Table of Multilateral Treaties 4 August 1995, entered into
Paris Agreement to the United Nations force 11 December 2001) UN Doc
Framework Convention on Climate A/​CONF.164/​38������������������������������������������51
Change (adopted 12 December 2015, United Nations Convention to Combat
entered into force 4 November 2016) �������5, 8, Desertification in those Countries
53, 322, 325, 374, 382 Experiencing Serious Drought and/​or
ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Desertification, Particularly in Africa
Fair Globalization (adopted by (opened for signature 14 October 1994,
International Labour Conference at its entered into force 16 December 1996)
Ninety-​Seventh Session 10 June 2008)����� 285 1954 UNTS 3 (UNCCD)��������������������������103
United Nations Convention Against Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the
Corruption (adopted 31 October 2003, World Trade Organization (adopted
entered into force 14 December 2005) 15 April 1994, entered into force
UN Doc A/​58/​422 ������������������������������������308 1 January 1995) 1867 UNTS 4���������� 12, 145,
International Treaty on Plant Genetic 146, 152
Resources for Food and Agriculture Agreement on the Application of Sanitary
(adopted 3 November 2001, entered into and Phytosanitary Measures (adopted
force 29 June 2004)��������� 15, 50, 81, 111, 182 15 April 1994, entered into force
Stockholm Convention on Persistent 1 January 1995) 1867 UNTS 493 �����57, 64, 148
Organic Pollutants (adopted 22 May Agreement on Technical Barriers to
2001, entered into force 17 May Trade (adopted 15 April 1994,
2004) (2001) 40 ILM 532������������� 55, 70, 107 entered into force 1 January 1995)
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the 1868 UNTS 120�����������������������������������������148
United Nations Convention on Agreement on Trade-​Related Investment
Biological Diversity (adopted 29 January Measures (adopted 15 April 1994,
2000, entered into force 11 September entered into force 1 January 1995)
2003) 39 ILM 1027����������������� 56, 57, 81, 152 1868 UNTS 186���������������������������������� 64, 118
ILA Convention No. 182 Concerning the Agreement on Government Procurement
Prohibition and Immediate Action (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into
for the Elimination of the Worst Forms force 1 January 1995) 1867 UNTS 194����� 193
of Child Labor (adopted 17 June 1999, Agreement on Trade-​Related Aspects of
entered into force 10 November 2000) Intellectual Property Rights (adopted
38 ILM 1207 ����������������������������� 208, 217, 223 15 April 1994, entered into force
ILO Declaration on Fundamental 1 January 1995) 1869 UNTS 299������������128,
Principles and Rights at Work (adopted 132, 326
in 1998)�������������207, 208, 217, 223, 237, 285 General Agreement on Trade in Services
Rotterdam Convention on the Prior (adopted 15 April 1994, entered
Informed Consent Procedure for into force 1 January 1995)
Certain Hazardous Chemicals and 1869 UNTS 183���������������� 128, 132, 184, 190
Pesticides in International Trade Understanding on Rules and Procedures
(adopted 10 September 1998, Governing the Settlement of Disputes
entered into force 24 February 2004) (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into
2244 UNTS 337�����������������������������������������107 force 1 January 1995) 1869 UNTS 401����� 149
Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations United Nations Convention on Biological
Framework Convention on Climate Diversity (opened for signature
Change (adopted 11 December 1997, 5 June 1992, entered into force
entered into force 16 February 2005) 29 December 1993) 1760 UNTS 79,
(1998) 37 ILM 22 ��������������������������������������159 143 (UNCBD)������������������������� 54, 56, 81, 243
Agreement for the Implementation of United Nations Framework Convention
the Provisions of the United Nations on Climate Change (opened for
Convention on the Law of the Sea signature 4 June 1992, entered into
of 10 December 1982 relating to the force 21 March 1994) 1771 UNTS
Conservation and Management of 107 (UNFCCC) ��������������������������������� 69, 152
Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Convention on the Rights of the Child,
Migratory Fish Stocks (adopted 20 November 1989, UNTS 1577����������������70
xviii Table of Treaties & Statutes
Basel Convention on the Control of and Justice in Environmental Matters
Transboundary Movements of in Latin America and Caribbean
Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (Escazu Agreement) (adopted
(adopted 22 March 1989, entered 4 March 2018, opened for signature
into force 5 May 1992) 27 September 2018)������������������������� 255, 260
1673 UNTS 57������������������������������������� 54, 204 Treaty of Lisbon (2007/​C 306/​01) dated
Montreal Protocol on Substances that 17 December 2007��������������������89, 90, 94, 95
Deplete the Ozone Layer (adopted Canada-​Costa Rica Environmental
16 September 1987, entered into force Cooperation Agreement (adopted
1 January 1989) 1522 UNTS 3����������� 67, 204 23 April 2001, entered into force
United Nations Convention on the Law of 1 November 2002) ��������������������������� 221, 230
the Sea (adopted 10 December 1982, Convention on Access to Information,
entered into force 16 November 1994) Public Participation in
1833 UNTS 3, 21 I.L.M. 1245 Decision-​Making and Access to Justice
(UNCLOS) ��������������������������������������������������51 in Environmental Matters (Aarhus
Convention on International Trade in Convention) (adopted 25 June 1998,
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna entered into force on 30 October
and Flora (adopted 3 March 1973, 2001) 2161 UNTS 447��������������������� 255, 260
entered into force 1 July 1975) 993 Treaty of Amsterdam amending the
UNTS 243 (CITES) ����������� 49, 101, 204, 303 Treaty on European Union (signed
Vienna Convention on the Law of 2 October 1997, entered into force
Treaties (signed 23 May 1969, entered 1 May 1999) [1997] OJ C 340/​1������������������89
into force 27 January 1980) Canada-​Chile Environmental Cooperation
1155 UNTS 331������������������22, 32, 52, 77, 87, Agreement (adopted 6 February 1997,
98, 109, 114, 130, 152, 178, 321 entered into force 5 July 1997)
International Covenant on Economic, 36 ILM 1196 ����������������������������������������������221
Social and Cultural Rights (adopted Agreement Amending the Fourth ACP-​EC
16 December 1966), entered into force Convention of Lomé (signed
3 January 1976) GA Res 2200A (XXI), 4 November 1995) ACP-​CE 2163/​95����� 93, 95
UN Doc A/​6316 (1966), 993 UNTS 3����� 49, 65 Convention to Ban the Importation in Forum
Havana Charter for an International Islands Countries of Hazardous Wastes
Trade Organisation (adopted 24 March and Radioactive Wastes and to Control
1948) UN Doc E/​Conf 2/​78����������� 121, 122 the Transboundary Movement and
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Management of Hazardous Wastes within
(adopted 30 October 1947, the South Pacific Region
provisionally entered into force (Waigani Convention) (adopted
1 January 1948) 55 UNTS 194, CTS 16 September 1995, entered into force
No 31 (1948) (GATT) ������������ 122, 129, 149, 21 October 2001) 2161 UNTS��������������������70
163, 168, 185, 317, 325 North American Agreement on
Environmental Cooperation (adopted
Table of Further International Treaties 13 September 1993, entered into
force 1 January 1994) (1993)
Regional Agreement on Access to
32 ILM 1480 ������������������������������������� 213, 228
Information, Public Participation
 Table of Cases

1. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (New Application:
1962) (Belgium v Spain) (Second Phase, Separate Opinion of Judge Jessup) General
List No 50 [1970] ICJ 3��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������86
Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal v Australia) (Judgment, Dissenting Opinion of Judge
Weeramantry) General List No 84 [1995] ICJ 90������������������������������������������������������������������������������86
Case Concerning the Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland v Iceland) (Merits, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Petrel) General List No 55
[1974] ICJ 3��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������86
Case Concerning the Gabčíkovo-​Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (Separate Opinion
of Vice President Weeramantry) [1997] ICJ 7������������������������������������������������������������������������������15, 79
Case Concerning the Gabčíkovo-​Nagymaros Project (Hungary/​Slovakia) (Memorial of
the Slovak Republic) 294����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 83, 84, 87, 113, 315
Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v
United States of America) (Judgement) General List No 70 [1986] ICJ 14��������������������������������������82
Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) (Request for the
Indication of Provisional Measures: Order of 13 July 2006) 16, 85, 86, 137, 315
Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) (Verbatim Record
of the Public Sitting of 8 June 2006)����������������������������������������������������������������������� 16, 85, 86, 137, 315
Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia v Malaysia)
(Judgment) General List No 102 [2002] ICJ 625������������������������������������������������������������������������������110
Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v Norway) (Judgement) General List No 5 [1951] ICJ 116����������������82
Kasikili/​Sedudu Island (Botswana v Namibia) (Judgement) General List No 99
[1999] ICJ 1045����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������110, 115
North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany v Denmark; Federal Republic
of Germany v Netherlands) (Judgement) [1969] ICJ 3����������������������������������������������������������������������82

2. WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION APPELLATE BODY AND PANEL

Brazil—​Export Financing Programme for Aircraft—​Recourse to Article 21.5 by Canada—​Report
of the Panel (9 May 2000) WT/​DS46/​RW����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������139
Brazil—​Measures affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres—​Report of the Appellate Body
(3 December 2007) WT/​DS332/​AB/​R����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������188
Brazil—​Measures affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres—​Report of the Panel (12 June 2007)
WT/​DS332/​R ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������188
EC—​Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones) (13 February 1998)
WT/​DS26/​AB/​R, WT/​DS48/​AB/​R ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������57, 112, 233
European Communities—​Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing
Countries (7 April 2004) WT/​DS246/​AB/​R ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������131
European Communities—​Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing
Countries—​Report of the Panel (1 December 2003) WT/​DS246/​R ����������������������������������������������139
European Communities—​Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products—​
Reports of the Panel—​Annex F—​Addendum (29 September 2006) WT/​DS291/​R/​Add.4,
WT/​DS292/​R/​Add.4, WT/​DS293/​R/​Add.4������������������������������������������������������������������� 112, 149, 233
European Community —​Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-​Containing Products
(12 March 2001) WT/​DS135/​AB/​R������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������152, 191
India—​Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial
Products—​Report of the Panel (6 April 1999) WT/​DS90/​R������������������������������������������������������������140
xx Table of Cases
Korea—​Various Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef—​Report of
the Appellate Body (10 January 2001) WT/​DS161/​AB/​R����������������������������������������������������������������187
United States—​Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products—​Recourse
to Article 21.5 by Malaysia—​Report of the Appellate Body (22 October 2001)
WT/​DS58/​AB/​RW��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 5, 110, 112, 131
United States—​Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products—​Recourse to
Article 21.5 by Malaysia—​Report of the Panel (15 June 2001) WT/​DS58/​RW�������5, 110, 112, 131, 138
United States—​Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products—​Report of the
Panel (15 May 1998) WT/​DS58/​R ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������5, 112, 131
United States—​Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline—​Report of the
Appellate Body (29 April 1996) WT/​DS2/​AB/​R����������������������������������������������������������������������131, 187

3. INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL ON THE LAW OF THE SEA

Case Concerning the Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Swordfish Stocks in
the South-​Eastern Pacific Ocean (Chile v European Community) (Order of
20 December 2000) Case No 7������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������51

4. EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE

Case C-​513/​99 Concordia Bus Finland Oy Ab, formerly Stagecoach Finland Oy Ab, v
Helsingin kaupunki, HKL-​Bussiliikenne [2002] ECR I-​07213����������������������������������������������������������66
Case C-​340/​97 Nazli [2000] ECR I-​957����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������187
Cases C-​105/​09 and C-​110/​09 Terre Wallonne ASBL and Inter-​Environnement Wallonie ASBL v
Région wallonne [2010]������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������91

5. REGIONAL COURTS
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Social and Economic Rights Action Center
and the Center for Economic and Social Rights v Nigeria (2002) 96 AJIL 937����������������������������������86
Inter-​American Court of Human Rights Saramaka Peoples v Suriname (28 November 2007)
Series C No 172��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������86
Inter-​American Court of Human Rights Sawhoyamaxa Community v Paraguay
(29 March 2006) Series C No 146��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������86

6. INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATIONS
Chemtura Corporation v Canada (NAFTA) ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������60
EnCana Corporation v Republic of Ecuador LCIA Case No UN3481������������������������������������������������������60
Ethyl Corporation v Canada (1999) 38 ILM 708����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������59
Gentini Case (Italy v Venezuela) (1903) 10 RIAA 551��������������������������������������������������������������������������������81
Glamis Gold v United States of America UNCITRAL (NAFTA)��������������������������������������������������������������59
In the Arbitration Regarding the Iron Rhine (Ijzeren Rijn) Railway (Belgium v Netherlands)
Arbitral Award of 24 May 2005������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������3, 84, 113
Maffezini v Spain ICSID Case No ARB/​97/​7����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������59
Methanex v United States UNCITRAL (NAFTA)��������������������������������������������������������������������������������59, 61
MTD Equity Sdn Bhd & MTD Chile SA v Chile ICSID Case No ARB/​01/​7������������������������������������� 59–​60
Occidental Exploration and Production Company v Ecuador ICSID Case No ARB/​06/​11��������������������60
Pope & Talbot v Canada (2002) 41 ILM 1347 ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������59
 List of Abbreviations

AA association agreement
AB Appellate Body
ABS access and benefit sharing
ACCTS Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability
ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific
ASIL American Society of International Law
BITs bilateral investment treaties
BSTC Bilateral Scientific and Technical Commission
CAMPOCOOP National Confederation of Farming Cooperatives Representing Small Farmers
CARIFORUM Caribbean Forum
CCAEC Canada-​Chile Agreement on Environmental Cooperation
CEC Commission for Environmental Co-​operation
CES European Confederation of Trade Unions
CETA Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement
CIPMA Center for Environmental Investigation and Planning
CISDL Centre for International Sustainable Development Law
CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora
CONAF National Forest Corporation
CSR corporate social responsibility
CTD Committee on Trade and Development
CTE Committee on Trade and Environment
CUP Cambridge University Press
CUT Chilean Central Workers’ Union
DFAIT Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
DIRECON Chilean Office of International Economic Relations
DSB dispute settlement body
DSM dispute settlement mechanism
EAs environmental assessment
EC European Commission
EIA environmental impact assessment
EMIT Environmental Measures and International Trade
EPA economic partnership agreements
ER environmental review
ESA Eastern and South Africa
EU European Union
EZZ exclusive economic zone
FAO Food and Agriculture Association
FDI Foreign Direct Investment
FLEGT Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade
FTA free trade agreement
FTAA Free Trade Agreement of the Americas
xxii List of Abbreviations
GATS General Agreement on Trade in Services
GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
GDP gross domestic product
GHG greenhouse gases
GMOs genetically modified organisms
GNI gross national income
IA impact assessment
IADB Inter-​American Development Bank
IAEG-​SDGs Inter-​Agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators
ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
ICSID International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes
ICTSD International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development
IDPM Institute for Development Policy and Management
IISD International Institute for Sustainable Development
ILA International Law Association
ILO International Labour Organization
ITC International Trade Centre
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
IUU illegal, unreported and unregulated
JPAC Joint Public Advisory Committee
JPOI Johannesburg Plan of Implementation
LDCs least developed countries
LMOs living modified organisms
M&E measures mitigation and enhancement measures
MEA multilateral environmental agreement
MEBF Mercosur-​EU Business Forum
MFN most-​favoured nation
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
NAAEC North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation
NACEC North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation
NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement
NALCA North American Labour Cooperation Agreement
NAO National Administrative Offices
OAS Organization of American States
ODA official development assistance
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-​operation and Development
OUP Oxford University Press
POPs persistent organic pollutants
PPMs processing and production methods
PRTR pollutant release and transfer register
REDD reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation
RFMOs Regional Fisheries Management Organizations
RTAs regional trade agreements
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SIA sustainability impact assessment
SICE OAS Foreign Trade Information System
SIECA Secretariat for Central American Economic Integration
SMEs small and medium-​sized enterprises
SNASPE National System of State Protected Wild Areas
SPS Agreement Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
 List of Abbreviations xxiii
TBT technical barriers to trade
TPA Trade Promotion Agreement
TPP Trans-​Pacific Partnership
TPRM Trade Policy Review Mechanism
TRIMS Agreement on Trade-​Related Investment Measures
TRIPS Agreement on Trade-​Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
TPRM Trade Policy Review Mechanism
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
UN CBD United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity
UNCED 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development
UN CESCR UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
UNCITRAL UN Commission on International Trade Law
UNCLOS UN Convention on the Law of the Seas
UNCSD United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development
UNCTAD UN Conference on Trade and Development
UNECOSOC UN Economic and Social Council
UNEP UN Environment Programme
UN FCCC UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
UN GA UN General Assembly
UNHRC UN Human Rights Council
US United States
USMCA United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada Agreement
USTR United States Trade Representative
VCLT Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
WHO World Health Organization
WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization
WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development
WTO World Trade Organization
 SECTION ONE
IN T RODU CT ION
 1
Introduction

In a time of deadly global pandemics, dangerous climate change and financial instability,
global cooperation has never been more important. Nonetheless, forces of populism and
intolerance are seriously questioning the value of collaborative relationships across borders;
confidence in the rules that govern international trade and investment flows, and our global
economy, is eroding. Critics such as Naomi Klein and demagogues such as Donald Trump
seek to dismantle the economic, environmental and social ties between communities and
nations, and resist globalization. Their concerns are not new—​indeed, the herald Hermes,
ancient Greek patron of travellers, trade and commerce, was also known as the God of
Thieves.1 However, if Athena, Greek goddess of justice, wisdom and the crafts were con-
sulted, she would likely advise more careful crafting of our economic agreements—​calling
for reasoned negotiations based on scholarship, on law and sustainability expertise. All
those committed to international cooperation would be challenged to extend their thinking
beyond facile mercantilism or false noblesse oblige charity, and to develop more intricate,
balanced economic regimes that can promote sustainable justice across and among gener-
ations. This volume represents an effort in legal scholarship towards trade and investment
rules which foster rather than frustrate the world’s sustainable development goals—​to con-
tribute to the drafting of Athena’s treaties.
The pressing need to ensure that the relations between countries, both in terms of in-
ternational affairs and treaty-​making, as well as cooperation for development, advance
environmental, social and economic priorities in an integrated manner is reflected in
the consensus of over 190 States in the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development
(WSSD) and over 200 States in the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development, with
the resulting adoption of the world’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, and
also in the decisions of international tribunals.2 These global SDGs were adopted to replace
the UN Millennium Development Goals, and offer a clear agenda for sustainable develop-
ment worldwide. Comprising seventeen overarching and aspirational universal objectives
that all countries, peoples and communities seek to achieve by 2030, they encompass 169
time-​bound targets and a detailed set of evolving indicators. The SDGs address the key pri-
orities of all nations for sustainable development today—​from ending poverty and stopping
hunger (SDGs 1 and 2); to securing quality education, good health and gender equality
(SDGs 3, 4 and 5); to providing access to clean water and sanitation, and affordable and
clean energy (SDGs 6 and 7); to enabling decent work and economic growth, innovation,

1 DA Leeming, The World of Myth (3rd edn, Oxford, OUP 2018).

2 Johannesburg Declaration and Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI), Report of the World Summit
on Sustainable Development, 4 September 2002, UN Doc A/​CONF.199/​20; Report of the United Nations
Conference on Sustainable Development, July 2012, UN Doc A/​CONF.216/​16; Transforming our World: the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development, GA Res 70A/​1, UNGAOR, 70th Sess, 25–​27 September 2015, UN Doc E/​15/​
16301 (2015) 1. See also, for instance, In the Arbitration Regarding the Iron Rhine (Ijzeren Rijn) Railway (Belgium
v. Netherlands) Arbitral Award of 24 May 2005, <http://​www.pca-​cpa.org/​showfile.asp?fil_​id=377> accessed 16
December 2020, 58–​59.

Crafting Trade and Investment Accords for Sustainable Development. Marie-​Claire Cordonier Segger, Oxford University Press.
© Marie-​Claire Cordonier Segger 2021. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780198831341.003.0001
4 INTRODUCTION
industry and infrastructure and sustainable cities and communities (SDGs 8, 9 and 11); to
promoting sustainable consumption and production, action on climate change and the pro-
tection of life below water and life on land (SDGs 12, 13, 14 and 15); to reducing inequalities
and ensuring peace, justice and strong institutions (SDGs 10 and 16); to engaging interna-
tional partnerships, including through trade, investment and financing, which can support
achievement of all the goals (SDG 17). Taken together, these SDGs offer an entire suite of
a government’s legislative and policy agenda, representing the responsibilities of nearly all
ministries and authorities in one way or another. There are also many binding international
treaties among nations, supported by programmes of international agencies and organi-
zations, and in many cases also by international financial facilities, with mandates related
to each SDG and its targets.3 Indeed, in recent decades, there has been extensive interna-
tional treaty-​making on the protection of the environment, and in many of the multilateral,
regional and bilateral environmental accords State Parties also seek to secure sustainable
development in different ways across diverse fields.4 Such agreements are extremely impor-
tant, but do not represent the full extent of binding international treaties on sustainable de-
velopment. In addition to further covenants, accords and declarations on universal human
rights, the elimination of discrimination against women, children’s rights, indigenous peo-
ples’ rights and other key social aspects of sustainable development, many international

3 MC Cordonier Segger and E Mrema, (eds), ‘The SDGs: Contributions of International Law, Policy and

Governance—​Series of Issue Briefs’ (CISDL and UNEP, Nairobi and Montreal, 2016) <https://​www.cisdl.org/​pub-
lications/​> accessed 16 December 2020.. See also United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs—​
Sustainable Development, Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform <https://​sdgs.un.org/​goals >
accessed 16 December 2020. See ‘Pandemic Recovery, the SDGs and the Law’, Online lecture and Distinguished ex-
perts panel, 4 November 2020, <https://www.cisdl.org/2020/10/17/online-leverhulme-lecture-distinguished-ex-
perts-dialogue-pandemic-recovery-the-sdgs-and-the-law/> accessed 04 April 2021.
See also ‘Natural Resources, the Sustainable Development Goals and the Law’, Online Leverhulme lecture and
Distinguished experts panel, 17 March 2021, <https://www.cisdl.org/2021/02/20/online-leverhulme-lecture-dis-
tinguished-experts-dialogue-natural-resources-the-sustainable-development-goals-and-international-law/ > ac-
cessed 04 April 2021.
And see University of Oxford All Souls College Event Records ‘International Law and the Sustainable
Development Goals: Shaping the Rules for our Common future’ 2 November 2017, noting that ‘SDGs and their
targets can be found in the object and purpose of many important international treaties in the field of sustainable
development. While many SDGs in principle and many targets in concrete terms already form part of interna-
tional legal obligations of states, the SDGs have been received by legal practitioners as much more than a simple
policy document. The SDGs are shaping the application and interpretation of sustainable development as a con-
cept and perhaps interstitial norm, arguably more than even the Rio Declaration Principles. Although designed
as a set of country-​level goals, the SDGs are already shaping the rules for our common future at the international
level.’<https://​www.law.ox.ac.uk/​events/​international-​law-​and-​sustainable-​development-​goals-​shaping-​rules-​
our-​common-​future > accessed 16 December 2020. See also the records of the American Society of International
Law (ASIL) and George Washington University School of Law conference on ‘Sustainable Development and
International Law: Fragmentation, disconnects and the challenge of international policy coherence in meeting the
SDGs’ (25–​26 June 2020) noting that: ‘public international law norms are relevant to a wide range of the [SDGs].
Yet there is a systemic failure to connect the two spheres and a dearth of literature on the interaction between
public international law and the policy and political frameworks that underpin development . . . yet another ex-
ample of the fragmentation of international law exemplifying the challenge of international policy coherence: the
same countries are parties to core international treaties and participants in international development (whether
as donors or partners) and yet engage in development activities without a systematic assessment of which interna-
tional norms apply even in sectors where international treaties clearly govern.’ <https://​asil.virtualeventsolutions.
com/​session/​sustainable-​development-​and-​international-​law-​fragmentation-​disconnects-​and-​the-​challenge-​of-​
international-​policy-​coherence-​in-​meeting-​the-​sdgs/​> accessed 16 December 2020.
4 P Sands and J Peel, Principles of International Environmental Law (4th edn, Cambridge, CUP 2018) 217–​

229; MC Cordonier Segger and A Harrington, ‘Environment & Sustainable Development’ in S Chesterman, DM
Malone and S Villalpando (eds), The Oxford Handbook of United Nations Treaties (Oxford, OUP 2019); P Birnie, A
Boyle and C Redgwell, International Law & the Environment (Oxford, OUP 2009) 106–​114; S Atapattu, Emerging
Principles of International Environmental Law (Ardsley, Transnational 2006) 140–​145; D Hunter, J Salzman and D
Zaelke, International Environmental Law and Policy (New York, Foundation Press 2002) 19, 923.
 INTRODUCTION 5
economic agreements are also being negotiated, adopted and implemented. In a growing
number of these treaty regimes, Parties also seek to address sustainable development, in-
cluding in the World Trade Organization (WTO)5 and a growing body of regional and bi-
lateral economic agreements, including Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs).6 As the WTO
Appellate Body noted, in the 1998 US-​Shrimp dispute:

The preamble of the WTO Agreement –​which informs not only the GATT 1994, but also
the other covered agreements –​explicitly acknowledges ‘the objective of sustainable de-
velopment’. . . This concept has been generally accepted as integrating economic and social
development and environmental protection.7

There may be sound policy reasons for these trends in international trade and investment
law. Indeed, in principle, environmental and social priorities can be considered an inte-
gral part of economic development decision-​making, and the crafting of international trade
and investment treaties are important economic decisions. The plans of Costa Rica, Fiji,
Iceland, New Zealand and Norway to negotiate an Agreement on Climate Change, Trade
and Sustainability (ACCTS);8 the growing momentum of the European New Green Deal
and the European Commission’s ongoing negotiations to ‘modernize’ existing bilateral and
region-​to-​region trade, economic partnership and association agreements;9 and the United

5 G Sampson, The WTO and Sustainable Development (Tokyo, UNU Press 2005); M Gehring and MC Cordonier

Segger (eds), Sustainable Development in World Trade Law (Alphen aan de Rijn, Kluwer Law International 2005)
129–​152, based on early research for this book; S Alam, Sustainable Development and Free Trade: Institutional
Approaches (New York, Routledge 2008). See also Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, 15
April 1994, The Legal Texts: The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations 4 (1999) 1867
UNTS 154, 33 ILM 1144 (1994) (WTO Agreement), <http://​www.wto.org/​english/​tratop_​e/​envir_​e/​sust_​dev_​
e.htm>.WTO, ‘Mainstreaming Trade to Attain the Sustainable Development Goals’ (October 2018), <http://​www.
wto.org/​english/​res_​e/​booksp_​e/​sdg_​e.pdf> accessed 15 July 2019; M Chi, ‘Sustainable Development Provisions
in Investment Treaties’ (United Nations Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, October 2018), <http://​www.
unescap.org/​sites/​default/​files/​Sustainable%20Development%20Provisions%20in%20Investment%20Treaties.
pdf> accessed 15 July 2019.
6 See MC Cordonier Segger, ‘Inspiration for Integration: Interpreting International Trade and Investment

Accords for Sustainable Development’ (2017) 3(1) Canadian Journal of Comparative and Contemporary Law 159
and MC Cordonier Segger, ‘Sustainable Development in Regional Trade Agreements’ in L Bartels and F Ortino
(eds), Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO Legal System (Oxford, OUP 2006) 313–​340, sharing early findings
from research for this book.
7 WTO, United States: Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products—​Report of the Panel (15 May

1998) WT/​DS58/​R; WTO, United States: Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products—​Report of the
Appellate Body (6 November 1998) Doc.WT/​DS58/​AB/​R, 123, Note 107.
8 According to the Joint Leaders’ Statement on the launch of the ‘Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and

Sustainability’ Initiative (25 September 2019), the ‘ACCTS aims to bring together some of the inter-​related elem-
ents of the climate change, trade and sustainable development agendas. The nature of the climate and environ-
mental challenges our world is facing demands this coherency. The ACCTS will address trade policy, rules and
architecture in order to achieve the goals of the Paris agreement and facilitate increased trade contributing to
sustainable development. The signatories to the ACCTS will seek to address these in a transparent and coherent
manner. The ACCTS will include measures such as the removal of tariffs on environmental goods and the estab-
lishment of new and binding commitments for environmental services; establishment of disciplines to eliminate
harmful fossil fuel subsidies; and development of guidelines to inform the development and implementation of
voluntary eco-​labelling programmes and mechanisms. This treaty-​level instrument will be open to other countries
to accede to in the future if they are able to meet its obligations.’ <https://​www.beehive.govt.nz/​sites/​default/​files/​
2019-​09/​ACCTS%20joint%20leaders%20statement.pdf> accessed 16 December 2020; see also the new initiative
launched by New Zealand with Costa Rica, Fiji, Iceland and Norway—​the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade
and Sustainability (ACCTS), 25 September 2019, <https://​www.mfat.govt.nz/​en/​trade/​free-​trade-​agreements/​cli-
mate/​agreement-​on-​climate-​change-​trade-​and-​sustainability-​accts-​negotiations/​> accessed 16 December 2020.
9 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the

EuropeanEconomicandSocialCommitteeandtheCommitteeoftheRegions,‘TheEuropeanGreenDeal’,COM/​2019/​
6 INTRODUCTION
Kingdom’s trade and investment negotiation aims;10 in addition to debates on economic
measures to stimulate recovery from the impacts of the global COVID-​19 pandemic,11
simply underscore the pressing importance of such intersections. However, there remains
comparatively little legal scholarly analysis on how trade and financial flows can affect a
country’s potential to meet its sustainable development goals and targets, and how trade
and investment treaty rules could foster rather than frustrate sustainability.12
This volume addresses these gaps. The book focuses on pressing questions such as how
could new trade and investment agreements promote more sustainable development,
rather than increasing the negative social and environmental impacts of economic growth?
Are States currently attempting to integrate social and environmental considerations into
trade and investment policies for the purpose of incentivizing more sustainable develop-
ment, and if so, how is the integration operationalized in trade and investment treaties
themselves? What specific measures are being adopted by States in the WTO, and in bilat-
eral or regional trade and investment agreements, and what are their implications for the
global Sustainable Development Goals?
The book argues that governments are seeking innovative ways to integrate environ-
mental and social considerations into economic agreements and their implementation,
particularly through experiments in bilateral and regional trade and investment agree-
ments, and that through this integration, international economic law can be better posi-
tioned to contribute to sustainable development. It is intended to provide guidance and, at
the least, insights for decision-​makers, negotiators, scholars and stakeholders interested in
policy, law and governance related to trade and investment, climate change, biodiversity
protection and the environment, human rights, equity and social development and sustain-
ability in general; those willing to consider new approaches which take commitments to
sustainable development seriously.

640 final, <https://​eur-​lex.europa.eu/​legal-​content/​EN/​TXT/​?qid=1588580774040&uri=CELEX:52019DC0640>

accessed 16 December 2020; see also <https://​ec.europa.eu/​info/​strategy/​priorities-​2019-​2024/​european-​
green-​deal_​en>; <https://​ec.europa.eu/​trade/​p olicy/​countries-​and-​regions/​negotiations-​and-​agreements/​>
accessed 16 December 2020; European Commission, Overview of FTA and Other Trade Negotiations (Brussels,
August 2020).
10 UK Parliament Lords Select Committee, ‘International Trade Secretary Discusses Possible Free Trade

Agreements’, 21 July 2020, <https://​committees.parliament.uk/​committee/​448/​eu-​international-​agreements-​

subcommittee/​news/​115294/​international-​trade-​secretary-​discusses-​possible-​free-​trade-​agreements/​> accessed
16 December 2020.
11 See MC Cordonier Segger, F Crepeau, A Harrington, FK Phillips and N Ramanujam, ‘Human Rights, the

Sustainable Development Goals and the Law” 15 May 2020 (Montreal, CISDL 2020) <https://​www.cisdl.org/​
2020/​04/​19/​human-​rights-​the-​sustainable-​development-​goals-​the-​law-​international-​legal-​symposium/​> ac-
cessed 16 December 2020; C Hepburn, B O’Callaghan, N Stern, J Stiglitz and D Zenghelis, ‘Will COVID-​19 Fiscal
Recovery Packages Accelerate or Retard Progress on Climate Change?’, Oxford Smith School of Enterprise and the
Environment Working Paper No 20-​02, 4 May 2020, <https://​www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/​publications/​wpapers/​
workingpaper20-​02.pdf> accessed 16 December 2020 (forthcoming in the Oxford Review of Economic Policy
36(S1)); UN Global Compact, ‘Over 150 Global Corporations Urge World Leaders for Net-​Zero Recovery from
COVID-​19’, 18 May 2020, <https://​ungc-​communications-​assets.s3.amazonaws.com/​docs/​publications/​recover-​
better-​statement.pdf> accessed 16 December 2020.
12 A Boyle and D Freestone, International Law and Sustainable Development (Oxford, OUP 1999) 10 identi-

fied trade as an area where scope for integration or conflict remains. A decade later, HC Bugge and C Voigt (eds),
Sustainable Development in International and National Law (Groningen, Europa 2009) 271–​295 called for new
research on sustainable development in trade law. See also Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell (n 4) 117, which identifies
international trade as an area with ‘significant scope for improvement’ for integration of environmental consider-
ations. See further V Lowe, International Law (Oxford, OUP 2009) 4.
 2
International Trade, Investment
and Sustainability

2.1 Potential Negative Effects of Trade and Investment

on Sustainable Development

There is no guarantee of free trade or investment in international law—​it is every State’s

sovereign decision to permit trade with another State, to set the terms of trade and invest-
ment and to govern investments from other States.1 The current world trading system is
governed by national economic authorities that regulate trade and investment in accord-
ance with the principles and disciplines set out in the agreements of the World Trade
Organization (WTO), the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), the
UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the International Centre for the
Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and in an increasingly complex web of hun-
dreds of regional and bilateral trade and investment agreements.2
The terms agreed in the global institutions and regional accords may serve to reduce
barriers to trade and investment, encouraging economic growth.3 However, there is con-
cern that absent due care, trade and investment promotion could lead to unnecessarily
destructive impacts on the environment and on social cohesion.4 Critics warn that the
type of economic growth stimulated by a trade or investment agreement may harm both
social and environmental sustainability.5 In certain circumstances, studies show, trade
liberalization under the WTO or regional and bilateral trade and investment agreements

1 A Lowenfeld, International Economic Law (Oxford, OUP 2002) 30, 45–​67; M Trebilcock and R Howse, The

Regulation of International Trade (New York, Routledge 2005) 20–​23; JH Jackson, ‘The Evolution of the World
Trading System’, in D Bethlehem and others, The Oxford Handbook of International Trade Law (Oxford, OUP
2009) 36–​37.
2 As at July 2019, there were 473 RTA notifications, with 294 in force: WTO, ‘Regional Trade Agreements: Scope

of RTAs’, <https://​rtais.wto.org/​UI/​PublicMaintainRTAHome.aspx> accessed 16 December 2020; JA Crawford

and RV Fiorentino, The Changing Landscapes of Regional Trade Agreements (Geneva, WTO 2005) 3; J Mathis,
Regional Trade Agreements in the GATT /​WTO (The Hague, TMC Asser 2002); M Gehring, J Hepburn and MC
Cordonier Segger, World Trade Law in Practice (London, Globe 2006) 12; VD Do and W Watson, ‘Economic
Analysis of Regional Trade Agreements’ in L Bartels and F Ortino (eds), Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO
Legal System (Oxford, OUP 2006) 8; RE Baldwin, ‘Multilateralising Regionalism: Spaghetti Bowls as Building
Blocs on the Path to Global Free Trade’, NBER Working Paper No W12545, October 2006; M Gehring and MC
Cordonier Segger, Sustainable Development in World Trade Law (Alphen aan de Rijn, Kluwer Law International
2005); MC Cordonier Segger, M Gehring and A Newcombe, Sustainable Development in World Investment Law
(Alphen aan de Rijn, Kluwer Law International 2010).
3 WTO, World Trade Report 2008: Trade in a Globalising World (Geneva, 2008) xiii; UNCTAD, Trade and

Development Report 2005 (2005) 10.

4 J Cameron, ‘What Now? Trade and the Environment’ in P Geraint, A Qureshi and H Steiner (eds), The Legal

and Moral Aspects of International Trade (Routledge, New York 1998) 166–​182; J Schott (ed), The WTO after
Seattle (IIE, Washington 2000); A Taylor, ‘The Trade and Environmental Debate’ in A Taylor and C Thomas (eds),
Global Trade and Global Social Issues (London, Routledge 1999) 72–​90.
5 S Matusz and D Tarr, ‘Adjusting to Trade Policy Reform’ World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No 2142,

1999; NA McCulloch, LA Winters and X Cirera, Trade Liberalization and Poverty: A Handbook (London, Centre
for Economic and Policy Research 2001).

Crafting Trade and Investment Accords for Sustainable Development. Marie-​Claire Cordonier Segger, Oxford University Press.
© Marie-​Claire Cordonier Segger 2021. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780198831341.003.0002
8 INTRODUCTION
could encourage economic growth that undermines social protections,6 worsens condi-
tions for the rural and urban poor,7 degrades biological diversity,8 increases greenhouse
gas emissions,9 augments soil erosion10 and increases unsafe exposure to toxic pollut-
ants.11 As UNCTAD and others have noted, in certain circumstances trade and invest-
ment agreements can leave the poorest and most vulnerable groups worse off.12 Leading
legal scholars have underlined the potential of new trade and investment rules to pose
difficulties for multilateral environment agreements (MEA) implementation, for protec-
tion of the environment beyond national jurisdiction, for adoption of regulations to pro-
tect domestic environments and for efforts to improve environmental standards,13 and the

6 E Mendes and O Mehmet, Global Governance, Economy and Law: Waiting for Justice (London, Routledge

2003) 67–​115; T Evans, ‘Trading Human Rights’ in A Taylor and C Thomas (eds), Global Trade and Global
Social Issues (London, Routledge 1999) 46–​47; B Johnson (ed), Who Pays the Price? (Island Press, Washington
1994); R Howse and M Mutua, ‘Protecting Human Rights in a Global Economy: Challenges for the World Trade
Organization’ in ICHRDD, Rights and Democracy (Montreal, 2000); P Ranjan, ‘International Trade and Human
Rights: Conflicting Obligations’ in T Cottier, J Pauwelyn and E Bürgi (eds), Human Rights and International Trade
(Oxford, OUP 2005) 311; R Howse, ‘Human Rights in the WTO: Whose Rights, What Humanity?’ (2002) 13
European Journal of International Law 651–​659; R Labonté, ‘Trade, Investment and Public Health: Compiling
the Evidence, Assembling the Arguments’ (2019) 15 Global Health 1; F Humbert, ‘The WTO and Child
Labour: Implications for the Debate on International Constitutionalism’ in H Gött (ed), Labour Standards in
International Economic Law (Cham, Springer, 2018) 93.
7 T Collier and D Dollar, Globalization, Growth and Poverty (Oxford, OUP 2002); T Collier and J Gunning,

Trade Shocks in Developing Countries (Oxford, Clarendon 1999); J Jackson, W Davey and A Sykes, Legal Problems
of International Economic Relations (3rd edn, West, St Paul 1995) 278–​279; R Bhala, ‘Clarifying the Trade-​Labor
Link’ (1998) 37(1) Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 30–​31; R Ferguson, The Right to Food and the World
Trade Organization’s Rules on Agriculture: Conflicting, Compatible, or Complementary? (Leiden, Brill 2018).
8 UN CBD Secretariat, ‘The Impact of Trade Liberalization on Agricultural Biological Diversity’, CBD Technical

Series No 16 (Montreal, 2006); PM Vitousek and others, ‘Human Appropriation of the Products of Photosynthesis’
(1986) 36 BioScience 368, BL Turner and others (eds), The Earth as Transformed by Human Action: Global and
Regional Changes in the Biosphere over the Past 300 Years. (Cambridge, CUP 1990); B Kjellen, A New Diplomacy
for Sustainable Development: The Challenge of Global Change (Routledge, New York 2008); EU Petersmann,
‘Taking Human Dignity, Poverty and Empowerment of Individuals More Seriously’ (2002) 13 European Journal of
International Law 845–​851.
9 O Endresen and E Sørgaard, ‘Emissions from International Sea Transportation and Environmental Impact’

(2003) 108 Journal of Geophysical Research D17, 4560. See also B Chambers, ‘International Trade Law and
the Kyoto Protocol: Potential Incompatibilities’ in B Chambers (ed), Inter-​linkages: The Kyoto Protocol and the
International Trade and Investment Regimes (Tokyo, UNU 2001); Y Li and CN Hewitt, ‘The Effect of Trade between
China and the UK on National and Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions’ (2008) 36 Energy Policy 1907; NH Stern
and others, The Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change (HM Treasury 2006) <http://​webarchive.nation-
alarchives.gov.uk/​+/​http:/​www.hm-​treasury.gov.uk/​sternreview_​index.htm> accessed 16 December 2020.
10 S Oeter, ‘Trade, Agriculture and Sustainability in Land Use’ in M Gehring and MC Cordonier Segger (eds),

Sustainable Development in World Trade Law (The Hague, Kluwer Law International 2005) 327–​353; EB Barbier,
‘The Economic Determinants of Land Degradation in Developing Countries’ (1997) 352(1356) Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 891–​899; K Arrow and others, ‘Economic Growth,
Carrying Capacity, and the Environment’ (1996) 1 Environment and Development Economics 104–​110.
11 S Williams and CR Shumway, ‘Trade Liberalization and Agricultural Chemical Use: United States and

Mexico’ (2000) 82(1) American Journal of Agricultural Economics 183–​199; S Dasgupta and others, ‘Agricultural
Trade, Development and Toxic Risk’ (2002) 30 World Development 1401.
12 UNCTAD, Developing Countries in World Trade (Washington, 2002) 51–​83; UNCTAD, Policy Coherence,

Development Strategies and Integration into the World Economy (Washington, 2004) 43–​69. See also S Rose-​
Ackerman and J Tobin, ‘Do BITs Benefit Developing Countries?’ in C Rogers and RP Alford (eds), The Future of
Investment Arbitration (Oxford, OUP 2009) 131–​143.
13 P Birnie, A Boyle and C Redgwell, International Law & the Environment (Oxford, OUP 2009) 753–​810. See

also J Scott, ‘International Trade and Environmental Governance: Relating Rules (and Standards) in the EU and
the WTO’ (2004) 15(2) European Journal of International Law 307–​354; S Baughen, International Trade and the
Protection of the Environment (London, Routledge Cavendish 2007); C Robb, International Environmental Law
Reports vol 2, Trade and Environment (Cambridge, CUP 2001); E Vranes, Trade and the Environment: Fundamental
Issues in International Law, WTO Law and Legal Theory (Oxford, OUP 2009) 90–​94; see also A Eliason, ‘Using the
WTO to Facilitate the Paris Agreement: A Tripartite Approach’ (Society of International Economic Law, Sixth
Biennial Global Conference, July 2018), specifically that: ‘certain types of climate change mitigation measures may
require violating WTO rules’.
 INTERNATIONAL TRADE, INVESTMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY 9
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has expressed similar concerns, also
linking particular environmental problems to growth in volume of certain trade or invest-
ment flows.14
These concerns can affect States’ willingness to cooperate in multilateral trade and in-
vestment negotiations. In the WTO, debates on such issues have led to deadlocked negoti-
ations,15 trade disputes,16 even violent public protests characterized by self-​immolations.17
At the regional and bilateral levels, challenges related to effects on the environment and
development may mean trade negotiations falter,18 and are abandoned.19 The uncertainties
surrounding impacts can generate instability for governments, the private sector and others
engaged in trade and investment.20 Rather than promoting sustainable development through
trade and investment, global, regional and bilateral economic agreements can appear to
limit environment and social development regulations, causing treaty implementation dif-
ficulties in developing and developed countries alike.21

14 UNEP, Trade Liberalisation and the Environment: Lessons learned from Bangladesh, Chile, India, Philippines,

Romania and Uganda, Synthesis Report of Country Studies (Geneva, 1999); UNEP, Environment and Trade—​A
Handbook (Geneva, 2000); UNEP and WTO, Trade and Climate Change (Geneva, 2009). See also section on trade
instruments, Report of the Secretary General, 30 November 2018, UN Doc UNGA/​73/​419 ‘Gaps in International
Environmental Law and Environment-​Related Instruments: Towards a Global Pact for the Environment’, <https://​
wedocs.unep.org/​bitstream/​handle/​20.500.11822/​27070/​SGGaps.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y> accessed 16
December 2020, 30.
15 T Collier, ‘Why the WTO is Deadlocked: And What Can Be Done about It’ (2006) 29 World Economy

1423–​1449; A Narlikar, Deadlocks in Multilateral Negotiations: Causes and Solutions (Cambridge, CUP 2010); G
Sampson and B Chambers, Trade, Environment and the Millennium (Tokyo, UNU 2000); S Vaughan, ‘World Trade
Organization Gridlock and Alternative Regimes to Pursue an International Social Cause’ in J Kirton and P Hajnal
(eds), Sustainability, Civil Society and International Governance (Aldershot, Ashgate 2006) 261–​278.
16 E Brown Weiss, J Jackson and N Bernasconi-​ Osterwalder, Reconciling Environment and Trade (Leiden,
Martinus Nijhoff 2008) 3–​4, 27–​38; J Pauwelyn, ‘Human Rights in WTO Dispute Settlement’ in Cottier, Pauwelyn
and Bürgi (n 6) 205–​231.
17 ‘WTO Trade Talks collapse in Mexico’ China Daily (15 September 2003) <http://​www.chinadaily.com.cn/​

en/​doc/​2003-​09/​15/​content_​264077.htm> accessed 16 December 2020; ‘The WTO Stalemate: One Very Big No’
Z-​Magazine (November 2003) <http://​www.zcommunications.org/​the-​wto-​stalemate-​one-​very-​big-​no-​by-​site-​
administrator> accessed 16 December 2020; ‘Curfew in Effect as Seattle Struggles to Control WTO Protests’ CNN
US (30 November 1999) <http://​articles.cnn.com/​1999-​11-​30/​us/​9911_​30_​wto.04_​1_​protesters-​wto-​state-​of-​
civil-​emergency?_​s=PM:US> accessed 16 December 2020.
18 A Estevadeordal, M Shearer and K Suominen, ‘Multilateralizing RTAs in the Americas: State of Play and

Ways Forward’ in R Baldwin and P Low (eds), Multilateralising Regionalism: Challenges for the Global Trading
System (Cambridge, CUP 2009) 427. By way of a recent example, the environment was one source of opposition
to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) from the Belgian region of Wallonia, which de-
layed conclusion of the deal until 2018; see P Magnette (President of Wallonia) ‘Wallonia Blocked a Harmful EU
Trade Deal—​But We Don’t Share Trump’s Dreams’ op-​ed to The Guardian (18 November 2016), who states citizens
‘wonder if it is reasonable to import beef from the other side of the Atlantic when we are at the same time supposed
to be fighting global warming’. In addition, observers have noted that efforts to initiate talks on a Canada-​China
trade agreement failed due to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s insistence on including environmental
and social provisions in an eventual deal: A Ballingall, ‘Trudeau Fails To Come Back from China with the Trade
Talks He Wanted’, The Toronto Star (7 December 2017).
19 ‘Ecuador Rules Out FTA with US’, 24 January 2008, <http://​www.bilaterals.org/​spip.php?article11000> ac-

cessed 16 December 2020.

20 A Ades and HB Chua, ‘Thy Neighbours Curse: Regional Instability and Economic Growth’ (1997) 2(3) Journal

of Economic Growth 279; D Rodrik, ‘Policy Uncertainty and Private Investment in Developing Countries’ (1991)
36(2) Journal of Development Economics 229; R Wacziarg and KH Welch, ‘Trade Liberalization and Growth: New
Evidence’ (2008) The World Bank Economic Review 22, 187.
21 WJ Davey, ‘Has the WTO Dispute Settlement System Exceeded its Authority?’ (2001) 4(1) Journal of

International Economic Law 79; C Deere, The Implementation Game (Oxford, OUP 2008); D Zaleke and T Higdon,
‘The Role of Compliance in the Rule of Law, Good Governance and Sustainable Development’ (2006) 3(5) Journal
for European Environmental and Planning Law 376;
10 INTRODUCTION
2.2 Impact Assessments of Trade and Investment Treaties

For countries involved in trade and investment negotiations, and all those who may be af-
fected by less positive impacts of economic agreements, it is important to identify which
concerns are simply fears, and which concerns may raise significant impacts. States, regional
bodies and international organizations have commissioned scientific studies and assess-
ments to model and analyse the potential environmental and social impacts of economic
liberalization.22 Some now require ex-​ante and ex-​post impact assessments to identify poten-
tial effects of new liberalization commitments, and to suggest mitigation or flanking meas-
ures.23 For instance, the original 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)24
including its Chapter 11 on investment was studied ex-​post by the trilateral North American
Commission for Environmental Cooperation of United States, Canada and Mexico, which
found that NAFTA-​related environmental threats are most serious in sectors of the economy
where regulators are unprepared for an increasing scale of production stimulated by trade
and investment liberalization such as base metals, petroleum and transportation.25
The NAFTA Effects study was conceived nearly 20 years ago. Since then, trade and invest-
ment impact assessment practices have evolved, but two principal modes of assessment are
still used by States, each identifying a different set of impacts from economic liberalization.
As one approach, several ‘Environmental Impact Assessment’ (EIA) and ‘Environmental
Review’ (ER) approaches are based on the venerable NAFTA Effects technique. They focus on
predicting potential environmental effects of the economic changes resulting from a specific
economic treaty in the specific country undertaking the assessment, and are used by Canada
and by the United States among others during trade and investment negotiations with other
countries.26 As another example, the US-​Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA) between
Peru and the US in 2006 was preceded by the US-​Peru Environmental Review (ER) in 2005,
and this ex-​ante review projected several potential environmental impacts.27
As an alternative method, the Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) developed by the
European Union involves an independent assessment of the broader impacts of economic
treaties on all the Parties’ potential for sustainable development.28 These approaches use in-
tegrated or SIA methods to analyse economic liberalization scenarios, sector by sector, to
determine their likely effects on selected social, economic and environmental indicators.

22 European Commission, Handbook for Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment (2nd edn, Luxembourg, 2016)

<https://​trade.ec.europa.eu/​doclib/​docs/​2016/​april/​tradoc_​154464.PDF> accessed 16 December 2020; C George,

C Kirkpatrick and S Scrieciu, Final Global Overview Trade SIA: Inception and Mid-​Term Reports (Manchester,
Institute for Development Policy & Management 2006); UNEP, Reference Manual for the Integrated Assessment
of Trade-​ Related Policies (Geneva, 2001); UNCSD, Indicators of Sustainable Development: Framework and
Methodologies (New York, 1999).
23 See Annex 1 for Table of Sustainability Impact Assessments, Environmental and Labour Reviews, and

Environmental and Labour Assessments of Trade and Investment Agreements.

24 Entered into force 1 January 1994.
25 North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Potential NAFTA Effects: Claims and

Arguments 1991-​1994 (Montreal, 1996).

26 General Council—​Preparations for the 1999 Ministerial Conference—​Trade and Sustainable Development—​

Communication from the United States (6 August 1999) WT/​GC/​W/​304 99-​3364; General Council—​Preparations
for the 1999 Ministerial Conference—​Canadian Approach to Trade and Environment in the New WTO Round-​
Communication from Canada (12 October 1999) WT/​GC/​W/​358 99-​4298 <http://​docsonline.wto.org> accessed
16 December 2020.
27 The US-​ Peru Trade Promotion Agreement was adopted 12 April 2006); USTR ‘Interim Environmental
Review United States-​Andean Free Trade Agreement’ (2005) <http://​www.ustr.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​perinter.
pdf> accessed 16 December 2020.
28 European Commission (n 22).
 INTERNATIONAL TRADE, INVESTMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY 11
The European Commission (EC) then responds to the study, which is carried out by a
third party, with a position paper. As one example, when the EU and Mexico sought to
modernize the trade aspect of their Global Agreement which governs trade in goods and
services between the Parties, a full SIA was carried out by July 2019, leading to a European
Commission SIA Position Paper in January 2020 on how the agreement could minimize or
mitigate any social, environmental or economic harms from the accord, and enhance any
benefits for sustainable development.29
Many impact assessments of both main types and more have been carried out in recent
decades by the EU, the US, Canada and others, analysing the potential impacts of many new
regional trade and investment agreements, and several rounds of WTO trade negotiations.
Over 110 new regional and bilateral economic agreements have been negotiated over recent
decades with explicit commitments on sustainable development, many preceded by some
form of assessment.30
It is crucial, while negotiating, implementing and interpreting today’s trade and invest-
ment agreements, to be aware of potential social and environmental effects. This is im-
portant both in order to engage institutions and stakeholders who can inform the accord
itself, enhancing positive and avoiding or mitigating negative impacts, and also to develop
a better-​crafted, more politically stable treaty that is more likely to be implemented in a sus-
tainable manner. Taken together, such impact assessments at the very least can provide a
valuable source of data. In this volume, from a survey of the challenges outlined in environ-
mental reviews and sustainability impact assessments, building on existing secondary liter-
ature, three main tensions are identified with regards to the potential social, environmental
and other impacts of economic agreements. The first tension refers to ways that trade and
investment treaty rules may constrain legitimate new law and policy measures intended
to foster sustainable development, with a focus on measures for the implementation of
multilaterally agreed treaties that contribute to the achievement of the world’s Sustainable
Development Goals. The second tension refers to the way that changes in trade and invest-
ment rules can exacerbate pre-​existing sustainable development problems at the domestic
level, without strengthening corresponding laws and policies that could prevent or miti-
gate impacts. The third tension involves the escalation or propagation—​through trade and
investment liberalization—​of obsolete, polluting or inappropriate technologies and indus-
tries, rather than enhancement of more socially and ecologically sound goods and services
that can support sustainable development.

2.3 Measures to Address Sustainability Impacts of Trade and

Investment Treaties

Given continuing concern about the impacts of economic liberalization, and more than
three decades of experience with increasingly sophisticated impact assessment practices, it

29 European Commission, ‘Sustainability Impact Assessment in Support of Negotiations for the Modernisation

of the Trade Part of the Global Agreement with Mexico’, 17 September 2019, <https://​trade.ec.europa.eu/​
doclib/​docs/​2020/​january/​tradoc_​158558.pdf> accessed 16 December 2020; European Commission, European
Commission Services’ Position Paper on the Sustainability Impact Assessment in Support of Negotiations for the
Modernisation of the Trade Part of the Global Agreement with Mexico, January 2020, <https://​trade.ec.europa.eu/​
doclib/​docs/​2020/​january/​tradoc_​158559.pdf> accessed 16 December 2020.
30 See Annex 1.
12 INTRODUCTION
is a good moment to take stock. Specifically, it is time to assess whether, and how, States are
addressing sustainability concerns that emerge from assessments of international economic
agreements, including in the treaties themselves.
There may be many different options to address sustainability concerns. These can in-
clude the adoption of diverse domestic legal, economic or policy ‘flanking measures’ to
mitigate impacts of increased trade and investment flows, but also international measures
within the trade and investment agreements themselves to address the most significant chal-
lenges. The latter –​as binding international treaty instruments –​are the focus of this volume.
States have reaffirmed that international trade and investment flows can and should sup-
port sustainable development in numerous ‘soft law’ declarations and processes, reflecting
global policy objectives.31 This conviction has begun to be reflected in international trade
and investment negotiations and in the resulting treaty regimes. As WTO members noted
in the 2001 WTO Doha Declaration:

We strongly reaffirm our commitment to the objective of sustainable development, as

stated in the Preamble to the Marrakesh Agreement. We are convinced that the aims of
upholding and safeguarding an open and non-​discriminatory multilateral trading system,
and acting for . . . the promotion of sustainable development can and must be mutually sup-
portive. We take note of the efforts by members to conduct national environmental assess-
ments of trade policies on a voluntary basis.32

This commitment to sustainable development as an objective, as is further discussed in

this volume, has been debated in WTO negotiations and committees, reflected in deci-
sions of the WTO Panel and Appellate Body, was the subject of inquiries in the WTO Trade
Policy Review Mechanism (TPRM), and was raised in negotiations of the WTO Doha
‘Development Round’.33 Consensus remains elusive to date.34

31 ‘Soft law’ describes high level declarations of intent, consensus declarations agreed by States, technical stan-

dards, codes of conduct and guidelines that are not aligned with the classical sources of law defined in the Statute
of the International Court of Justice at art 38. One nuanced understanding of ‘soft law’ suggests that in certain
circumstances, such declarations can still give rise to legitimate expectations among States. See 1945 Statute of the
International Court of Justice TS 993; (1945) 39 American Journal of International Law Supplement 215, art 38; For
discussion, see G Simpson, ‘The Situation on the International Legal Theory Front: The Power of Rules and the Rule
of Power’ (2000) 11(2) European Journal of International Law 439–​464; JHH Weiler and AL Paulus, ‘The Structure
of Change in International Law or is There a Hierarchy of Norms in International Law?’ (1997) 8(4) European
Journal of International Law 545–​565; U Fastenrath, ‘Relative Normativity in International Law’ (1993) 4 European
Journal of International Law 305–​340; T Gruchalla-​Wesierski, ‘A Framework for Understanding Soft Law’ (1984–​
1985) 30 McGill Law Journal 37; M Bothe, ‘Legal and Non-​Legal Norms—​a Meaningful Distinction in International
Relations?’ (1980) 11 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 65; I Seidl-​ Hohenveldern, ‘International
Economic Soft Law’ (1980) 163 Rec des Cours 164; J Gold, ‘Strengthening the Soft International Law of Exchange
Arrangements’ (1983) 77 American Journal of International Law 443. But see CM Chinkin, ‘The Challenge of Soft
Law: Development and Change in International Law’ (1989) 38 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 850
and H Hillgenberg, ‘A Fresh Look at Soft Law’ (1999) 10(3) European Journal of International Law 499–​515.
32 Doha WTO Ministerial 2001: Ministerial Declaration, WT/​MIN(01)/​DEC/​1, para 6.
33 For the 2001 Doha Round, see C Kirkpatrick, C George and S Scrieciu, Sustainability Impact Assessment

of Proposed WTO Negotiations Final Global Overview Trade SIA of the Doha Development Agenda: Final Report
(Manchester, IDPM 2006) 60; C George and C Kirkpatrick, Sustainability Impact Assessment of Proposed Doha
Agenda Assessment of Individual Trade Measures: Preliminary Overview (Manchester, IARC 2003) 10–​15; for pro-
posed 2000 ‘Millennium Round’, see C Kirkpatrick, N Lee and O Morrissey, Sustainability Impact Assessment Study
WTO New Round: Phase One Report (Manchester, IDPM 1999); and see C Kirkpatrick and N Lee, Sustainability
Impact Assessment Study WTO New Round: Phase Two Report (Manchester, IDPM 1999) <https://​trade.ec.eu-
ropa.eu/​doclib/​docs/​2005/​february/​tradoc_​111192.pdf> accessed 16 December 2020. For debates in WTO nego-
tiations and committees, and sustainable development in decisions of the WTO Panel and Appellate Body, see
Chapter 12.1. For TPRM inquiries, see Chapter 14.
34 WTO Annual Report 2011, 16.
 INTERNATIONAL TRADE, INVESTMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY 13
Studies of the lowest common denominator at the WTO present only a partial view of
measures taken by States to address sustainability concerns linked to trade and investment
liberalization, particularly given challenges that arose in the WTO ‘Doha Round’ negoti-
ations.35 A new generation of regional and bilateral trade and investment treaties are being
negotiated among developed and developing country Parties. These accords appear dis-
criminatory by nature, designed to grant certain trade preferences and in some cases also
investment protections to the Parties to each arrangement.36 In 2019, 473 ‘regional trade
agreements’ had been notified to the WTO, with at least 294 in force.37 Over fifty further
trade and investment treaty negotiations were ongoing in the Americas alone.38 Beyond
debates on the venerable 1994 NAFTA and its successor, the United States of America, the
United Mexican States, and Canada (USMCA),39 in addition to certain European studies,
this growing collection of regional and bilateral economic treaties and their impact as-
sessments are only beginning to be analysed in law and economics.40 Most studies address
the relationship between the WTO and regional trade agreements,41 and whether bilateral
and regional trade treaties provide ‘stumbling blocks’ or ‘building blocks’ for global trade
liberalization.42 However, like the WTO, the bilateral and regional economic treaties do
not simply have an impact on global trade liberalization, or economic growth. They may
also have significant positive or negative implications for social development and for the
environment.
Trade agreements can contribute towards sustainable development by serving as a con-
duit for the transfer of green or environmentally sound technologies to partner countries.
These technologies have the capacity to significantly improve environmental performance
when compared with other technologies. However, these transfers should not just be struc-
tured as transfers of intellectual property or capital equipment, but as transfers of know-​
how and capacity building.43

35 See n 33.
36 JN Bhagwati, P Krishna and A Panagariya (eds), Trading Blocs: Alternative Approaches to Analyzing
Preferential Trade Agreements (Boston, MIT Press 1999); A Krueger, ‘Free Trade Agreements versus Customs
Unions’, NBER Working Paper No 5084, 1995; CA Cooper and BF Massell, ‘Toward a General Theory of Customs
Unions for Developing Countries’ (1965) 73(5) Journal of Political Economy 461; BA Balassa, The Theory of
Economic Integration (London, Allen and Unwin 1961); SY Kim, ED Mansfield and HV Milner, ‘Regional Trade
Governance’ in TA Börzel and T Risse (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism (Oxford, OUP
2016); BA Melo Araujo, ‘Setting the Rules of the Game: The Rise (and Fall) of Mega-​Regionals, Deep Integration
and the Role of the WTO’ (2017) 21(2) UCLA Journal of International Law & Foreign Affairs 101.
37 See WTO (n 2); see also R Baldwin and P Low, Multilateralising Regionalism: Challenges for the Global Trading

System (Cambridge, CUP 2009).

38 Organisation of American States, Foreign Trade Information System (OAS SICE) <http://​www.sice.oas.org/​

tpd_​e.asp> accessed 16 December 2020.

39 Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States and Canada 12/​13/​19 Text—​not

yet ratified by Canada, <https://​ustr.gov/​trade-​agreements/​free-​trade-​agreements/​united-​states-​mexico-​canada-​

agreement/​agreement-​between> accessed 13 March 2020. See also P Vieira, ‘Canada Begins USMCA Ratification
Process That Won’t Necessarily Be Smooth Sailing: Trudeau will likely have to strike a deal with opposition parties,
which have been critical of some elements of the trade deal’, Wall Street Journal (27 January 2020).
40 Bartels and Ortino (n 2); Mathis (n 2); OECD, Environment and Regional Trade Agreements (Paris, 2007); P

Konz (ed), Trade, Environment and Sustainable Development: Views from Sub-​Saharan Africa and Latin America
(Tokyo and Geneva, UNU/​IAS & ICTSD 2000) 235, 251–​261; I Martínez-​Zarzoso, ‘Assessing the Effectiveness of
Environmental Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements: An Empirical Analysis’, OECD Trade and Environment
Working Paper No 2018/​02 <https://​www.oecd-​ilibrary.org/​docserver/​5ffc615c-​en.pdf?expires=1566501248&id
=id&accname=guest&checksum=938FDC8D16D076AE97B59C9A540B5354> accessed 21 August 2019.
41 Bartels and Ortino (n 2); Baldwin and Low (n 37).
42 Baldwin (n 2); Bhagwati, Krishna and Panagariya (n 36).
43 ILA, Sustainable Development and The Green Economy in International Trade Law (ILA, 2018).
14 INTRODUCTION
Certain economic law scholars have argued that States can be innovative with regional
and bilateral accords, testing new trade and investment law provisions which (if proven
useful) may eventually be proposed in WTO negotiations, or in future economic treaties.44
Indeed, new regional and bilateral economic agreements:

can also be used by some countries as a vehicle for promoting deeper integration of their
economies than is presently available through the WTO, particularly for issues which
are not fully dealt with multilaterally, such as investment . . . environment and labour
standards.45

If this is the case, it is time for an exploration of how States commit to sustainable develop-
ment in global, regional and bilateral economic treaties, and the implications of this com-
mitment. In regional and bilateral agreements, where echoes of the global trade debates
resonate, deeper economic liberalization is under negotiation for areas such as services,
government procurement and investment. Many countries also now recognize a joint res-
olution ‘to promote sustainable development’ in the free trade or international investment
agreements that they negotiate,46 and are seeking new models for their trade and invest-
ment treaty negotiations which respond more directly to their efforts to achieve the global
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for their people. In the EU’s trade and investment
accords, States have been even more emphatic, pledging, for instance:

to commit, in the recognition that sustainable development is an overarching objective,

to the development of international trade in such a way as to contribute to the objective of
sustainable development and strive to ensure that this objective is integrated and reflected
at every level of the Parties’ trade relationship.47

The EU has embarked on efforts to ‘modernize’ its economic treaties with key countries,
including Mexico, and is conducting sustainability impact assessments as part of this pro-
cess. There is a need for all actors—​from governments to industry to academia and civil
society—​to carefully consider what these treaty commitments to sustainable development
actually mean, and by which provisions Parties can seek to deliver upon them in their trade
and investment treaties. But it is very difficult to do so.
Part of the problem is conceptual. There is a growing body of scholarly work examining
international law on sustainable development, much of which has been published in the re-
cent decades.48 But it is not straightforward to find one accepted universal legal definition

44 Bartels and Ortino (n 2) 2; Bhagwati, Krishna and Panagariya (n 36); Jackson, Davey and Sykes (n 7).
45 WTO Secretariat, ‘The Changing Landscape of RTAs’ (2003) Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO
Seminar, <http://​www.wto.org/​english/​tratop_​e/​region_​e/​sem_​nov03_​e/​boonekamp_​paper_​e.doc> accessed 16
December 2020, 23.
46 See, e.g., Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States, of

the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part (EU-​Chile Association Agreement), signed 18 November
2002, entered into force 1 February 2003 [2002] OJ L 352.
47 European Union-​Korea Free Trade Agreement (6 October 2010), art 1.1.2(g).
48 HC Bugge and C Voigt (eds), Sustainable Development in International and National Law (Groningen, Europa

2009); D French, International Law and Policy on Sustainable Development (Manchester, Juris 2005) 168–​209; N
Schrijver and F Weiss, International Law and Sustainable Development: Principles and Practice (Lieden, Martinus
Nijhoff 2004); MC Cordonier Segger and CG Weeramantry (eds), Sustainable Justice (Lieden, Martinus Nijhoff
 INTERNATIONAL TRADE, INVESTMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY 15
for sustainable development that is appropriate for all cultures and regions of the world,49
across all environmental and development problems,50 for all treaty regimes.51 This is not
necessarily due to a lack of scientific clarity on what it means to use a resource in a way that
is sustainable, but might also be linked to differing expectations of what is meant by develop-
ment. Like other important global objectives such as peace, democracy and human rights,
a commitment to sustainable development takes on new meanings in different contexts. In
several prominent MEAs, the Parties have developed particularized commitments to sus-
tainable development.52 For instance, in the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UN FCCC), countries arguably recognized a right to sustainable development,
and the meaning of this commitment has been debated in the UN FCCC Conference of
the Parties and in scholarly literature.53 In addition to the MEAs, in accords such as the
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture of the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO ‘Seed Treaty’), the specific legal and policy mechanisms by
which States plan to secure sustainable development and use of food and agriculture are ac-
tually detailed by the Parties in a specific treaty provision, article 6.54 However, the meaning
of a commitment to sustainable development in a trade and investment treaty is only now
being investigated.
Gaps in policy and scholarly understanding may be due to a lingering lack of clarity in
the precise legal character of State commitments to sustainable development. Some judges
and legal scholars maintain that sustainable development should be characterized as an
emerging principle of customary law itself.55 Others have proposed that it be recognized as

2005); MC Cordonier Segger and A Khalfan, Sustainable Development Law: Principles, Practices and Prospects
(Oxford, OUP 2004); A Boyle and D Freestone, International Law and Sustainable Development (OUP 1999);
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Law and Sustainable Development since Rio (Rome, FAO 2002); P
Sands, ‘International Law in the Field of Sustainable Development: Emerging Legal Principles’ in W. Lang (ed),
Sustainable Development and International Law (Oxford, OUP 1999); D Ginthers, M Denters and P de Waart
(eds), Sustainable Development and Global Governance (Boston, Kluwer 1995); M McGoldrick, ‘Sustainable
Development: The Challenge to International Law’ (1994) Review of European Community and International
Environmental Law 3.
49 Case Concerning the Gabčíkovo-​Nagymaros Project (Hungary/​Slovakia) (Separate Opinion of Vice President

Weeramantry) [1997] ICJ Rep 7; HP Glenn, Legal Traditions of the World (5th edn, Oxford, OUP 2015).
50 C Echevarria, D Brooks and G Peeling, ‘Mining and Stakeholders’ Involvement: Addressing Social

Sustainability Changes’ in MC Cordonier Segger and M Leichner Reynal (eds), Beyond the Barricades: The
Americas Trade and Sustainable Development Agenda (England, Ashgate 2005) 97; NO Keohane and SM Olmstead,
Markets and the Environment (Connecticut, Island Press 2007) 190–​198. See also G Handl, ‘Environmental
Protection and Development in Third World Countries: Common Destiny-​Common Responsibility’ (1987–​1988)
20 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 603.
51 Schrijver and Weiss (n 48) xi–​ix; Boyle and Freestone (n 48) 19–​26; MC Cordonier Segger, ‘Sustainable

Development in International Law’ in D Armstrong (ed), Routledge Handbook of International Law (New York,
Routledge 2009) 355, 359–​371.
52 Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell (n 13) 57–​58.
53 See, e.g., Decision 1/​CP.8 Delhi Ministerial Declaration on Climate Change and Sustainable Development

FCCC/​CP/​2002/​7/​Add.1; A Najam and others, ‘Integrating Sustainable Development into the 4th Assessment of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’ (2003) Climate Policy 168, 169; B Metza and others, ‘Towards an
Equitable Global Climate Change Regime: Compatibility with Article 2 of the Climate Change Convention and the
Link with Sustainable Development’ (2002) 2(2) Climate Policy 211–​230; M Munasinghe and R Swart, Primer on
Climate Change and Sustainable Development: Facts, Policy Analysis and Applications (Cambridge, CUP 2005).
54 Adopted 3 November 2001, entered into force 31 March 2004; HD Cooper, ‘The International Treaty on Plant

and Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture’ (2002) 11 Review of European Community and International
Environmental Law 1.
55 Gabčíkovo-​Nagymaros (n 49) 86; S Atapattu, ‘Sustainable Development: Myth or Reality? A Survey of

Sustainable Development under International Law and Sri Lankan Law’ (2001–​2002) 14 Georgetown International
Environmental Law Review 265, 268–​271.
16 INTRODUCTION
a right of States.56 Still others suggest that it could be considered a general principle of inter-
national law,57 or an obligation erga omnes.58 It is also argued that commitments to sustain-
able development have an ‘interstitial’ nature, as a form of meta-​norm.59
It has further been proposed that sustainable development is best characterized as an
objective; part of the object and purpose of international treaties—​not just for MEAs, but
also for treaties on economic, natural resource management and social development is-
sues.60 From this perspective, while there may not be one single principle of sustainable
development, there is an emerging body of international law in the field of sustainable de-
velopment, as noted in the 1992 Agenda 21 and affirmed in the 2002 Johannesburg Plan
of Implementation (JPOI), which explicitly highlights over thirty international treaties on
sustainable development, including international economic agreements.61 In this volume,
rather than canvassing these well-​trodden debates in great detail, the latter approach is
adopted with certain caveats, in order to focus on how State commitments to sustainable
development are actually being addressed in the most recent decades of international eco-
nomic law and practice.
As a first caveat, this volume builds on an understanding of sustainable development as
an objective that is firmly rooted in the concept of human development.62 In this light, sus-
tainable development refers to a commitment to more socially equitable and environmen-
tally sound development that can last over the long term.63 This is a different focus than, for
instance, a call to protect ecosystems and the millions of other species with which humanity
shares this Earth, an important related commitment with its own intrinsic value.64 The

56 A Boyle, ‘The Environmental Jurisprudence of the Law of the Sea’ (2007) 22(3) International Journal of

Marine and Coastal Law 369; Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Provisional Measures, Order
of 13 July 2006, [2006] ICJ Rep 133 (General List No 135, 67).
57 C Voigt, Sustainable Development as a Principle of International Law (Danvers, Brill 2009).
58 P Sands and J Peel, Principles of International Environmental Law (Cambridge, CUP 2018) 254.
59 V Lowe, ‘The Politics of Law-​ Making: Are the Method and Character of Norm Creation Changing?’ in
M Byers (ed), The Role of Law in International Politics: Essays in International Relations and International Law
(Oxford, OUP 2000) 214–​215; V Lowe, ‘Sustainable Development and Unsustainable Arguments’ in Boyle and
Freestone (n 48) 19–​28.
60 Boyle and Freestone (n 48) 17–​18; Cordonier Segger and Khalfan (n 48) 46–​50; M Gehring and MC Cordonier

Segger (eds), Sustainable Development in World Trade Law (The Hague, Kluwer Law International 2005) 3–​7;
Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell (n 13) 126–​127; P Sands, ‘International Law in the Field of Sustainable Development’
(1994) 65 British Yearbook of International Law 303; MC Cordonier Segger with HE Judge CG Weeramantry
(eds), Sustainable Development Principles in the Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals: 1992-​2012
(London, Routledge 2017); E Hush, ‘Where No Man Has Gone before: The Future of Sustainable Development
in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement and New Generation Free Trade Agreements’ (2018) 43
Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 93.
61 See also Boyle and Freestone (n 48) 17–​18; Cordonier Segger and Khalfan (n 48).
62 See World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (Oxford, OUP 1987)

ix; N Schrijver, ‘Development—​The Neglected Dimension in the Post-​Rio International Law of Sustainable
Development’ in Bugge and Voigt (n 48) 233–​250; Cordonier Segger and Khalfan (n 48) 15–​45; S Anand and A Sen,
‘Human Development and Economic Sustainability’ (2000) 28(12) World Development 2029–​2049. This view is
not without detractors, see, e.g., GD Meyers and SC Muller, ‘The Ethical Implications, Political Ramifications and
Practical Limitations of Adopting Sustainable Development as National and International Policy’ (1996) 4 Buffalo
Environmental Law Journal 1; A Geisinger, ‘Sustainable Development and the Domination of Nature: Spreading
the Seed of the Western Ideology of Nature’ (1999) 27 British Columbia Environmental Affairs Law Review 43.
63 EB Weiss, In Fairness to Future Generations: International Law, Common Patrimony and Intergenerational

Equity (New York, Transnational 1989) 17–​26.

64 These extend beyond the ‘anthropocentric’ needs of human beings. See P Taylor, Respect for Nature (Princeton,

Princeton University Press 1986); S Emmenegger and A Tschentscher, ‘Taking Nature’s Rights Seriously: The Long
Way to Biocentrism in Environmental Law’ (1993–​1994) 6 Georgetown International Environmental Law Review
545; D French and LJ Kotzé (eds), Sustainable Development Goals: Law, Theory and Implementation (Cheltenham,
Edward Elgar 2018).
 INTERNATIONAL TRADE, INVESTMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY 17
view, hardly controversial, is that environmental ministries and laws are not alone in pro-
moting sustainable development—​economic institutions are also responsible.65 Indeed, the
United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), alongside other development
institutions and economic ministries, was tasked in 1987 by the UN General Assembly
(GA) with a reorientation of social and economic policy toward more sustainable develop-
ment.66 As the UN GA noted, ‘while seeking to remedy existing environmental problems,
it is imperative to influence the sources of those problems in human activity, and economic
activity in particular, and thus to provide for sustainable development’.67 This concept of
sustainable development was further elaborated in the 1992 United Nations Conference
on Environment and Development (UNCED, or Rio Earth Summit), the 1997 New York
General Assembly Special Session on Sustainable Development, the 2002 Johannesburg
World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), and the 2012 Rio United Nations
Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD, or Rio+20).68 Countries, and interna-
tional bodies, grapple with guidance to ensure that post-​COVID-​19 pandemic economic
stimulus efforts can help, rather than hinder, sustainable development efforts. As such,
this volume adopts a theory of sustainable development which recognizes that political,
economic and legal systems are created by human processes, and shape the opportunities
and capabilities of human societies into the future, as well as affecting ecological and other
systems.
Second, while sustainable development may well be recognized as part of the ‘object or
purpose’ of certain treaties including economic agreements,69 the concept may also play an
‘interstitial’ role in treaty negotiations and legal decision-​making, as outlined by Professor
Vaughan Lowe.70 A characterization as ‘object and purpose’ does not preclude States from
adopting operational provisions to deliver on their shared purpose, nor from recognizing
further principles of international law on sustainable development in order to achieve their
object and purpose.71 As such, this volume considers how, where States commit to sustain-
able development as an objective, its interstitial normative character may encourage States
to reflect related principles in their treaty-​making, particularly a principle that environ-
mental concerns should be integrated into economic decision-​making, including trade and
investment policy.
A third caveat is that this volume focuses on the meaning of a commitment to sustain-
able development in international economic law.72 This require a consideration of both

65 Lowe (n 7); D Esty, Greening the GATT (Washington, IIE 1994).

66 Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, UN General Assembly Resolution 42/​
187.
67 Ibid.
68 See Bartels and Ortino (n 2), see also n 47.
69 HG Ruse-​ Khan, ‘A Real Partnership for Development? Sustainable Development as Treaty Objective in
European Economic Agreement Partnerships and beyond’ (2010) 13(1) Journal of International Economic
Law 139; X Wang and J Ashton, ‘Equity and Climate: In Principle and Practice’ in Beyond Kyoto: Advancing the
International Effort against Climate Change (Washington, Pew Foundation 2003); Gehring and Cordonier Segger
(n 60).
70 V Lowe, ‘The Politics of Law-​ Making: Are the Method and Character of Norm Creation Changing?’ in
M Byers (ed), The Role of Law in International Politics: Essays in International Relations and International Law
(Oxford, OUP 2000) 214–​215. See also Lowe (n 59) 27.
71 MC Cordonier Segger, ‘International Law on Sustainable Development’ in Bugge and Voigt (n 48); Cordonier

Segger and Khalfan (n 48) 97.

72 Gehring and Cordonier Segger (n 2); G Sampson, The WTO and Sustainable Development (Tokyo, UNU

Press 2005); French (n 48).

18 INTRODUCTION
international trade law, such as the agreements of the World Trade Organization, and also
the myriad bilateral, regional and even region-​to-​region or supra-​regional economic agree-
ments some of which cover mainly liberalization of trade in goods and services; some of
which also cover intellectual property, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, trade-​related
investment measures or even broader investment disciplines as well; some of which cover
mainly investment liberalization and may be negotiated in the context of early trade accords
involving the same Parties; and some of which extend to liberalize additional economic
relationships.73 For ease of reference, in this volume, these other bilateral, regional and
further accords are mainly referred to as ‘economic agreements’ or ‘trade and investment
agreements.’
As a fourth caveat briefly mentioned above, in current trade and investment law litera-
ture examining bilateral and regional treaties, there is still very little consideration of sus-
tainable development tensions and related innovations. Instead, legal literature has largely
been divided into sharply delineated studies on trade and environment,74 trade and human/​
labour rights,75 or trade and development.76 Regional studies on the NAFTA or the USMCA
explore trade and labour issues,77 or trade and environment linkages,78 keeping them in sep-
arate silos. Others examine Europe’s regional accords with developing countries, but focus
on their economic development ramifications,79 or compare mechanisms used in the agree-
ments to promote human rights.80 And a limited inter-​governmental review compares how

73 See early research for this volume in M Gehring, J Hepburn and MC Cordonier Segger, World Trade Law in

Practice (London, Globe 2006) 12; Baldwin (n 2); Gehring and Cordonier Segger (n 2); Cordonier Segger, Gehring
and Newcombe (n 2).
74 Trebilcock and Howse (n 1) 507–​555; D Bodansky and J Lawrence, ‘Trade and Environment’ in Bethlehem,

McRae, Neufeld and van Damme (n 1); J Cameron, P Demaret and D Geradin (eds), Trade and Environment: The
Search for Balance (London, Cameron & May 1994); Vranes (n 13); Esty (n 65).
75 Trebilcock and Howse (n 1) 557–​588; G Marceau, ‘Trade and Labour’ in Bethlehem, McRae, Neufeld and van

Damme (n 1) 539–​570; Cottier, Pauwelyn and Bürgi (n 6) 199; B Hepple, Labour Laws and Global Trade (Oxford,
Hart 2005); OECD, International Trade and Core Labour Standards, Policy Brief (October 2000); D Puga and D
Trefler, ‘Wake up and Smell the Ginseng: International Trade and the Rise of Incremental Innovation in Low-​Wage
Countries’ (2010) 91(1) Journal of Development Economics 64; HM Wolffgang and W Feuerhake, ‘Core Labour
Standards in World Trade Law: The Necessity for Incorporation of Core Labour Standards in the World Trade
Organization’ (2002) 36(5) Journal of World Trade 883.
76 C Thomas and J Trachtman (eds), Developing Countries in the WTO Legal System (Oxford, OUP 2009); H

Katrak and R Strange (eds), The WTO and Developing Countries (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan 2004); SE
Rolland, ‘Developing Country Coalitions at the WTO: In Search of Legal Support’ (2007) 48 Harvard International
Law Journal 483, 511. EK Kessie, ‘Developing Countries in the World Trade Organisation’ (1999) 22 World
Competition 83; RE Baldwin, J McLaren and A Panagariya, Regulatory Protectionism, Developing Nations, and a
Two-​Tier World Trade System (Washington, Brookings Trade Forum 2000).
77 S Charnovitz, ‘The Labor Dimension of the Emerging Free Trade Area of the America’ in P Alston (ed),

Labour Rights as Human Rights (Oxford, OUP 2005).

78 O Saunders, ‘NAFTA and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation: A New Model

for International Collaboration on Trade and the Environment’, (1994) 5 Colorado Journal of International
Environmental Law and Policy 273; Esty (n 65); S Richardson, ‘Sovereignty, Trade, and the Environment-​The
North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation’, (1998) 24 Canada-​United States Law Journal 183;
J Kirton, ‘The Commission for Environmental Cooperation and Canada-​U.S. Environmental Governance in the
NAFTA Era’ (1997) 27 American Review of Canadian Studies 459; BR Copeland and MS Scott, ‘Trade, Growth and
the Environment’, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No 9823, 2003; A Tyc, ‘Workers’ Rights
and Transatlantic Trade Relations: The TTIP and Beyond’ (2017) 2 Economic and Labour Relations Review 113;
JS Vogt, ‘The Evolution of Labor Rights and Trade—​A Transatlantic Comparison and Lessons for the Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership’ (2015) 18(4) Journal of International Economic Law 827.
79 DK Brown, AV Deardorff and RM Stern, ‘Some Economic Effects of the Free Trade Agreement between

Tunisia and the European Union’ in RM Stern (ed), Globalization and International Trade Policies (Singapore,
World Scientific Publishing 2009) 343; GM Caporale and others ‘On the Bilateral Trade Effects of Free Trade
Agreements between the EU-​15 and the CEEC-​4 Countries’ (2009) 145 Revue of World Economics 189.
80 EU Petersmann, ‘The WTO and Regional Trade Agreements as Competing Fora for Constitutional

Reforms: Trade and Human Rights’ in Bartels and Ortino (n 2) 281–​312; EM Hafner-​Burton, ‘Trading Human
Rights: How Preferential Trade Agreements Influence Government Repression’ (2005) 59 International
 INTERNATIONAL TRADE, INVESTMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY 19
bilateral or regional trade and investment treaties address environmental concerns.81 But
such studies can be descriptive, containing very little legal analysis or mention of the impact
assessment findings themselves, and constrained from drawing out implications for broader
international economic law-​making, or proposing improvements for sustainable develop-
ment. While some interesting papers have been published,82 many do not fully analyse new
global perspectives on sustainable development, or take into account the most important
international legal and policy debates, such as the outcomes of the 2002 WSSD, the 2012
UNCSD and the 2015 adoption of the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).83
There remains little clarity as to what is meant by a sustainable development commitment in
a trade or investment treaty, and the means by which States can contribute to realizing sus-
tainable development in international economic law. This volume focuses on that gap.
Of course, and as a final caveat, among those who have published work in this area, some
neo-​liberal and other scholars have suggested that trade has very little effect on sustainable
development, and that trade disciplines have no link to –​and therefore cannot interfere
with –​legitimate measures aimed at ensuring that development is more sustainable.84 Others,
as mentioned above, maintain that trade and investment are automatically good for sustain-
ability,85 or that the impacts are perennially negative.86 However, it is more likely that trade
and investment are neither automatically good nor bad for sustainable development. A more
nuanced perspective reflects compromises agreed in the 1992 Agenda 21,87 the 2002 JPOI,88
the 2012 UNCSD Outcomes and the world’s SDGs,89 where it was recognized that changes in

Organisation 593; L Bartels, ‘Human Rights and Sustainable Development Obligations in EU Free Trade
Agreements’ (2013) 40(4) Legal Issues of Economic Integration 297; SY Kim, ED Mansfield and HV Milner,
Regional Trade Governance (Oxford, OUP 2016); K Milewics and others, ‘Beyond Trade: The Expanding Scope of
the Nontrade Agenda in Trade Agreements’ (2016) 62(4) Journal of Conflict Resolution 743.

81 OECD (n 40).
82 M Pallemarts, ‘International Law and Sustainable Development: Any Progress in Johannesburg?’ (2003) 12
Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 1; SJ Scherr and RJ Gregg, ‘Johannesburg
and Beyond: The 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development and the Rise of Partnerships’ (2005–​2006)
18 Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 425. Literature in recent years has started to investi-
gate links between trade and sustainable development. See S Schacherer, ‘The CETA Investment Chapter and
Sustainable Development: Interpretive Issues’ in MM Mbengue and S Schachere (eds), Foreign Investment
Under the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) (Switzerland, Springer 2019); J Orbie and
others, ‘Promoting Sustainable Development or Legitimising Free Trade? Civil Society Mechanisms in EU Trade
Agreements’ (2016) 1(4) Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal 526; Heinrich Wohlmeyer and Theodore
Quendler (eds), The WTO, Agriculture and Sustainable Development (London, Routledge 2017); Bartels (n 78).
83 MC Cordonier Segger, ‘Inspiration for Integration: Interpreting International Trade and Investment Accords

for Sustainable Development’ (2017) 3(1) Canadian Journal of Comparative and Contemporary Law 159 based
on early research for this volume; M Gehring, S Stephenson and MC Cordonier Segger, ‘Sustainability Impact
Assessments as Inputs and as Interpretative Aids in International Investment Law’ (2016) 17 Journal of World
Investment and Trade 155.
84 See R Muradian and J Martinez-​Alier, ‘Trade and the Environment: From a ‘Southern’ Perspective’ (2001) 36

Ecological Economics 281.

85 W Weber, ‘Competing Political Visions: WTO Governance and Green Politics’ (2001) 1 Global Environmental

Politics 92; DI Stern, ‘The Rise and Fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve’ (2004) 32 World Development 1419;
DI Stern, ‘The Environmental Kuznets Curve After 25 Years’ (2017) 19(1) Journal of Bioeconomics 7.
86 I Ropke, ‘Trade, Development and Sustainability—​A Critical Assessment of the ‘Free Trade Dogma’ (1994) 9

Ecological Economics 13; S Giljum and N Eisenmenger, ‘North-​South Trade and the Distribution of Environmental
Goods and Burdens: A Biophysical Perspective’ (2004) 13(1) Journal of Environment Development 73.
87 See United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development, Agenda 21, 2.1–​2.22
88 United Nations, ‘Johannesburg Plan of Implementation’ (2002) 84–​101.
89 United Nations, ‘The Future We Want’ (2012). See also A Cosbey, ‘New Views of Trade and Sustainable

Development: Using Sen’s Conception of Development to Re-​examine the Debates’ Thematic Research Paper,
TIPS/​IISD Trade Knowledge Network Workshop (Geneva, ICTSD 2003) l; D Runnalls, ‘Shall We Dance: What
the North Needs to do to Fully Engage the South in the Trade and Sustainable Development Debate’ (Winnipeg,
International Institute for Sustainable Development 1997).
20 INTRODUCTION
trade and investment patterns may have both positive and negative effects on a country’s po-
tential for sustainable development. The key is to uncover under what circumstances, and in
accordance with what provisions with what interpretive weight, economic law levers are more
likely to foster sustainable development. This approach is adopted in the volume.

2.4 Insights on International Economic Law and Sustainability

The global call in the 2002 JPOI90 and the 2015 SDGs91 for trade and investment liberali-
zation that actively contributes to sustainable development is important, and worthy of se-
rious legal study that extends beyond brilliant but brief policy papers.92 A growing number
of State-​level scientific and policy assessments review the potential sustainability impacts
of trade and investment agreements.93 But there remains little legal analysis of the rules
governing global and regional trade and investment, in terms of how to best address re-
lated environmental and social concerns in an integrated manner.94 There exists very little
comparative legal analysis of States’ efforts to identify and address the potential impacts
of economic treaties on the environment and social development, or to include binding
provisions that will contribute to sustainable development in treaties.95 This research holds
potential, if only to indicate whether the outcomes of impact assessments do affect negoti-
ations for new trade and investment treaties, how the issues identified are addressed in final
treaty texts, and what might be their interpretive weight.
Focusing mainly on the decades after 1992, from the 1992 Rio Earth Summit to the
2002 WSSD to the 2012 UNCSD and beyond, the period during which the 1994 WTO
Agreements, the 1994 NAFTA, the 2019 USMCA entered into force, the European Union’s
new economic partnership agreements and trade agreements for sustainable development
were negotiated, along with a new generation of regional and bilateral economic agree-
ments, and the global Sustainable Development Goals were adopted, this volume seeks to
bridge the gap. Given discussions on the new Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and
Sustainability (ACCTS) between Costa Rica, Fiji, Iceland, New Zealand and Norway,96 other
important efforts such as the European New Green Deal and the European Commission’s
agenda to modernize its regional and bilateral economic agreements97 and the UK’s plans

90 Johannesburg Declaration and Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI), Report of the World Summit

on Sustainable Development, 4 September 2002, UN Doc A/​CONF.199/​20 47, 92, 97, 99.
91 Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, GA Res 70A/​1, UNGAOR, Seventieth

Session, 25–​27 September 2015, UN Doc E/​15/​16301 (2015) 1; SDG 16.3, 16.6, 16.b; SDG 17.5, 17.7, 17.10, 17.11,
17.12. 17.14.
92 See, e.g., IISD, A Sustainable Development Roadmap for the WTO (Winnipeg, Trade and Investment Program

IISD, 2009); ICTSD, Trade, Climate Change and Sustainable Development (Geneva, 2010); Cosbey (n 89).
93 C Kirkpatrick and N Lee, Sustainable Development in a Developing World: Integrating Socio-​ Economic
Appraisal and Environmental Assessment (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar 1997).
94 To survey the diverse Impact Assessment techniques, in a paper based on early research for this volume, see

M Gehring and MC Cordonier Segger, ‘Sustainable Development through Process in World Trade Law’ in Gehring
and Cordonier Segger (n 60) 189–​213.
95 V Lowe, ‘Preface’ in Cordonier Segger, Gehring and Newcombe (n 2) 99.
96 Joint Leaders’ Statement on the launch of the ‘Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability’

Initiative (25 September 2019), n 8.

97 European Commission, ‘The European Green Deal’, Communication from the Commission to the European

Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions COM/​2019/​640, n 9.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity
that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the
Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur:
(a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project
Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where

we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed

editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.