Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-gr6zb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-01T07:03:41.125Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part I - Penetration and Diffusion of the Sustainable Development Goals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2020

Edited by
Cosimo Beverelli ,
Jürgen Kurtz  and
Damian Raess
Cosimo Beverelli
Affiliation:
World Trade Organization
Jürgen Kurtz
Affiliation:
European University Institute, Florence
Damian Raess
Affiliation:
World Trade Institute, University of Bern
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
International Trade, Investment, and the Sustainable Development Goals
World Trade Forum
 , pp. 13 - 108
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Akiko, Y. (2014). ‘Environmental Provisions in Japanese Regional Trade Agreements with Developing Countries’. IDE Discussion Paper 2014–03-01. Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization.Google Scholar
Allen, L. (2018). ‘Reassessing the ‘Green’ in NAFTA’. Journal of World Trade 52: 557–74.Google Scholar
Araujo, B. M. (2018). ‘Labour Provisions in EU and US Mega-regional Trade Agreements: Rhetoric and Reality’. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 67: 233–253.Google Scholar
Bartels, L. (2013). ‘Human Rights and Sustainable Development Obligations in EU Free Trade Agreements’. Legal Issues of Economic Integration 40: 297–313.Google Scholar
Bartels, L. (2015). ‘The Chapeau of General Exceptions in the WTO GATT and GATS Agreements: A Reconstruction’. American Journal of International Law 109: 95–129.Google Scholar
Berger, A., Brandi, C., Bruhn, D. and Chi, M. (2017). ‘Towards “Greening” Trade? Tracking Environmental Provisions in the Preferential Trade Agreements of Emerging Markets’, German Development Institute Discussion Paper 2/2017.Google Scholar
Boisson de Chazournes, L. and Moise Mbengue, M. (2007). ‘A propos du soutien mutuel: les relations entre le Protocol de Cartagena et les accords de l’OMC’. Revue Générale de Droit International Public 4: 829–862.Google Scholar
Charnovitz, S. (1994). ‘The NAFTA Environmental Side Agreement: Implications for Environmental Cooperation, Trade Policy and American Treatymaking’. Temple International and Comparative Law Journal 8: 257–314.Google Scholar
Cremona, M. (2004). ‘The Union as a Global Actor: Roles, Models and Identity’. Common Market Law Review 41: 553–573.Google Scholar
De Micco, P. (2014). ‘The US and EU Free Trade Agreement with Peru and Colombia: A Comparison’. DG EXPO/B/PolDep/Note/2014_23 February 2014, PE 522.326.Google Scholar
Douma, Th. W. (2017). ‘The Promotion of Sustainable Development Through EU Trade Instruments’. European Business Law Review 28: 197–216.Google Scholar
Dupuy, P.-M. and Viñuales, J. E., eds. (2015). International Environmental Law. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2006). COM (2006) 567 Final, ‘Global Europe: Competing in the World. A Contribution to the EU’s Growth and Jobs Strategy’, 4 October 2006.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2015). COM (2015) 497 Final, ‘Trade for All. Towards a More Responsible Trade and Investment Policy’, 14 October 2015.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2017a). Non-Report of the Commission Services, ‘Trade and Sustainable development (TSD) Chapters in EU Free Trade Agreements (FTAs)’, 11 July 2017.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2017b). COM (2017) 492 Final, ‘A Balanced and Progressive Trade Policy to Harness Globalisation’, 13 September 2017.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2018). ‘Report on Implementation of EU Free Trade Agreement. 1 January 2017–31 December 2017’. Luxembourg: European Union.Google Scholar
European Parliament. (2016). Resolution of 5 July 2016 on Implementation of the 2010 Recommendations of Parliament on Social and Environmental Standards, Human Rights and Corporate Responsibility, P8_TA(2016)0298.Google Scholar
European Parliament. (2018). Resolution of 30 May 2018 on the Annual Report on the Implementation of the Common Commercial Policy, P8_TA (2018) 0230.Google Scholar
European Parliament (INTA). (2018). Draft Report Containing a Motion for a Non-legislative Resolution on the Proposal for a Council Decision on the Conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, 22 November 2018, 2018/0356 M(NLE).Google Scholar
European Trade Union Confederation. (2017). ‘ETUC Submission on the Non-paper of the Commission services on Trade and Sustainable (TSD) Chapters in EU Free Trade Agreements (FTAs)’, 11 October 2017. Available at www.etuc.org.Google Scholar
Harrison, J., ed. (2014). The European Union and South Korea. The Legal Framework for Strengthening Trade, Economic and Political Relations. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hoekman, B. (2016). ‘Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements’. EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2016/29.Google Scholar
Hoekman, B. (2017). ‘Trade and the Post-2015 Development Agenda’. In Helble, Matthias and Shepherd, Ben (eds.), Win-Win. How International Trade Can Meet the Sustainable Development Goals. Asian Development Bank Institute, pp. 32–57.Google Scholar
Howse, R., Langille, J. and Sykes, K. (2015). ‘Pluralism in Practice: Moral Legislation and the Law of the WTO after Seal Products’. George Washington International Law Review 82: 81–150.Google Scholar
Hradilova, K. and Svoboda, O. (2018). ‘Sustainable Development Chapters in the EU Free Trade Agreements: Searching for Effectiveness’. Journal of World Trade 52: 1019–1042.Google Scholar
ILC (International Law Commission). (2006). ‘Conclusions of the Work of the Study Group on the Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law’. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, vol. II, Part Two, p. 178.Google Scholar
Jinnah, S. and Lindsay, A. (2016). ‘Diffusion Through Issue Linkage: Environmental Norms in US Trade Agreements’. Global Environmental Politics 16: 41–61.Google Scholar
Jinnah, S. and Morgera, E. (2013). ‘Environmental Provisions in American and EU Free Trade Agreements: A Preliminary Comparison and Research Agenda’. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 22: 324–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krajewski, M. and Hoffmann, R. T. (2016). ‘Alternative Model for a Sustainable Development Chapter and Related Provisions in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)’. Available at https://reinhardbuetikofer.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Model-SD-Chapter-TTIP-Second-Draft-July_final.pdf.Google Scholar
Kuijper, P. J. (2010). ‘Conflicting Rules and Clashing Courts. The Case of Multilateral Environmental Agreements, Free Trade Agreements and the WTO’. ICTSD Issue Paper No. 10, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Maljean-Dubois, S. (2016). ‘The Paris Agreement: A New Step in the Gradual Evolution of Differential Treatment in the Climate Regime?’ Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 25: 151–160.Google Scholar
Marín Durán, G. and Morgera, E. (2012). Environmental Integration in EU’s External Relations. Beyond Multilateral Dimension. Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Marx, A., Ebert, F, Hachez, N. and Wouters, J. (2017). ‘Dispute Settlement in the Trade and Sustainable Chapters of EU Trade Agreements’. Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, 2017–01.Google Scholar
Moon, Gillian. (2018). ‘A Fundamental Moral Imperative: Social Inclusion, the Sustainable Development Goals and International Trade Law after Brazil-Taxation’. Journal of World Trade 52: 995–1017.Google Scholar
Morin, J. F., Dür, A., Lechner, L. (2018). ‘Mapping the Trade and Environment Nexus: Insights from a New Data Set’. Global Environmental Politics 18: 122–139.Google Scholar
Morin, J. F., and Mytiam, R. (2017). ‘Transatlantic Convergence of Preferential Trade Agreements Environmental Clauses’. Business and Politics 10: 621–658.Google Scholar
Pauwelyn, J. and Alschner, W. (2015). ‘Forget About the WTO: The Network of Relations between Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) and Double PTAs’. In Dür, Andreas and Elsig, Manfred (eds.), Trade Cooperation: The Purpose, Design and Effects of Preferential Trade Agreements. Cambridge University Press, pp. 497–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavoni, R. (2010). ‘Mutual Supportiveness as a Principle of International and Law-Making: A Watershed for the “WTO-and-Competing-Regimes” Debate?’ European Journal of International Law 21: 649–679.Google Scholar
Pavoni, R. (2013). ‘The Nagoya Protocol and WTO Law’. In Morgera, Elisa, Buck, Matthias, and Tsioumani, Elsa, (eds.), The 2010 Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing in Perspective: Implications for International Law and Implementation Challenges. Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 185–216.Google Scholar
Pirker, B. (2017). ‘Implementation of the Aarhus Convention by the EU – An Inconvenient Truth from the Compliance Committee’ European Law Blog, 24 April 2017. Available at https://europeanlawblog.eu/tag/article-9–3-aarhus-convention.Google Scholar
Safrin, S. (2002). ‘Treaties in Collision? The Biosafety Protocol and the World Trade Organization Agreements’. American Journal of International Law 96: 606–628.Google Scholar
Segura Serrano, A. (2016). ‘From External Policy to Free Trade: The EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement’. In Eeckhout, Piet and Lopez-Escudero, Manuel (eds.), The European Union’s External Action in Times of Crisis. Hart Publishing, pp. 483–508.Google Scholar
Stoll, P.-T., Gött, H. and Abel, P. (2018). ‘A Model Labour Chapter or Future EU Trade Agreements’. In Henner, G (ed.), Labour Standards in International Economic Law. Springer, pp. 381–430.Google Scholar
United Nations. (2002). Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development, A/CONF.199/20, 4 September 2002.Google Scholar
United Nations. (2010). UN doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/1, 29 October 2010.Google Scholar
United Nations. (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, A/RES/70/1, 25 September 2015.Google Scholar
Van den Bossche, P. and Zdouc, W. (2018). The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization. Text, Cases and Materials. 4th ed. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van der Loo, G. (2016). The EU-Ukraine Association Agreement and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area. Brill Nijhof.Google Scholar
Vogt, S. J. (2015). ‘The Evolution of Labour Rights and Trade – A Transatlantic Comparison and Lessons for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’. Journal of International Economic Law 18: 827–860.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization. (1996). Singapore Ministerial Declaration, WT/MIN(96)/DEC, 18 December 1996.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization. (2001). Ministerial Declaration, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1, 20 November 2001.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization. (2018). Mainstreaming Trade to Attain the Sustainable Development Goals. Geneva, Switzerland: World Trade Organization.Google Scholar

References

Alfaro, L., Kalemli‐Ozcan, S. and Sayek, S. (2009). ‘FDI, Productivity and Financial Development’. The World Economy 32: 111–135. Available at https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9701.2009.01159.x.Google Scholar
Basedow, R. (2017). The EU in the Global Investment Regime: Commission Entrepreneurship, Incremental Institutional Change and Business Lethargy. UACES Contemporary European Studies. Routledge.Google Scholar
Bauer, M. (2016). ‘Manufacturing Discontent: The Rise to Power of Anti-TTIP Groups’. ECIPE Occasional Papers. Brussels: ECIPE.Google Scholar
Bernasconi-Osterwalder, N. (2013). A Response to the European Commission’s December 2013 Document ‘Investment Provisions in the EU-Canada Free Trade Agreement (CETA)’. Geneva, Switzerland: IISD.Google Scholar
Bernasconi-Osterwalder, N. and Hoffmann, R. T. (2012). ‘The German Nuclear Phase-Out Put to the Test in International Investment Arbitration? Background to the New Dispute Vattenfall v. Germany (II)’. Briefing Note. Geneva, Switzerland: IISD.Google Scholar
Bonnitcha, J., Poulsen, L. and Waibel, M. (2017). The Political Economy of the Investment Treaty Regime. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Busse, M., Königer, J. and Nunnenkamp, P. (2010). ‘FDI Promotion through Bilateral Investment Treaties: More than a Bit?’ Review of World Economics 146: 147–177. Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10290-009–0046-x.Google Scholar
Calamita, J. (2012). ‘The Making of Europe’s International Investment Policy: Uncertain First Steps’. Legal Issues of Economic Integration 39: 301–330.Google Scholar
Campact. (2014). A Corporate System of Injustice. Available at www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSuIGKSm7z0.Google Scholar
Corporate Europe Observatory. (2014). TTIP: Debunking the Business Propaganda over Investor Rights., Brussels: Corporate Europe Observatory.Google Scholar
Demir, F. (2016). ‘Effects of FDI Flows on Institutional Development: Does It Matter Where the Investors Are From?’ World Development 78: 341–359. Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.001.Google Scholar
Demir, F. and Duan, Y. (2018). ‘Bilateral FDI Flows, Productivity Growth, and Convergence: The North vs. The South’. World Development 101: 235–249. Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.08.006” https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.08.006.Google Scholar
Dunning, J. (2008). Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy, 2nd ed. Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Egger, P. and Merlo, V. (2007). ‘The Impact of Bilateral Investment Treaties on FDI Dynamics’. The World Economy 30: 1536–1549.Google Scholar
Eskeland, G. A. and Harrison, A. E. (2002). ‘Moving to Greener Pastures? Multinationals and the Pollution Haven Hypothesis’. Working Paper No. 8888. National Bureau of Economic Research. Available at https://doi.org/10.3386/w8888.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2010). Towards a Comprehensive European International Investment Policy (COM(2010)343). Brussels.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2015a). Better Regulation Guidelines. Brussels. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/better-regulation-guidelines.pdf.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2015b). Online Public Consultation on Investment Protection and Investor to-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP). Brussels. Available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/consultations/index.cfm?consul_id=179.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2016). The Multilateral Investment Court project. Brussels. Available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1608.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2017). Investment Provisions in the EU-Canada Free Trade Agreement (CETA). Available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/november/tradoc_151918.pdf.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2018). Sustainability Impact Assessments. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/policy-making/analysis/policy-evaluation/sustainability-impact-assessments/index_en.htm.Google Scholar
European Court of Justice. (2017). Opinion 2/15. EU:C:2017:376 (May 16, 2017).Google Scholar
European Parliament. (2011). Resolution of 6 April 2011 on the Future European International Investment Policy (No. (201072203(INI))). Brussels.Google Scholar
Garsous, G. and Kozluk, T. (2017). ‘Foreign Direct Investment and the Pollution Haven Hypothesis – Evidence from Listed Firms’. OECD Working Paper.Google Scholar
Gaukrodger, D. (2017). ‘Addressing the Balance of Interests in Investment Treaties – The Limitations of Fair and Equitable Treatment Provisions to the Minimum Standard of Treatment under Customary International Law’. OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2017/03.Google Scholar
Gaukrodger, D. and Gordon, K. (2012). ‘Investor-State Dispute Settlement: A Scoping Paper for the Investment Policy Community’. OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2012/2013.Google Scholar
Hawkins, D., Nielson, D., Tierney, M. and Lake, D., eds. (2006). Delegation and Agency in International Organizations. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Herzer, D. (2012). ‘How Does Foreign Direct Investment Really Affect Developing Countries’ Growth?’ Review of International Economics 20: 396–414. Available at https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9396.2012.01029.x.Google Scholar
Hiscox, M. (2002). International Trade and Political Conflict: Commerce, Coalitions, and Mobility. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
ISDS Platform. (2018). ‘Veolia Loses ISDS Case Against Egypt – After Six Years and Millions in Costs’. Available at https://isds.bilaterals.org/?veolia-loses-isds-case-against.Google Scholar
ISDS Platform. (2019). Arbitration. Challenge to Republic of Argentina v. AWG Group Ltd. Arbitration Award. Available at http://isds.bilaterals.org/?arbitration-challenge-to-republic.Google Scholar
Jadeau, F. and Gélinas, F. (2016). ‘CETA’s Definition of the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard: Toward a Guided and Constrained Interpretation’. Transnational Dispute Management 13: 1–15.Google Scholar
Kleinheisterkamp, J. (2014). ‘Who Is Afraid of Investor-State Arbitration? Or Comparative Law?’ SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2483775. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
Krajewski, M. (2017). The European Commission’s Proposal for Investment Protection in TTIP. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.Google Scholar
Lavranos, N. (2013). ‘In Defence of Member States’ BITs Gold Standard: The Regulation 1219/2012 Establishing a Transitional Regime for Existing Extra-EU BITs – A Member State’s Perspective’. Transnational Dispute Management 10: 1–14.Google Scholar
Lavranos, N. (2014). ‘The Lack of an FET-Standard in CETA’. Montreal. Available at www.mcgill.ca/fortier-chair/files/fortier-chair/2014_ceta_lavranos_nikos.pdf.Google Scholar
Majone, G. (2001). ‘Two Logics of Delegation: Agency and Fiduciary Relations in EU Governance, Agency and Fiduciary Relations in EU Governance’. European Union Politics 2: 103–122. Available at https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116501002001005.Google Scholar
Milner, H. (1999). ‘The Political Economy of International Trade’. Annual Review of Political Science 2: 91–114.Google Scholar
Monbiot, G. (2013). ‘This Transatlantic Trade Deal Is a Full-Front Assault on Democracy’. The Guardian, 4 November 2013.Google Scholar
Navaretti, G. B. and Venables, A. (2004). Multinational Firms in the World Economy. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Neumayer, E. and Spess, L. (2005). ‘Do Bilateral Investment Treaties Increase Foreign Direct Investment to Developing Countries?’ World Development 33: 1567–1585.Google Scholar
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2004). Indirect Expropriation and the Right to Regulate in International Investment Law. Working Papers on International Investment 2004/4.Google Scholar
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2018). FDI Positions by Country. Available at https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=FDI_FLOW_INDUSTRY#.Google Scholar
Pelc, K. J. (2017). ‘What Explains the Low Success Rate of Investor-State Disputes?’ International Organization 71: 559–583.Google Scholar
Pollack, M. A. (2003). The Engines of European Integration: Delegation, Agency, and Agenda Setting in the EU. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poulsen, L., Bonnitcha, J. and Yackee, J. W. (2015). ‘Transatlantic Investment Treaty Protection’, CEPS Special Report. CEPS, Brussels.Google Scholar
Poulsen, L. N. S. and Aisbett, E., (2013). ‘When the Claim Hits: Bilateral Investment Treaties and Bounded Rational Learning’. World Politics 65: 273–313. Available at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887113000063.Google Scholar
Raess, D. and Sari, D. (2018). ‘Labor Provisions in Trade Agreements (LABPTA): Introducing a New Dataset’, Global Policy 9: 451–466. Available at https://doi.org/10.1111/1758–5899.12577.Google Scholar
Reinisch, A. (2016). ‘Will the EU’s Proposal Concerning an Investment Court System for CETA and TTIP Lead to Enforceable Awards? The Limits of Modifying the ICSID Convention and the Nature of Investment Arbitration’, Journal of International Economic Law 19: 761–786. Available at https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgw072.Google Scholar
Rogowski, R. (1989). Commerce and Coalitions: How Trade Affects Domestic Political Alignments. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Seidl-Hohenveldern, I. (1977). Verischerung nichtkommerzieller Risiken und die Europäische Gemeinschaft, Kölner Studien zur Rechtsvereinheitlichung, Band 1. Carl Heymanns Verlag KG.Google Scholar
Shepsle, K. (2008). ‘Rational Choice Institutionalism’. In Rhodes, R. A. W, Binder, S and Rockman, B, (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. Oxford University Press, pp. 23–38.Google Scholar
Spiegel Online. (2015). ‘Massendemo gegen TTIP – So viele kamen noch nie’. Available at www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/ttip-demonstration-in-berlin-stellt-teilnehmerrekord-auf-a-1057187.html.Google Scholar
Titi, C. (2014). The Right to Regulate in International Investment Law. Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Titi, C. (2015). ‘International Investment Law and the European Union: Towards a New Generation of International Investment Agreements’, European Journal of International Law 26: 639–661. Available at https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chv040.Google Scholar
UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). (2018). ‘Investment Policy Hub’. Available at http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA.Google Scholar
UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). (2017). World Investment Report 2017 – Investment and the Digital Economy. Geneva, Switzerland: UNCTAD.Google Scholar
United Nations. (2018a). ‘Sustainable Development Goals’. Available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300.Google Scholar
United Nations. (2018b). World Economic Situation and Prospect 2018. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
Van den Putte, L., De VIlle, F. and Orbie, J. (2015). ‘The European Parliament as an International Actor in Trade’. In Stavrids, S and Irrera, D (eds.), The European Parliament and Its International Relations. Routledge, pp. 52–69.Google Scholar
Van Harten, G. (2005). ‘Private Authority and Transnational Governance: The Contours of the International System of Investor Protection’. Review of International Political Economy 12: 600–623.Google Scholar
Weingast, B. (2002). ‘Rational-Choice Institutionalism’. In Katznelson, I and Milner, H, (eds.), Political Science: State of the Discipline. W.W. Norton & Company, pp. 660–692.Google Scholar
Woolcock, S. (2010). ‘The Treaty of Lisbon and the European Union as an Actor in international Trade’. ECIPE Working Paper 1/2010.Google Scholar

References

Ahn, D. (1997). ‘Environmental Disputes in the GATT/WTO: Before and After US–Shrimp case’. Michigan Journal of International Law 20: 819–870.Google Scholar
Bacchus, J. (2018). The Willing World: Shaping and Sharing a Sustainable Global Prosperity. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bellmann, C. and Tipping, A. (2015). ‘The Role of Trade and Trade Policy in Advancing the 2030 Development Agenda’. International Development Policy 6. Available at http://journals.openedition.org/poldev/2149.Google Scholar
Birnie, P., Boyle, A. and Redgwell, C., eds. (2009). International Law and the Environment. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Centre for Climate and Energy Solutions. (2018). ‘Outcomes of the UN Climate Change Conference in Katowice’. Available at www.c2es.org/site/assets/uploads/2018/12/cop-24-katowice-summary.pdf.Google Scholar
Cordonier Segger, M.-C., Gehring, M. and Newcombe, A., eds. (2010). Sustainable Development in World Investment Law. Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Cordonier Segger, M.-C. and Khalfan, A. (2004). Sustainable Development Law: Principles, Practices and Prospects. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cordonier Segger, M.-C. and Weeramantry, C. G., eds. (2017). Sustainable Development Principles in the Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals. Routledge.Google Scholar
Crowley, M. A. and Howse, R. (2014). ‘Tuna – Dolphin II: A Legal and Economic Analysis of the Appellate Body Report’. World Trade Review 13: 321–356.Google Scholar
Dupuy, P.-M. and Viñuales, J. E., eds. (2015). International Environmental Law. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dür, A. and Elsig, M., eds. (2015). Trade Cooperation: The Purpose, Design and Effects of Preferential Trade Agreements. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Espa, I. (2015). Export Restrictions on Critical Minerals and Metals: Testing the Adequacy of WTO Disciplines. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Espa, I. (2016). ‘New Raw Materials Dispute Revives Trade Tensions Between China and the US/EU’. International Economic Law and Policy Blog. Available at http://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/2016/09/guest-post-new-raw-materials-dispute-revives-trade-tensions-between-china-and-the-useu.html.Google Scholar
Espa, I. (2017). ‘Natural Resource Management and Sustainable Development in the WTO Legal System: Implications for the Investment Regime’. In Shawkat, A, Hossain, B. J. and Razzaque, J (eds.), International Natural Resources Law, Investment and Sustainability. Routledge, pp. 86–107.Google Scholar
Espa, I. and Marín Durán, G., eds. (2018). ‘Renewable Energy Subsidies and WTO Law: Time to Rethink the Case for Reform Beyond Canada – Renewable Energy/FIT Program’. Journal of International Economic Law 21: 621–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Communities. (2013). Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products (DS400, DS401: European Union’s Responses to the First Set of Questions from the Panel, Geneva, Switzerland, 13 March 2013). Available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/july/tradoc_151660.pdf.Google Scholar
Gehring, M. and Cordonier Segger, M.-C., eds. (2005). Sustainable Development in World Trade Law. Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Gehring, M. and Genest, A. (2017). ‘Disputes on Sustainable Development in the WTO Regime: 1992–2012’. In Segger, Marie-Claire Cordonier and Weeramantry, H. E. Judge C. G. (eds.), Sustainable Development Principles. Oxford University Press, pp. 357–383.Google Scholar
Hoekman, B. (2017). ‘Trade and the Post-2015 Development Agenda’. In Matthias, Helble and Shepherd, Ben (eds.), Win-Win: How International Trade Can Help Meet the Sustainable Development Goals. Asian Development Bank Institute, pp. 32–60.Google Scholar
Howse, R. and Levy, Ph. I. (2013). ‘The TBT Panels: US – Cloves, US – Tuna and US – Cool’. World Trade Review 12: 327–376.Google Scholar
Howse, R. and Regan, D. (2000). ‘The Product/Process Distinction – An Illusory Basis for Disciplining “Unilateralism” in Trade Policy’. Journal of International Economic Law 11: 249–290.Google Scholar
ILA (International Law Association). (2002). ‘New Delhi Declaration of Principles of International Law Relating to Sustainable Development’, 2 April 2002. Available at http://cisdl.org/tribunals/pdf/NewDelhiDeclaration.pdf.Google Scholar
ILA (International Law Association). (2012). ‘Sofia Guiding Statements on the Judicial Elaboration of the 2002 New Delhi Declaration of Principles of International Law Relating to Sustainable Development’. ILA Resolution No. 7/2012.Google Scholar
ILA (International Law Association). (2018). ‘Second Report of the Committee on the Role of International Law in Sustainable Natural Resource Management for Development (2016–2018)’. Final Draft, Sidney Conference. Available at www.ila-hq.org/images/ILA/DraftReports/DraftReport_SustainableNaturalResources.pdf.Google Scholar
Kein, D., Carazo, M. P., Doelle, M., Bulmer, J. and Higham, A., eds. (2017). The Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Messerlin, P. (2017). ‘From MDGs to SDGs: The Role of Trade’. In Matthias, Helble and Shepherd, Ben (eds.), Win-Win: How International Trade Can Help Meet the Sustainable Development Goals. Asian Development Bank Institute, pp. 9–31.Google Scholar
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2008). Glossary of Statistical Terms. Available at www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/3008121e.pdf.Google Scholar
Paul, D. (2018). ‘SDG12 Review at HLPF Calls for Circular Economies, Sustainable Lifestyles’, 13 July 2018. Available at http://sdg.iisd.org/news/sdg-12-review-at-hlpf-calls-for-circular-economies-sustainable-lifestyles/.Google Scholar
Pauwelyn, J. (2012). ‘Tuna: The End of the PPM Distinction? The Rise of International Standards?’ Guest Post, International Economic Law and Policy Blog. Available at http://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/2012/05/tuna-the-end-of-the-ppm-distinction-the-rise-of-international-standards.html.Google Scholar
Pauwelyn, J. and Alschner, W. (2015). ‘Forget About the WTO: The Network of Relations between Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) and Double PTAs’. In Dür, Andreas and Elsig, Manfred (eds.), Trade Cooperation: The Purpose, Design and Effects of Preferential Trade Agreements. Cambridge University Press, pp. 497–532.Google Scholar
Schrijver, N. (2008). The Evolution of Sustainable Development in International Law: Inception, Meaning and Status. Brill Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Schrijver, Nico (2008). Sovereignty Over Natural Resources: Balancing Rights and Duties. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schrijver, N. and Weiss, F., eds. (2004). International Law and Sustainable Development: Principles and Practice. Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Sell, M. (2012). ‘Cutting to the Core: Using Trade Tools for Sustainable Natural Resources Management’. Biores 6. Available at www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/cutting-to-the-core-using-trade-tools-for-sustainable-natural-resources.Google Scholar
United Nations. (2002). Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development. UN Doc. A/CONF.199/20, 4 September 2002.Google Scholar
United Nations. (2012). Report of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 20–22 June 2012. UN Doc. A/CONF.216/16.Google Scholar
United Nations. (2013), UN Environment, ‘The 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production’. Available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/944brochure10yfp.pdf.Google Scholar
United Nations. (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 25 September 2015, UN Doc. A/RES/70/1.Google Scholar
United Nations. (2017). General Assembly (GA) Resolution, A/RES/71/313, Annex ‘Global Indicator Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and Targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, 10 July 2017. Available at http://ggim.un.org/documents/A_RES_71_313.pdf, p. 17.Google Scholar
United States (2019). Meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, Geneva, Switzerland, 11 January 2019. Available at https://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/files/usa.pdf.Google Scholar
den Bossche, Van, P. and Zdouc, W (2017). The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
WTO (World Trade Organization). (2010). World Trade Report 2010: Trade in Natural Resources.Google Scholar
WTO (World Trade Organization). (2017). Doc. WT/DS381/45, 6 December 2017.Google Scholar
WTO (World Trade Organization). (2018a). Docs. WT/DS381/AB/RW/USA, WT/DS381/AB/RW2, 14 December 2018.Google Scholar
WTO (World Trade Organization). (2018b). Doc. WT/CTE/25, Report (2018) of the Committee on Trade and Environment, 10 December 2018.Google Scholar
WTO (World Trade Organization). (2018c). ‘Mainstreaming Trade to Attain the Sustainable Development Goals’. Available at www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/sdg_e.htm.Google Scholar
World Economic Forum. (2019). The Global Risks Report 2019, 14th ed.Google Scholar
Yanovich, Alan (2011). ‘WTO Rules and the Energy Sector’. In Selivanova, Yulia(ed.), Regulation of Energy in International Trade Law. Kluwer Law International, pp. 1–47.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×