The Experts below are selected from a list of 39531 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Carolyn Fischer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • comparing policies to combat emissions leakage border carbon adjustments versus rebates
    Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2012
    Co-Authors: Carolyn Fischer
    Abstract:

    We explore conditions determining which anti-leakage policies might be more effective complements to domestic greenhouse gas emissions regulation. We consider four policies that could be combined with unilateral emissions pricing to counter effects on International competitiveness: a border charge on imports, a border rebate for exports, full border adjustment, and domestic output-based rebating. Each option faces different potential legal hurdles in International Trade Law; each also has different economic impacts. While all can support competitiveness, none is necessarily effective at reducing global emissions. Nor is it possible to rank order the options; effectiveness depends on the relative emissions rates, elasticities of substitution, and consumption volumes. We illustrate these results with simulations for the energy-intensive sectors of three different economies, the United States, Canada and Europe. Although most controversial, full border adjustment is usually most effective, but output-based rebating for key manufacturing sectors can achieve many of the gains.

  • comparing policies to combat emissions leakage border carbon adjustments versus rebates
    Social Science Research Network, 2011
    Co-Authors: Carolyn Fischer, Alan K Fox
    Abstract:

    We explore conditions determining which anti-leakage policies might be more effective complements to regulation of domestic greenhouse gas emissions. We consider four policies that could be combined with unilateral emissions pricing to counter effects on International competitiveness: a border charge on imports, a border rebate for exports, full border adjustment, and domestic output-based rebating. Each option faces different potential legal hurdles in International Trade Law; each also has different economic impacts. While all can support competitiveness, none is necessarily effective at reducing global emissions. Nor is it possible to rank the options; effectiveness depends on the relative emissions rates, elasticities of substitution, and consumption volumes. We illustrate these results with simulations for the energy-intensive sectors of three different economies- the United States, Canada, and Europe. Although most controversial, full border adjustment is usually most effective, but output-based rebating for key manufacturing sectors can achieve many of the gains.

Alice Pirlot - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • don t blame it on wto Law an analysis of the alleged wto Law incompatibility of destination based taxes
    Florida Tax Review, 2020
    Co-Authors: Alice Pirlot
    Abstract:

    The idea that corporations should be taxed in the jurisdiction where they make their sales or provide their services is getting more and more attention in the policy debate on International taxation. In 2016, U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan proposed to introduce a destination-based cash flow tax (DBCFT) in order to reform the United States’ corporate income tax (CIT). Moreover, in the last few years, more and more countries have considered the adoption of new rules to tax the digital economy in the country where the users and/or the consumers are located. These proposals differ from traditional direct taxes imposed on corporations. They borrow from the tax design of indirect taxes, such as sales taxes or value added taxes. Consequently, it is difficult to predict whether these sui generis destination-based taxes will fit in with superior legal provisions, in particular International tax and Trade Law. One recurring legal argument against destination-based taxes is that they are likely to violate the Law of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Using the DBCFT as a case study, this Article will assess the different conflicts that could arise between new types of destination-based taxes and International Trade Law. Based on a critical approach informed by the analysis of the history and case Law surrounding destination-based taxes, this Article concludes that the likelihood that a DBCFT would be found incompatible with International Trade Law is much lower than past legal scholars have concluded. WTO Law does not in itself prevent countries from adopting such taxes. Since this conclusion could be extended by analogy to other, new types of destination-based taxes, this Article could have important implications for policymakers who are willing to move towards taxation in the country of destination.

  • don t blame it on wto Law an analysis of the alleged wto Law incompatibility of destination based taxes
    Social Science Research Network, 2019
    Co-Authors: Alice Pirlot
    Abstract:

    The idea that corporations should be taxed in the jurisdiction where they make their sales or provide their services is getting more and more attention in the policy debate on International taxation. In 2016, U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan proposed to introduce a destination-based cash flow tax (DBCFT) in order to reform America’s corporate income tax (CIT). Moreover, in the last few years, more and more countries have considered the adoption of new rules to tax the digital economy in the country where the users and/or the consumers are located. These proposals differ from traditional direct taxes imposed on corporations. They borrow from the tax design of indirect taxes, such as sales taxes or value added taxes. Consequently, it is difficult to predict whether these sui generis destination-based taxes will fit in with superior legal provisions, in particular International tax and Trade Law. One recurring legal argument against destination-based taxes is that they are likely to violate the Law of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Using the DBCFT as a case study, this Article will assess the different conflicts that could arise between new types of destination-based taxes and International Trade Law. Based on a critical approach informed by the analysis of the history and case-Law surrounding destination-based taxes, this Article concludes that the likelihood for a DBCFT to be found incompatible with International Trade Law is much lower than past legal scholars have concluded. WTO Law does not in itself prevent countries from adopting such taxes. Since this conclusion could be extended by analogy to other, new types of destination-based taxes, this Article could have important implications for policy-makers who are willing to move towards taxation in the country of destination.

  • environmental border tax adjustments and International Trade Law fostering environmental protection
    2017
    Co-Authors: Alice Pirlot
    Abstract:

    This timely book brings clarity to the debate on the new legal phenomenon of environmental border tax adjustments. It will help form a better understanding of the role and limits these taxes have on environmental policies in combating global environmental challenges, such as climate change. The book is structured around three main topics: the rationale, the tax design and the legal framework of environmental border tax adjustments. This three-fold analysis gives an overview of the legal issues that should be considered before the adoption of environmental border taxes, including carbon tax adjustments. Alice Pirlot’s critical approach to the arguments surrounding traditional and environmental border tax adjustments allows for detailed legal analysis going beyond the question of their compatibility with WTO Law, while also reviewing the economic argument. This book will prove to be essential reading for legal scholars and professionals alike, as well as benefitting environmental NGOs, stakeholders in energy-intensive industries and policymakers looking for in-depth insight into environmental border tax adjustments.

Alan K Fox - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • comparing policies to combat emissions leakage border carbon adjustments versus rebates
    Social Science Research Network, 2011
    Co-Authors: Carolyn Fischer, Alan K Fox
    Abstract:

    We explore conditions determining which anti-leakage policies might be more effective complements to regulation of domestic greenhouse gas emissions. We consider four policies that could be combined with unilateral emissions pricing to counter effects on International competitiveness: a border charge on imports, a border rebate for exports, full border adjustment, and domestic output-based rebating. Each option faces different potential legal hurdles in International Trade Law; each also has different economic impacts. While all can support competitiveness, none is necessarily effective at reducing global emissions. Nor is it possible to rank the options; effectiveness depends on the relative emissions rates, elasticities of substitution, and consumption volumes. We illustrate these results with simulations for the energy-intensive sectors of three different economies- the United States, Canada, and Europe. Although most controversial, full border adjustment is usually most effective, but output-based rebating for key manufacturing sectors can achieve many of the gains.

Manoj Mate - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • the wto and development policy space in india
    Social Science Research Network, 2019
    Co-Authors: Manoj Mate
    Abstract:

    International Trade Law scholarship has offered different approaches for assessing how International Trade Law impacts domestic policy space for developing nations. However, much of this scholarship has failed to address the realities of how domestic policy implementation affects development policy space. This article argues for a policy implementation-based approach to assessing development policy space by analyzing India’s response to two recent WTO disputes: India-Solar Cells (2013), and India-Export Related Measures (2018). In the India-Solar Cells dispute, the U.S. challenged India’s inclusion of local content requirements in its National Solar Mission program. In India-Export Related Measures, the U.S. challenged India’s export subsidies programs, including its Special Economic Zones (SEZs) policy. The WTO Appellate Body found that India’s local content requirements in India-Solar Cells violated International Trade Law norms, while the WTO panel in India-Export Measures will adjudicate on the request for consultations in India-Export Related Measures in 2019. In examining how domestic policy implementation impact policy space, this article fills an important gap in the existing literature, which has paid insufficient attention to the domestic policy context of industrial policy in the context of International Trade disputes. I argue that key dimensions of industrial policy regimes shape how nations respond to WTO decisions by implementing alternate WTO-compliant policies: the policy goals, Tradeoffs and viability of policy alternatives; the nature and size of industrial sectors; and the existence of broader policy transitions. The article analyzes aspects of policy regimes governing India’s solar industrial policy and Special Economic Zones policy, and explores the nature of policy implementation and adaption in response to WTO adjudication in order to fully assess policy space in these sectors. The article concludes by suggesting the need to look beyond International Law norms and WTO dispute resolution to the realities of the domestic policy landscape in order to provide a more complete account of how International Trade Law impacts development policy space.

Peter L Fitzgerald - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • morality may not be enough to justify the eu seal products ban animal welfare meets International Trade Law
    Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 2011
    Co-Authors: Peter L Fitzgerald
    Abstract:

    Under recent European Union regulations that were promulgated with overwhelming popular support, 2 seal products may neither be placed on the European market internally nor imported into the EU. 3 ...

  • morality may not be enough to justify the eu seal products ban animal welfare meets International Trade Law
    Social Science Research Network, 2011
    Co-Authors: Peter L Fitzgerald
    Abstract:

    Under recent European Union regulations promulgated with overwhelming popular support, seal products may neither be placed on the European market internally nor imported into the EU. As a result Canada, Norway, and Iceland – all states that deal in seal products – filed complaints with the World Trade Organization, contending that the EU’s actions were contrary to its commitments to free Trade under International Trade agreements. Many animal advocates hope this will be the first case to establish that the General Exception found in Article XX(a) of the General Agreement for Tariffs and Trade (GATT), for measures that are “necessary to protect public morals,” can be used to justify animal welfare Laws that otherwise adversely affect Trade. Unfortunately, this hope may be misplaced, not because such measures don’t fit within Article XX(a), but rather because of the specific manner in which the EU chose to implement its regulatory ban. The regulations implementing the EU seal products ban include exclusions and exceptions that fail to distinguish between humane and inhumane practices, and which nevertheless permit some seal products to be placed on the market in the EU, or – perhaps even more significantly – to transit the EU to other markets thereby protecting the business of European brokers and forwarders. While much of the commentary to-date has focused on the regulatory exception for traditional seal hunts conducted by Inuits and other indigenous peoples, it is these other additional exceptions and exclusions that were added to the European Commission’s initial proposal during the political approval process that may well prove to be more problematic in any decision by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body. Ironically, the initial scheme not only better served animal welfare interests but, given the DSB’s emphasis upon a narrow textual interpretation of the WTO agreements, the tighter initial scheme would also have been more likely meet the requirements of Article XX.While animal welfare polices, in appropriate cases, certainly should fit under Article XX(a) General Exception for measures “necessary to protect public morals,” the details of this particular regulatory scheme do not comport with either the “necessity” requirement of the exception, or the requirement to avoid “arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination” imposed by the chapeau. It may be that the best that can be expected is a decision similar to what occurred with the US environmental measures at issue in Shrimp-Turtle II, that is, a pronouncement that the “public morals” exception might well be useful in an animal welfare context, but that such measures must also respect the rights of exporting States under the WTO Agreements in a manner which this particular regulatory scheme fails to do. The EU will then need to decide whether to essentially ignore the WTO decision, and bear the costs of compensation or retaliation, or – in a manner similar to what ultimately occurred in Shrimp-Turtle or the Australia-Salmon cases, remedy the deficiencies in the current scheme and more fully embrace the animal welfare objective and abandon the various exceptions and gaps in coverage found in the current regulations.