“碳关税”法律制度研究
|
摘要
面对日益严峻的气候变化问题,各国希望哥本哈根气候变化大会能够制定一个含有约束性承诺的多边协定,来确定2012年以后温室气体减排的框架。但本次大会并未达到全球各国预期成果,仅达成一个没有约束力的《哥本哈根协议》。然而,本次大会召开之前,许多国家已在起草其本国的气候立法,表达各自在应对气候变化上的立场。以美国和法国为代表的部分发达国家表示,若无法达成新的气候变化框架,将会采取单边的贸易措施来保护本国产业的国际竞争力并预防“碳泄漏”。这些贸易措施被笼统称为“碳关税”,被认为是一种贸易保护主义的表现。那么,大会并没有达成一致的气候变化协议,这两个国家是否会采取“碳关税”?需要拭目以待。但笔者认为,目前有必要对这些国家准备采取的措施进行研究,做好前期准备,从而能够从容应对。
通过比较分析与案例分析的方法,笔者本文共分四章对“碳关税”法律问题进行了分析。
第一章是对碳关税的背景介绍,引出本文的写作背景,即是在哥本哈根气候变化大会召开之际,美国、法国为了给发展中大国施加压力,纷纷提出各自的“碳关税”措施,意图使中印等主要发展中国家在本轮谈判中承担强制性的减排责任。据此,笔者对《联合国气候变化边框公约》制定以来,气候变化的几次主要谈判进行了回顾,并介绍了此次哥本哈根气候变化大会的成果。总结认为,在气候变化问题上,发达国家与发展中国家在减排责任、资金支持、技术转让等方面一直以来就存在很大分歧,这是各国政治和经济利益博弈的结果。
第二章首先对碳关税的本质进行了剖析,其实质是一种基于碳的边境调节措施,分为进口和出口两个环节,不是传统意义上的关税。目前被热议的主要是两种措施,分别是边境调节税和国际储备配额项目。边境调节税主要指在边境对进口的碳密集型产品征收一种调节税;对本国出口的碳密集型产品进行免税或退税。国际储备配额项目是要求进口商根据进口产品中含有的二氧化碳量,要求其购买排放配额(emission allowances )。
第三章笔者着手对上述两种基于碳的边境调节措施是否与WTO规则一致的分析。笔者对进口环节、出口环节的边境调节措施,结合WTO的相关案例,从关税减让、国民待遇原则、最惠国待遇原则、《补贴与反补贴条例》、GATT第20条等方面进行了分析。总结认为,在WTO框架下,对进口产品是可以征收一定的税费的,但由于碳密集型产品在相似性的判断上比较复杂,大多数提案对二氧化碳足迹的判断上都采取国内国外两套标准,因此有违国民待遇和最惠国待遇原则之嫌。在出口环节上,需要确定一国的税收体系,究竟是增值税税收体系还是周转税税收体系。通过分析GATT第20条,笔者认为,这不能成为碳关税的完全保护伞,必须证明其实施方式没有造成不合理的歧视或变相限制了国际贸易,否则将违反了WTO规则。因此,碳关税在WTO框架下,没有完全合理的依据。
美国、法国提议碳关税的目的,意在针对中国的减排。而事实上,中国政府在应对气候变化,减少温室气体排放上,已经做出积极努力。第四章,笔者在介绍中国取得的减排成果基础上,进一步分析了目前来自国内和国际层面的挑战。笔者建议,我国在节能减排上应继续调整经济结构,大力节约能源、提高能源利用效率、优化能源结构,可以适时征收碳税;同时积极参与国际谈判,坚持“共同但有区别的责任”原则,坚守不附加任何条件的自主减排,切实维护中国发展权;对于有贸易保护主义之嫌的边境措施,积极利用WTO规则来维护自身合法权益。
Climate change is one of the greatest challenges facing the international community. All countries wish to reach a bonding multilateral agreement on the post-2012 greenhouse gas emissions during the Copenhagen Conference. However, the Conference failed to reach such an agreement, only with a non-bonding Copenhagen Protocol. And before the Conference, many countries have drafted their own climate laws, expressing their principles on climate change. The United States and France have showed that if the new climate change framework could not be concluded, they would adopt unilateral trade measures to protect the international competition of their industries and prevent carbon leakage. The two are both seen as“carbon tariff”in the international community and was thought as a kind of protectionism. Therefore, will the two countries adopt their carbon tariff measures for the failure of the protocol? The author thinks that it is necessary to analyze these measures.
The author analyzes“carbon tariff”legal system using approaches of comparison and case analysis, dividing the dissertation into the four chapters.
Chapter 1 is the background of carbon tariff. It is the purpose of both the United States and France, attempting to stress China and India to burden mandatory responsibilities of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the Copenhagen Conference. Then the author reviews the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its successive negotiations, and concludes that there are significant differences on the responsibilities of cutting emission, capital support and technology transfer between developed countries and developing countries.
Chapter 2 is the analysis of“carbon tariff”, in the author’s opinion, it is essentially a kind of carbon-based border adjustment measures, including the aspects of imports and exports. The hot measures discussed now are border tax adjustment and international reserve allowance, which both impose charges on imports so that to equalize the charges paid by domestic producers for their CO2 emissions.
Chapter 3 is the analysis of carbon-based border adjustment measures consistence with WTO rules. From the imports and exports aspects, combined with WTO cases, the author does the research on Tariff Concessions, the principle of National Treatment and MFN principle, "Subsidies and Countervailing Regulations", GATT Article 20. And the conclusion is that, within WTO framework, charges levied on imports are allowed, but due to the specificity of carbon-intensive products, the determination of likeness is complex. Many proposals employ two different standards towards the domestic and import products, so it is possible to violate the principle of National Treatment and MFN principle. As to the export process, the country’s tax system is the key. After analyzing GATT Article20, the author insists that, this article could not be used as an umbrella of carbon tariff, it has to prove that its modalities of implementation does not result in unjustified discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade.
In Chapter 4, the author first introduces China’s endeavor on mitigating climate change, and then analyzes the circumstances around China, lastly provides several suggestions on CO2 emissions reduction. The author suggests that China should insist on its own emission reduction targets and perform them independently. If there is trade protectionism towards China, China should apply WTO rules to protect the legitimate rights and interests.
通过比较分析与案例分析的方法,笔者本文共分四章对“碳关税”法律问题进行了分析。
第一章是对碳关税的背景介绍,引出本文的写作背景,即是在哥本哈根气候变化大会召开之际,美国、法国为了给发展中大国施加压力,纷纷提出各自的“碳关税”措施,意图使中印等主要发展中国家在本轮谈判中承担强制性的减排责任。据此,笔者对《联合国气候变化边框公约》制定以来,气候变化的几次主要谈判进行了回顾,并介绍了此次哥本哈根气候变化大会的成果。总结认为,在气候变化问题上,发达国家与发展中国家在减排责任、资金支持、技术转让等方面一直以来就存在很大分歧,这是各国政治和经济利益博弈的结果。
第二章首先对碳关税的本质进行了剖析,其实质是一种基于碳的边境调节措施,分为进口和出口两个环节,不是传统意义上的关税。目前被热议的主要是两种措施,分别是边境调节税和国际储备配额项目。边境调节税主要指在边境对进口的碳密集型产品征收一种调节税;对本国出口的碳密集型产品进行免税或退税。国际储备配额项目是要求进口商根据进口产品中含有的二氧化碳量,要求其购买排放配额(emission allowances )。
第三章笔者着手对上述两种基于碳的边境调节措施是否与WTO规则一致的分析。笔者对进口环节、出口环节的边境调节措施,结合WTO的相关案例,从关税减让、国民待遇原则、最惠国待遇原则、《补贴与反补贴条例》、GATT第20条等方面进行了分析。总结认为,在WTO框架下,对进口产品是可以征收一定的税费的,但由于碳密集型产品在相似性的判断上比较复杂,大多数提案对二氧化碳足迹的判断上都采取国内国外两套标准,因此有违国民待遇和最惠国待遇原则之嫌。在出口环节上,需要确定一国的税收体系,究竟是增值税税收体系还是周转税税收体系。通过分析GATT第20条,笔者认为,这不能成为碳关税的完全保护伞,必须证明其实施方式没有造成不合理的歧视或变相限制了国际贸易,否则将违反了WTO规则。因此,碳关税在WTO框架下,没有完全合理的依据。
美国、法国提议碳关税的目的,意在针对中国的减排。而事实上,中国政府在应对气候变化,减少温室气体排放上,已经做出积极努力。第四章,笔者在介绍中国取得的减排成果基础上,进一步分析了目前来自国内和国际层面的挑战。笔者建议,我国在节能减排上应继续调整经济结构,大力节约能源、提高能源利用效率、优化能源结构,可以适时征收碳税;同时积极参与国际谈判,坚持“共同但有区别的责任”原则,坚守不附加任何条件的自主减排,切实维护中国发展权;对于有贸易保护主义之嫌的边境措施,积极利用WTO规则来维护自身合法权益。
Climate change is one of the greatest challenges facing the international community. All countries wish to reach a bonding multilateral agreement on the post-2012 greenhouse gas emissions during the Copenhagen Conference. However, the Conference failed to reach such an agreement, only with a non-bonding Copenhagen Protocol. And before the Conference, many countries have drafted their own climate laws, expressing their principles on climate change. The United States and France have showed that if the new climate change framework could not be concluded, they would adopt unilateral trade measures to protect the international competition of their industries and prevent carbon leakage. The two are both seen as“carbon tariff”in the international community and was thought as a kind of protectionism. Therefore, will the two countries adopt their carbon tariff measures for the failure of the protocol? The author thinks that it is necessary to analyze these measures.
The author analyzes“carbon tariff”legal system using approaches of comparison and case analysis, dividing the dissertation into the four chapters.
Chapter 1 is the background of carbon tariff. It is the purpose of both the United States and France, attempting to stress China and India to burden mandatory responsibilities of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the Copenhagen Conference. Then the author reviews the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its successive negotiations, and concludes that there are significant differences on the responsibilities of cutting emission, capital support and technology transfer between developed countries and developing countries.
Chapter 2 is the analysis of“carbon tariff”, in the author’s opinion, it is essentially a kind of carbon-based border adjustment measures, including the aspects of imports and exports. The hot measures discussed now are border tax adjustment and international reserve allowance, which both impose charges on imports so that to equalize the charges paid by domestic producers for their CO2 emissions.
Chapter 3 is the analysis of carbon-based border adjustment measures consistence with WTO rules. From the imports and exports aspects, combined with WTO cases, the author does the research on Tariff Concessions, the principle of National Treatment and MFN principle, "Subsidies and Countervailing Regulations", GATT Article 20. And the conclusion is that, within WTO framework, charges levied on imports are allowed, but due to the specificity of carbon-intensive products, the determination of likeness is complex. Many proposals employ two different standards towards the domestic and import products, so it is possible to violate the principle of National Treatment and MFN principle. As to the export process, the country’s tax system is the key. After analyzing GATT Article20, the author insists that, this article could not be used as an umbrella of carbon tariff, it has to prove that its modalities of implementation does not result in unjustified discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade.
In Chapter 4, the author first introduces China’s endeavor on mitigating climate change, and then analyzes the circumstances around China, lastly provides several suggestions on CO2 emissions reduction. The author suggests that China should insist on its own emission reduction targets and perform them independently. If there is trade protectionism towards China, China should apply WTO rules to protect the legitimate rights and interests.
引文
24程路连著:《WTO与多边环境协议》,中国环境科学出版社,第60页。
94《世界贸易组织乌拉圭回合多边贸易谈判结果法律文本》(下),对外贸易经济合作部国际经贸关系司译,法律出版社,第424页
109 See e.g. Pauwelyn (2007), at pp.33-41; Voigt (008), pp. 61-65; Cendra (2006), pp. 143-145
110同注释94,第455页。
111 Appellate Body, US-Gasoline, p.22
112 See e.g. Meyer-Ohlendof and Gerstetter(2009), p.36. Pauwelyn(2007), p.35
113 Appellate Body, Brazil-Retreaded Tyres, para.178
123参见《中国应对气候变化的政策与行动——2009年度报告》,第4-20页
124下载自中国气候变化信息网http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/WebSite/CCChina/UpFile/File572.pdf
125下载自中华人民共和国中央人民政府官方网站http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2008-03/19/content_923925.htm
126参见《中国应对气候变化的政策与行动——2009年度报告》,第5页。
127同注释126,第5页。
128同注释126,第5页。
129同注释126,第8-11页。
130参见《中国应对气候变化的政策与行动——2009年度报告》,第14页。
131同注释130,第18页。
143莫神星:《节能减排机制法律政策研究》,中国时代经济出版社,第165页。
144同注释137,第87-88页。
1.程路连著:《WTO与多边环境协议》,中国环境科学出版社,2005年版
2.夏光、冯东方、吴玉萍著:《加入WTO与国内环境政策调整》,中国环境科学出版社,2005年版
3.叶荣泗、吴钟瑚主编:《中国能源法律体系研究》,中国电力出版社,2006年版
4.贾鹤鹏:《政经视野中的节能减排挑战》,载于《中国透视》(2008),中国环境科学出版社,2009年版
5.莫神星著:《节能减排机制法律政策研究》,中国时代经济出版社,2008年版
6.岑维廉、钟昌元、王华编著:《关税理论与中国关税制度》,世界出版集团,上海人民出版社,2006年版
7.张守文著:《税法原理》(第三版),北京大学出版社,2004年第三版
8.杨万东:《碳政治与国际经济结构调整》,于2010年2月28日在由中国政法大学商学院世界经济专家组与世界经济法研究所主办的“碳经济与碳政治研讨会”上所做的报告
9.《世界贸易组织乌拉圭回合多边贸易谈判结果法律文本》,对外贸易经济合作部国际经贸关系司译,法律出版社,2000年版
1.《联合国气候变化框架公约》(中文译本),下载自联合国与气候变化官方网站http://www.un.org/zh/climatechange/documents.shtml
2.《<联合国气候变化框架公约>京都议定书》(中文译本),下载自联合国与气候变化官方网站http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpchinese.pdf
3.《哥本哈根协议文件》(全文),载于新浪财经http://finance.sina.com.cn/j/20091220/08217128048.shtml
4.《美国清洁能源与安全法简介》,来源:电监会办公厅,下载自环境保护部环境认证中心中环联合(北京)认证中心有限公司网站http://www.sepacec.com/cdm/xgxx/gjzc/200908/t20090804_157083.htm
5.《中国应对气候变化的政策与行动——2009年度报告》,下载自中国气候变化信息网http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/WebSite/CCChina/UpFile/File572.pdf
6.《联合国气候变化框架公约》,载于新华网的专题报道http://news.xinhuanet.com/ziliao/2003-07/10/content_966008.htm
7.《京都议定书》,载于新华网的专题报道http://news.xinhuanet.com/ziliao/2002-09/03/content_548525.htm
8.《巴厘路线图》,载于新华网的专题报道http://news.xinhuanet.com/ziliao/2009-11/27/content_12549441.htm
9.《联合国气候变化大会通过“巴厘路线图”》,载于新华网http://news.xinhuanet.com/newscenter/2007-12/15/content_7256316.htm
10.《国际观察:“巴厘岛路线图”包含的交锋和妥协》,载于新华网http://news.xinhuanet.com/newscenter/2007-12/16/content_7260325.htm
11.《中美印等五国在哥本哈根达成初步声明》,载于新浪网http://finance.sina.com.cn/world/gjjj/20091220/02427127942.shtml
12.《美国迈出应对气候变化重要一步》,载于新华网http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2009-06/27/content_11611330_1.htm
13.《美国众议院通过清洁能源安全法案》,载于中国气候变化信息网http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/cn/NewsInfo.asp?NewsId=18114
14.《胡锦涛在联合国气候变化峰会开幕式上的讲话——<携手应对气候变化挑战>》,载于新华网http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2009-09/23/content_12098887.htm
15.《我国提出温室气体排放行动目标》,载于http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2009-11-27/045819136792.shtml,新闻来源人民网-人民日报
16.《温家宝总理在哥本哈根气候变化会议领导人会议上的讲话——<凝聚共识,加强合作,推进应对气候变化历史进程>》,载于新华网http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2009-12/19/content_12668033.htm
17.中国人民大学环境学院的马中教授在第七期“经济每月谈”——主题为“哥本哈根会议后应对气候变化的战略与政策”会议上的见解,2010年2月24日,中国国际经济交流中心在北京中华世纪坛大屏幕厅举办。链接为http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/cn/NewsInfo.asp?NewsId=22744
18.中国气象局局长郑国光:《凝聚共识构筑新的起点——<哥本哈根协议>解读》,载于http://www.cma.gov.cn/qhbh/newsbobao/200912/t20091223_54670.html
19.陈炳才、陈安国:《我国应对气候变化的战略建议》,载于中国经济时报,转载自http://finance.sina.com.cn/roll/20091223/08557142208.shtml
1. WTO-UNEP (2009): Trade and Climate Change
2. OECD (2001c), Environmentally Related Taxes in OECD Countries, Issues and Strategies, OECD, Pari
3. United Nations (1997),“Glossary of Environment Statistics”, Studies in Methods, Series F,No.67, New York
4. WTO (1997), Taxes and Charges for Environmental Purposes-Border Tax Adjustment, WT/CTE/W/47, Note by the Secretariat
5.“New Zealand Announces Trading Scheme For Carbon Emissions; Abandons Carbon Tax”(2007), International Environment Reporter
6.“Japan’s Ruling Party to Discuss Carbon Tax”(2006), International Environment Reporter
7.“Climate Change: Canada’s Quebec Province Plans Carbon Tax”(2007), International Environment Reporter
8. European Environment Agency (2005),Fourth National Communication under the UNFCCC
1. H.R.2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act
2. S.1733, Clean Energy & American Power Act
3. Skatteministeriet (2007), Tax in Denmark 2007
4. Article 8.7 of the Italian regulation of 23 December 1998
5. Ministry of Small Business and Revenue (2008), British Columbia Carbon Tax Update, Carbon Tax Act
6. Panel, US-Superfund, L/6175-34S/136
7. Appellate Body, US-Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R 29 April 1996
8. Appellate Body, US-Shrimp ,WT/DS58/AB/R 12 October 1998
9. Appellate Body, EC-Asbestos, WT/DS135/AB/R 12 March 2001
10. Appellate Body, Brazil-Retreaded Tyres,WT/DS332/AB/R 3 December 2007
1. Baron, R. (1997),“Economic/Fiscal Instruments: Taxation (i.e. Carbon/Energy)”, AnnexⅠExpert Group on the UNFCCC, OECD Working Paper 4, OECD/G (97)188, 94 p.
2. Hoerner and F. Muller,“Carbon Taxes for Climate Protection in a Competitive World, Paper prepared for the Swiss Federal Office for International Economic Affairs”(June 1996);
3. Cendra, J.de(2006),“Can Emissions Trading Schemes be Coupled with Border Tax Adjustments? An Analysis vis-à-vis WTO Law”, Review of European Community on International Environmental Law 15:2, pp.131-145
4. Demaret, P. and Stewardson, R.(1994),“Border tax adjustments under GATT and EC law, and general implications for environmental taxes”, Journal of World Trade 28, pp 5-66
5. F. Biermann and R. Brohm,“Implementing the Kyoto Protocol without the United States– The Strategic Role of Energy Tax Adjustments at the Border”, Global Governance Working Paper No 5 (January 2003).
6. Goh, G. (2004), :“The World Trade Organization, Kyoto and Energy Tax Adjustments at the Border”, Journal of World Trade 38:3, pp 395-423
7. M. Lodefalrk and M. Storey,“Climate Measures and WTO Rules on Subsidies”, 39:1 Journal of World Trade (2005), 23
8. Meyer-Ohlendof and Gerstetter, C. (2009),“Trade and Climate Change, Triggers or Barriers for Climate Friendly Technology Transfer and Development?”, Dialogue on Globalization, Occasional Papers 41, 42 p.
9. Pauwelyn, J.(2007), US Federal Climate Policy and competitiveness Concerns: The Limits and Options of International Trade Law, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University, Working Paper, 44 p.
10. Pitschas, C. (1995),“GATT/WTO Rules for Border Tax Adjustments and the Proposed European Directive Introducing a Tax on Carbon Dioxide Emission and Energy”. Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 24, pp.479-500.
11. Trevor Houser, Rob Bradley, Britt Childs Staley, Jake Werksman and Robert Heilmayr(2008),“Leveling The Carbon Playing Field: International Competition and U.S. Climate Policy Design”, paper for the Peterson Institute for International Economics and World Resources Institute.
12. Voigt, C. (2008),“WTO Law and International Emissions Trading: Is there Potential for Conflict?”, Carbon and Climate Law Review 1, pp. 54-66
13. Zhang. vZ. And Baranzini A.(2004),“What do we know about carbon taxes? An inquiry into their impacts on competitiveness and distribution of income”, Energy Policy 32, pp.507-518
14. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (2004), the ecological tax reform: introduction, continuation and development into an ecological fiscal reform, 20 p., at pp. 1, 3.
1.“Countries that do not sign up to a post-2012 international treaty on climate change could potentially face extra tariffs on their industrial exports”, available at http://euobserver.com/9/23124/?rk=1
2.“France Tells U.S. to Sign Climate Pacts or Face Tax”,available at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/world/europe/01climate.html?_r=1
3.“'Carbon' import duty proposal fails to impress”, available at http://www.euractiv.com/en/trade/carbon-import-duty-proposal-fails-impress/article-168665
4.“US, France Face Criticism on Border Tariff Proposals”, available at http://ictsd.net/i/news/bridgesweekly/51846/
5.“Resisting Green Tariffs: Germany and the U.K. resist France and the U.S.on green tariffs”, available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203609204574313753022626352.html
6. website of Norway’s Ministry of Finance on Existing green taxes, at www.regjeringen.no
7. website of Finland’s Ministry of the Environment on Environmentally related energy taxation in Finland at www.ymparisto.fi
8. website of the German Finance Ministry on Oekologische Steuerreform at www.bundesfinanzministerium.de
9. H.R.245,available at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2454
10. S.1733 , available at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s1733/show
94《世界贸易组织乌拉圭回合多边贸易谈判结果法律文本》(下),对外贸易经济合作部国际经贸关系司译,法律出版社,第424页
109 See e.g. Pauwelyn (2007), at pp.33-41; Voigt (008), pp. 61-65; Cendra (2006), pp. 143-145
110同注释94,第455页。
111 Appellate Body, US-Gasoline, p.22
112 See e.g. Meyer-Ohlendof and Gerstetter(2009), p.36. Pauwelyn(2007), p.35
113 Appellate Body, Brazil-Retreaded Tyres, para.178
123参见《中国应对气候变化的政策与行动——2009年度报告》,第4-20页
124下载自中国气候变化信息网http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/WebSite/CCChina/UpFile/File572.pdf
125下载自中华人民共和国中央人民政府官方网站http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2008-03/19/content_923925.htm
126参见《中国应对气候变化的政策与行动——2009年度报告》,第5页。
127同注释126,第5页。
128同注释126,第5页。
129同注释126,第8-11页。
130参见《中国应对气候变化的政策与行动——2009年度报告》,第14页。
131同注释130,第18页。
143莫神星:《节能减排机制法律政策研究》,中国时代经济出版社,第165页。
144同注释137,第87-88页。
1.程路连著:《WTO与多边环境协议》,中国环境科学出版社,2005年版
2.夏光、冯东方、吴玉萍著:《加入WTO与国内环境政策调整》,中国环境科学出版社,2005年版
3.叶荣泗、吴钟瑚主编:《中国能源法律体系研究》,中国电力出版社,2006年版
4.贾鹤鹏:《政经视野中的节能减排挑战》,载于《中国透视》(2008),中国环境科学出版社,2009年版
5.莫神星著:《节能减排机制法律政策研究》,中国时代经济出版社,2008年版
6.岑维廉、钟昌元、王华编著:《关税理论与中国关税制度》,世界出版集团,上海人民出版社,2006年版
7.张守文著:《税法原理》(第三版),北京大学出版社,2004年第三版
8.杨万东:《碳政治与国际经济结构调整》,于2010年2月28日在由中国政法大学商学院世界经济专家组与世界经济法研究所主办的“碳经济与碳政治研讨会”上所做的报告
9.《世界贸易组织乌拉圭回合多边贸易谈判结果法律文本》,对外贸易经济合作部国际经贸关系司译,法律出版社,2000年版
1.《联合国气候变化框架公约》(中文译本),下载自联合国与气候变化官方网站http://www.un.org/zh/climatechange/documents.shtml
2.《<联合国气候变化框架公约>京都议定书》(中文译本),下载自联合国与气候变化官方网站http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpchinese.pdf
3.《哥本哈根协议文件》(全文),载于新浪财经http://finance.sina.com.cn/j/20091220/08217128048.shtml
4.《美国清洁能源与安全法简介》,来源:电监会办公厅,下载自环境保护部环境认证中心中环联合(北京)认证中心有限公司网站http://www.sepacec.com/cdm/xgxx/gjzc/200908/t20090804_157083.htm
5.《中国应对气候变化的政策与行动——2009年度报告》,下载自中国气候变化信息网http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/WebSite/CCChina/UpFile/File572.pdf
6.《联合国气候变化框架公约》,载于新华网的专题报道http://news.xinhuanet.com/ziliao/2003-07/10/content_966008.htm
7.《京都议定书》,载于新华网的专题报道http://news.xinhuanet.com/ziliao/2002-09/03/content_548525.htm
8.《巴厘路线图》,载于新华网的专题报道http://news.xinhuanet.com/ziliao/2009-11/27/content_12549441.htm
9.《联合国气候变化大会通过“巴厘路线图”》,载于新华网http://news.xinhuanet.com/newscenter/2007-12/15/content_7256316.htm
10.《国际观察:“巴厘岛路线图”包含的交锋和妥协》,载于新华网http://news.xinhuanet.com/newscenter/2007-12/16/content_7260325.htm
11.《中美印等五国在哥本哈根达成初步声明》,载于新浪网http://finance.sina.com.cn/world/gjjj/20091220/02427127942.shtml
12.《美国迈出应对气候变化重要一步》,载于新华网http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2009-06/27/content_11611330_1.htm
13.《美国众议院通过清洁能源安全法案》,载于中国气候变化信息网http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/cn/NewsInfo.asp?NewsId=18114
14.《胡锦涛在联合国气候变化峰会开幕式上的讲话——<携手应对气候变化挑战>》,载于新华网http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2009-09/23/content_12098887.htm
15.《我国提出温室气体排放行动目标》,载于http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2009-11-27/045819136792.shtml,新闻来源人民网-人民日报
16.《温家宝总理在哥本哈根气候变化会议领导人会议上的讲话——<凝聚共识,加强合作,推进应对气候变化历史进程>》,载于新华网http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2009-12/19/content_12668033.htm
17.中国人民大学环境学院的马中教授在第七期“经济每月谈”——主题为“哥本哈根会议后应对气候变化的战略与政策”会议上的见解,2010年2月24日,中国国际经济交流中心在北京中华世纪坛大屏幕厅举办。链接为http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/cn/NewsInfo.asp?NewsId=22744
18.中国气象局局长郑国光:《凝聚共识构筑新的起点——<哥本哈根协议>解读》,载于http://www.cma.gov.cn/qhbh/newsbobao/200912/t20091223_54670.html
19.陈炳才、陈安国:《我国应对气候变化的战略建议》,载于中国经济时报,转载自http://finance.sina.com.cn/roll/20091223/08557142208.shtml
1. WTO-UNEP (2009): Trade and Climate Change
2. OECD (2001c), Environmentally Related Taxes in OECD Countries, Issues and Strategies, OECD, Pari
3. United Nations (1997),“Glossary of Environment Statistics”, Studies in Methods, Series F,No.67, New York
4. WTO (1997), Taxes and Charges for Environmental Purposes-Border Tax Adjustment, WT/CTE/W/47, Note by the Secretariat
5.“New Zealand Announces Trading Scheme For Carbon Emissions; Abandons Carbon Tax”(2007), International Environment Reporter
6.“Japan’s Ruling Party to Discuss Carbon Tax”(2006), International Environment Reporter
7.“Climate Change: Canada’s Quebec Province Plans Carbon Tax”(2007), International Environment Reporter
8. European Environment Agency (2005),Fourth National Communication under the UNFCCC
1. H.R.2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act
2. S.1733, Clean Energy & American Power Act
3. Skatteministeriet (2007), Tax in Denmark 2007
4. Article 8.7 of the Italian regulation of 23 December 1998
5. Ministry of Small Business and Revenue (2008), British Columbia Carbon Tax Update, Carbon Tax Act
6. Panel, US-Superfund, L/6175-34S/136
7. Appellate Body, US-Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R 29 April 1996
8. Appellate Body, US-Shrimp ,WT/DS58/AB/R 12 October 1998
9. Appellate Body, EC-Asbestos, WT/DS135/AB/R 12 March 2001
10. Appellate Body, Brazil-Retreaded Tyres,WT/DS332/AB/R 3 December 2007
1. Baron, R. (1997),“Economic/Fiscal Instruments: Taxation (i.e. Carbon/Energy)”, AnnexⅠExpert Group on the UNFCCC, OECD Working Paper 4, OECD/G (97)188, 94 p.
2. Hoerner and F. Muller,“Carbon Taxes for Climate Protection in a Competitive World, Paper prepared for the Swiss Federal Office for International Economic Affairs”(June 1996);
3. Cendra, J.de(2006),“Can Emissions Trading Schemes be Coupled with Border Tax Adjustments? An Analysis vis-à-vis WTO Law”, Review of European Community on International Environmental Law 15:2, pp.131-145
4. Demaret, P. and Stewardson, R.(1994),“Border tax adjustments under GATT and EC law, and general implications for environmental taxes”, Journal of World Trade 28, pp 5-66
5. F. Biermann and R. Brohm,“Implementing the Kyoto Protocol without the United States– The Strategic Role of Energy Tax Adjustments at the Border”, Global Governance Working Paper No 5 (January 2003).
6. Goh, G. (2004), :“The World Trade Organization, Kyoto and Energy Tax Adjustments at the Border”, Journal of World Trade 38:3, pp 395-423
7. M. Lodefalrk and M. Storey,“Climate Measures and WTO Rules on Subsidies”, 39:1 Journal of World Trade (2005), 23
8. Meyer-Ohlendof and Gerstetter, C. (2009),“Trade and Climate Change, Triggers or Barriers for Climate Friendly Technology Transfer and Development?”, Dialogue on Globalization, Occasional Papers 41, 42 p.
9. Pauwelyn, J.(2007), US Federal Climate Policy and competitiveness Concerns: The Limits and Options of International Trade Law, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University, Working Paper, 44 p.
10. Pitschas, C. (1995),“GATT/WTO Rules for Border Tax Adjustments and the Proposed European Directive Introducing a Tax on Carbon Dioxide Emission and Energy”. Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 24, pp.479-500.
11. Trevor Houser, Rob Bradley, Britt Childs Staley, Jake Werksman and Robert Heilmayr(2008),“Leveling The Carbon Playing Field: International Competition and U.S. Climate Policy Design”, paper for the Peterson Institute for International Economics and World Resources Institute.
12. Voigt, C. (2008),“WTO Law and International Emissions Trading: Is there Potential for Conflict?”, Carbon and Climate Law Review 1, pp. 54-66
13. Zhang. vZ. And Baranzini A.(2004),“What do we know about carbon taxes? An inquiry into their impacts on competitiveness and distribution of income”, Energy Policy 32, pp.507-518
14. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (2004), the ecological tax reform: introduction, continuation and development into an ecological fiscal reform, 20 p., at pp. 1, 3.
1.“Countries that do not sign up to a post-2012 international treaty on climate change could potentially face extra tariffs on their industrial exports”, available at http://euobserver.com/9/23124/?rk=1
2.“France Tells U.S. to Sign Climate Pacts or Face Tax”,available at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/world/europe/01climate.html?_r=1
3.“'Carbon' import duty proposal fails to impress”, available at http://www.euractiv.com/en/trade/carbon-import-duty-proposal-fails-impress/article-168665
4.“US, France Face Criticism on Border Tariff Proposals”, available at http://ictsd.net/i/news/bridgesweekly/51846/
5.“Resisting Green Tariffs: Germany and the U.K. resist France and the U.S.on green tariffs”, available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203609204574313753022626352.html
6. website of Norway’s Ministry of Finance on Existing green taxes, at www.regjeringen.no
7. website of Finland’s Ministry of the Environment on Environmentally related energy taxation in Finland at www.ymparisto.fi
8. website of the German Finance Ministry on Oekologische Steuerreform at www.bundesfinanzministerium.de
9. H.R.245,available at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2454
10. S.1733 , available at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s1733/show