欢迎来到麦多课文档分享! | 帮助中心 海量文档,免费浏览,给你所需,享你所想!
麦多课文档分享
全部分类
  • 标准规范>
  • 教学课件>
  • 考试资料>
  • 办公文档>
  • 学术论文>
  • 行业资料>
  • 易语言源码>
  • ImageVerifierCode 换一换
    首页 麦多课文档分享 > 资源分类 > PPT文档下载
    分享到微信 分享到微博 分享到QQ空间

    Environmental Ethics, Environmental Law, and Trade.ppt

    • 资源ID:374463       资源大小:168.50KB        全文页数:32页
    • 资源格式: PPT        下载积分:2000积分
    快捷下载 游客一键下载
    账号登录下载
    微信登录下载
    二维码
    微信扫一扫登录
    下载资源需要2000积分(如需开发票,请勿充值!)
    邮箱/手机:
    温馨提示:
    如需开发票,请勿充值!快捷下载时,用户名和密码都是您填写的邮箱或者手机号,方便查询和重复下载(系统自动生成)。
    如需开发票,请勿充值!如填写123,账号就是123,密码也是123。
    支付方式: 支付宝扫码支付    微信扫码支付   
    验证码:   换一换

    加入VIP,交流精品资源
     
    账号:
    密码:
    验证码:   换一换
      忘记密码?
        
    友情提示
    2、PDF文件下载后,可能会被浏览器默认打开,此种情况可以点击浏览器菜单,保存网页到桌面,就可以正常下载了。
    3、本站不支持迅雷下载,请使用电脑自带的IE浏览器,或者360浏览器、谷歌浏览器下载即可。
    4、本站资源下载后的文档和图纸-无水印,预览文档经过压缩,下载后原文更清晰。
    5、试题试卷类文档,如果标题没有明确说明有答案则都视为没有答案,请知晓。

    Environmental Ethics, Environmental Law, and Trade.ppt

    1、Environmental Ethics, Environmental Law, and Trade,Objectives,Show how law is sometimes used to embody ethical principles, particularly in environmental law Show how how trade policy can undercut the ethical principles embodied in domestic law. Relate these ideas to issues in the news,Ethics and the

    2、 Law,Law reflects the ethical judgments of a society. Ethics serves as a basis for laws, changes in law reflect changing ethical views. Environmental law embodies shared ethical values.,Ethical Principles in Environmental Law,The Polluter Pays Principle The Precautionary Principle,The Polluter Pays

    3、Principle,Dont make messes. If you make a mess, clean it up. Pollution is an externalitya cost not borne by the parties to a transaction. Goalinternalize the costs of pollution. The polluter pays principle is an internalization strategy embodied in U.S. law. Superfund, CERCLA, RCRA, USTA,The Precaut

    4、ionary Principle,Take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize environmental harm. Rather than await certainty, regulators should anticipate potential environmental harm and act to prevent it. International treaties, some signed by the U.S., expressly adopt the precautionary princip

    5、le. Rio Declaration, Cartagena Protocol (SPS treaty), Kyoto Protocol,Trade Policy, Domestic Law, and Environmental Protection,Trade policies and trade agreements (NAFTA, WTO, FTAA) can undercut domestic environmental protection laws.,NAFTA Provisions,NAFTA protects the property rights of foreign inv

    6、estors: No direct or indirect expropriation without compensation Indirect expropriation is sometimes called “Regulatory Taking” NAFTA allows a foreign citizen or corporation to sue a government for improper expropriation.,Protecting Property Rights,Governments MUST protect rights to private property

    7、 against unjust takings: The Fifth Amendment states: No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. The expropriation clauses build this requirement into trade agreements,Kinds

    8、 of Takings,Property can be taken directlyas in imminent domainfor public uses. Property can be taken indirectlyits value greatly reduced or eliminatedby government regulations that impose costs or limit profits. “Regulatory takings” cases havent worked well in U.S. courts. Exception: Lucas v. South

    9、 Carolina Coastal Comm. “Regulatory takings” theory limits government too much.,Environmental Law and Expropriation,Environmental laws tend either to impose direct costs on, or to limit the profitability of, some activity. Foreign corporations claim that domestic environmental laws indirect expropri

    10、ations for which they are entitled compensation from the government (taxpayers).,NAFTA cases undercutting environmental law,Ethyl Corp v. Canada Methanex Corporation v. United States S.D. Meyers Corporation v. Canada,Ethyl Corp. v. Canada,Ethyl makes a gasoline additive Methylcyclopentadienyl Mangan

    11、ese Tricarbonyl (MMT) to reduce emissions MMT is banned in several states as a health risk. Canada banned MMT as a health risk. Ethyl sues Canada under Chapter 11 for illegal expropriation for LOST PROFITS! Ethyl WINS.,Methanex Corp. V. U.S.,Methanex is a Canadian corporation that makes methyl terti

    12、ary-butyl ether (MTBE) an oxygenate gasoline additive. MTBE was banned by California because of its perceived threat to humans and the water supply. Gov. Davis found “on balance, there is significant risk to the environment from using MTBE in gasoline in California.“ Methanex claims that the science

    13、 supporting the ban is inadequate, despite evidence that MTBE causes cancers in some lab animals.,Methanex, continued,Methanex sued the U.S. for $970 million, claiming that Californias environmental regulation: The MTBE ban illegally prefers a U.S. product (Ethanol) Constitutes an illegal expropriat

    14、ion of profit This case constitutes “a clear threat to California state sovereignty and democratic governance.“,S.D. Meyers,S.D. Meyers deals in treating toxic wastes, specializing in PCBs. S.D. Meyers processes contaminated transformers, some imported from Canada. Acting under the Basel Convention

    15、on Transboundary Shipment of Hazardous Waste, Canada bans the export of PCB contaminated transformers.,Meyers, continued,Meyers sues Canada for having expropriated its profits by banning exports (thus giving the profits to Canadian corporations). Remember, international treaty law bans the transboun

    16、dary shipment of toxic waste. S.D. Meyers WINS.,A Few More Outrageous Cases Under NAFTA Chapter 11,Sun Belt Water, Inc. v. Canada Pope and Talbot v. Canada Metalclad Corporation v. Mexico,Sun Belt Water, Inc.,Fortune Magazine says “water will be to the 21st century what oil was to the 20th.” 20% of

    17、the worlds fresh water is in Canada SUN BELT undertakes commercial and humanitarian projects dealing with water. Sun Belt serves markets in the U.S. Southwest (Oakland, San Francisco, San Rafael, Santa Cruz) Sun Belt wanted to import Canadian water from BC to sell in the U.S.,Sun Belt, Continued,Sun

    18、 Belt formed a partnership with Snowcap, a Canadian water company Sun Belt won a contract to supply water to Santa Barbara (beating a Canadian firm, WCW) B.C. citing the Water Protection Act, denied Sun Belt/Snowcap the needed export licenses. Sun Belts $400 million NAFTA suit is pending. Sun Belts

    19、CEO Jack Lindsay says, “Because of NAFTA, we are now stakeholders in the national water policy in Canada.“,Pope and Talbot,Pope & Talbot is a small, U.S. based lumber firm operating in Canada. Timber imports and exports have been the subject of controversy between the U.S. and Canada for years. 1996

    20、U.S./Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA) set export quotas, levies and production taxes.,Pope & Talbot, cont.,Pope & Talbot was adversely affected by the SLA (which the U.S. negotiated) Pope & Talbot sued Canada, and won, claiming that Canada had breached NAFTA duties on national treatment and mi

    21、nimum standards of treatment. A U.S. firm successfully sued Canada because of a treaty other U.S. firms had lobbied the U.S. govt to force on Canada.,Metalclad v. Mexico,Metalclad Corp is a U.S. based waste disposal company. Metalclad constructed and began operating a waste disposal facility in Guad

    22、alcazar in the state of San Luis Potos. Metalclad did not have full local approval for the plant, but claimed it had assurances from the Mexican federal government. The plant leaked, was located on an alluvial stream, and contaminated local groundwater.,Metalclad, continued,The governor of San Lois

    23、Potosi declared a 600,000 acre environmental protection zone and ordered the plant closed as an environmental hazard. Metalclad sued for $90 million for lost costs, expropriated profits, and an order that it be allowed to reopen the plant. Metalclad won 19.7 million in damages and rhe right to reope

    24、n the plant.,Technical Trade Barriers and the WTO,The WTO promotes free trade Prohibits formal trade barriersquotas, import limits, import taxes, price supports The EU Caribbean bananas case Prohibits “technical barriers to trade” as disguised quotas or tariffs Some workplace health and safety laws,

    25、 consumer protection laws and environmental regulations have been found to be technical trade barriers,The Turtle and Beef Hormones Cases,2 of the most famous (infamous) cases to go before the WTO. Each case raises questions about domestic sovereigntythe right of the people of a nation to make their

    26、 own laws. These cases are at the heart of the protests in Seattle at the WTO ministerial conference in 2000 and the IMF/World Bank Protests in Washington and Montreal in 2001. In 2002, the WTO met in Doha, Qatar.,The Turtle Case,Congress passed a law stating that all shrimp sold in the U.S. had to

    27、be caught in turtle safe nets. Caribbean shrimpers sought U.S. help in meeting the deadline set in the law. Asian shrimpers did not comply with the law. The EPA extended the deadline for full compliance. A court ordered the EPA to enforce the law fully and the EPS banned the sale Asian shrimp not ca

    28、ught in turtle safe nets.,Turtle case, continued,Asian shrimpers sued in the WTO DRB arguing that the U.S.s environmental law was a technical trade barrier, a disguised tariff, and not really about protecting turtles. That ALL domestic U.S. shrimpers, and ALL imports were subject to the same rules d

    29、idnt matter. The WTO ruled against the U.S., forcing either a dropping of the requirement or facing retaliatory tariffs.,The Beef Hormones Case,The Montreal codicil to the UNs treaty on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) explicitly adopts the precautionary principle as a basis for making food

    30、 safety decisions. (article 57) The EU banned administering substances having thyrostatic, estrogenic, androgenic or gestagenic action to farm animals AND it banned the sale of meat from animals to which such substances had been administered as a precautionary health measure.,Beef Hormones, cont.,Th

    31、ese rules applied to EU beef producers and to beef importers. U.S. and Canadian beef producers, who use growth hormones to fatten cattle, sued under WTO rules. As in the turtle case, the producers argued that these were TBTs and not real safety measures. The U.S. and Canadian beef producers won. Wha

    32、t happened to domestic sovereignty?,The FTAA,The FTAA, the Free Trade Area of the Americas, would extend NAFTA all over North and South America (except Cuba). It would extend NAFTA to include services. “Services” is a huge category of economic activity including extractive industries, mining, shippi

    33、ng, construction, and waste processing and management. Water rights and the privatization of water resources would be included.,How does all this relate to my life or to issues in the news today?,Trade protests (the Battle in Seattle, the riots in Montreal in 2001, attempts to protest the WTO ministerial in Doha, Qatar) turn on these issues. Domestic sovereignty, our right to make our own laws and to embody our ethical convictions in law, is at risk.,


    注意事项

    本文(Environmental Ethics, Environmental Law, and Trade.ppt)为本站会员(arrownail386)主动上传,麦多课文档分享仅提供信息存储空间,仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理,对上载内容本身不做任何修改或编辑。 若此文所含内容侵犯了您的版权或隐私,请立即通知麦多课文档分享(点击联系客服),我们立即给予删除!




    关于我们 - 网站声明 - 网站地图 - 资源地图 - 友情链接 - 网站客服 - 联系我们

    copyright@ 2008-2019 麦多课文库(www.mydoc123.com)网站版权所有
    备案/许可证编号:苏ICP备17064731号-1 

    收起
    展开