[35]它固然體現了歐盟在環保問題上的鮮明立場與道義制高點的定位，但其客觀上有利保護歐盟傳統產業競爭力，通過綠色產業帶動疫情后的經濟復蘇。作為一項單邊措施，CBAM的外溢效應極強，在效果上迫使第三國采取歐盟水平的碳定價機制，向發展中國家施加了與其溫室氣體排放責任顯著不成比例的負擔。
我國堅定捍衛“以國際法為基礎的國際秩序”，應在國際機構等多邊
論壇上強調CBAM與國際貿易法、多邊環境協定兼容不足的問題。另外，鑒于國際法的“不確定性”，36我國應深入研究WTO法、CBDRRC適用于CBAM的潛在爭議問題，聯合其他發展中國家在CBAM國際合規性的多邊討論上積極發聲，挑戰西方國家的國際法話語霸權，確保對有關國際法規則的公平合理解釋。
注釋：
[1] Anu Bradford, The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World (Oxford University Press, 2019), Introducton, p. xiv.
[2] ‘Joint Statement issued at the conclusion of the 30th BASIC Ministerial Meeting on Climate Change hosted by India on 8th April 2021’, para. 19, see https://www.gov.za/nr/speeches/joint-statement-issued-conclusion-30th-basic-ministerial-meeting-climate-change-hosted.
[3] ‘China says CO2 border tax will damage global climate change fight’, 27 November 2019, see https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-accord-china-idUSKBN1Y105T.
[4] Regulation (EU) 2023/956 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 establishing a carbon border adjustment mechanism (“Final Act”), para. 15.
[5] GATT, Art. 11.
[6] GATT, Art. 1.
[7] GATT, Art. 20.
[8] Agreement on Subsidiesand Countervailing Measures, Art. 3.1 (a).
[9] “學界對CBAM應被視為‘邊界’或‘內部’措施展開了廣泛討論”。See Gracia Marín Durán, ‘Securing Compatibility of Carbon Border Adjustments with the Multilateral Climate and Trade Regimes’ International & Comparative Law Quarterly 72, no. 1, p. 91.
[10] See Joost Pauwelyn & David Kleimann, ‘Trade Related Aspects of a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. A Legal Assessment’, 14 April 2020, fn. 11, see https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EXPO_BRI(2020)603502.
[11] GATT, Art. 2.2 (a).
[12] GATT, Art. 3.
[13] Final Act, para. 21.
[14] 根據WTO判例中的權衡測試（weighing and balancing test），歐盟須證明鑒于應對氣候變化的重要性，CBAM的貿易限制性與其對該政策目標的貢獻成比例，且不存在貿易限制性更低、合理可用的措施能在同等程度上實現該目標。
[15] 前言部分的高門檻是大多數援引第20條案件敗訴的主要原因。截止2022年底，WTO爭端解決機構審查了第20條的28個案件中僅3個成功援引了該抗辯。
[16] European Commission, ‘Staff Working Paper – Impact Assessment Report’ SWD (2021) 643 final (“Impact Assessment”), p. 8.
[17] Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, para. 161.
[18] Gracia Marín Durán, p. 83.
[19] Impact Assessment, pp. 3, 8.
[20] Final Act, paras. 71, 73-74.
[21] UNFCCC, Art. 3.1.
[22] Paris Agreement, Art. 2.2.
[23] Kyoto Agreement, Art. 3.1
[24] Paris Agreement, Art. 4.2.
[25] Paris Agreement, Art. 4.3.
[26] Impact Assessment, p. 30.
[27] Paris Agreement, Art. 4.5.
[28] UNCTAD, ‘A European Union Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism: Implications for Developing Countries’ (2021), pp. 7, 9.
[29] Paris Agreement, Art. 4.6
[30] European Commission, ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism’ COM(2021) 564 final, 4. Budgetary Implications, p. 11.
[31] Martti Koskenniemi, ‘Methodology of International Law’, Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law, 2007, see https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1440.
[32] ‘Environment committee draws members’ broad engagement, considers proposals to enhance work’, 15 March 2023, see https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news23_e/envir_15mar23_e.htm.
[33] 《中方在世貿組織提交貿易與環境政策相關提案》，2023年6月19日，參見http://chinawto.mofcom.gov.cn/article/ap/p/202306/20230603417837.shtml
[34] ‘China berates EU at World Trade Organization for policies it calls unfair’, 6 June 2023, see https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3223047/china-berates-eu-world-trade-organization-policies-it-calls-unfair
[35] 參見蔡從燕：《論“以國際法為基礎的國際秩序”》，載《中國社會科學》2023年第1期，第25-29頁。
[36] 參見陳一峰：《國際法的“不確定性”及其對國際法治的影響》，載《中外法學》2022年第4期，第1102-1119頁。
特別聲明：文章僅代表作者觀點，不視為安杰世澤律師事務所正式法律意見或建議。
版權申明：本內容來自于互聯網，屬第三方匯集推薦平臺。本文的版權歸原作者所有，文章言論不代表鏈門戶的觀點，鏈門戶不承擔任何法律責任。如有侵權請聯系QQ：3341927519進行反饋。
