Contrasting Emission Trading in the eu and China: An Exploration of the Role of the Courts
In: Climate LawSearch for other papers by Marjan Peeters in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Huizhen Chen in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Zhiping Li in
Current site
Google Scholar
China and the eu have both engaged in formulating climate laws in order to contribute to a global reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The focus of both is on emission trading. This instrument is designed and implemented according to very different political and legal systems in China and the eu. The rule of law in the eu is understood to mean that access to the judicial system for those affected by the emission-trading scheme is crucial. This can be illustrated by the emergence of a large body of case law on the issue. China, by contrast, is still in the process of building a governance system based on the rule of law, and thereby faces the challenge of setting up a court system that will act independently of a powerful government. While in the eu industries may launch a legal action in order to acquire a more profitable position on the allocation of emission allowances, in China it is still an open question whether industries covered by the emission-trading scheme will be permitted to take their case to court. How does this difference affect the functioning of the instrument in the two jurisdictions? In the eu, so far, the environmental effectiveness of the emission-trading scheme does not appear to have been negatively impacted by court proceedings initiated by industry. While the powerful role of the government in environmental protection in China could be valuable for the achievement of environmental aims, weak judicial control of governmental action could mean either a strict implementation of emission reductions or a lenient approach that tolerates a flexible, less ambitious, implementation.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
4
Richard B. Stewart, ‘Instrument Choice’, in The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, edited by Daniel Bodansky, Jutta Brunnée, and Ellen Hey (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), at 151–152.
-
51
T-614/13, 26 September 2014, C-565/14 Romonta GmbH v. European Commission; T-630/13, 26 September 2014, C-540/14 DK Recycling und Roheisen v. Commission; T-631/1 26 September 2014 (appeal C-564/14) RaffinerieHeide v. Commission; T-634/14 26 September 2014 (appeal C-551/14 P) Arctic Paper Mochenwangen GmbH v. Commission; T-629/13, 26 September 2014 (no appeal) Molda Advocate-General v. European Commission.
-
69
Du Qun, ‘The People’s Republic of China’, in The role of the judiciary in environmental governance: Comparative perspectives, edited by L. J. Kotzé and A. R. Paterson (Kluwer, 2009), at 419.
-
75
Lü Wangshu, ‘The Ministry of Environmental Protection Informs on Progress since the Entry Into Force of the New Environmental Protection Law’, China Environment News, 3 March 2015 (in Chinese).
-
93
Chris W. Backes et al., ‘The underestimated possibility of ex post adjustments: Some lessons from the initial greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme’, in Climate Change and European Emissions Trading: Lessons for Theory and Practice, edited by Michael. G. Faure and Marjan Peeters (Edward Elgar, 2008), at 205.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 478 | 106 | 2 |
| Full Text Views | 257 | 2 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 106 | 4 | 0 |
Contrasting Emission Trading in the eu and China: An Exploration of the Role of the Courts
In: Climate LawSearch for other papers by Marjan Peeters in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Huizhen Chen in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Zhiping Li in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
China and the eu have both engaged in formulating climate laws in order to contribute to a global reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The focus of both is on emission trading. This instrument is designed and implemented according to very different political and legal systems in China and the eu. The rule of law in the eu is understood to mean that access to the judicial system for those affected by the emission-trading scheme is crucial. This can be illustrated by the emergence of a large body of case law on the issue. China, by contrast, is still in the process of building a governance system based on the rule of law, and thereby faces the challenge of setting up a court system that will act independently of a powerful government. While in the eu industries may launch a legal action in order to acquire a more profitable position on the allocation of emission allowances, in China it is still an open question whether industries covered by the emission-trading scheme will be permitted to take their case to court. How does this difference affect the functioning of the instrument in the two jurisdictions? In the eu, so far, the environmental effectiveness of the emission-trading scheme does not appear to have been negatively impacted by court proceedings initiated by industry. While the powerful role of the government in environmental protection in China could be valuable for the achievement of environmental aims, weak judicial control of governmental action could mean either a strict implementation of emission reductions or a lenient approach that tolerates a flexible, less ambitious, implementation.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 478 | 106 | 2 |
| Full Text Views | 257 | 2 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 106 | 4 | 0 |
