Quick take on the international trade aspects of today's ECtHR's ruling in "the first climate case of the year", Verein KlimaSeniorinnen. I will focus on the Dissenting Judge's claim that the Court has imposed on parties a "new obligation" to address "embedded emissions". 1/x First of all, and with apologies to the non-trade people, this is not the first climate case of 2024. This distinction goes to the WTO Panel in EU - Palm Oil, which stated - for the first time unambiguously - that extraterritorial measures can be justifiable under WTO law. 2/

🧵 A Brazilian parliamentarian just proposed a (two-page) law requiring all agricultural products placed in the Brazilian market, including imported, to demonstrate compliance by their producers with *Brazilian* environmental legislation. In case anyone were in doubt regarding 1/ its target, Article 2 would require all imported industrialized products originating *from the European Union* to demonstrate "neutrality or offsetting of all greenhouse gas emissions ... produced in each step of the production chain ... including transportation". 2/

Where trade law is going: following a popular vote, California now has minimum animal welfare requirements for hens, pigs and calves. But not just those in California. The law bans "commercial sale within the state" of non-complying products, regardless of place of production.1/5

https://twitter.com/RodrigoPupo3/status/1584261750077403136

The law affects most immediately farmers and producers in other US States. The US Supreme Court will now hear the case, under the "Dormant Commerce Clause", which prohibits restrictions on interstate commerce.(I leave it to US lawyers to explain it...) 2/5 thecounter.org/california-pro…

Carbon taxes on imported products are becoming a reality. Are they lawful? Do they require changing WTO & trade rules? In this piece in @AJIL_andUnbound, @IngoVenzke & I argue that, properly interpreted, trade rules not only are compatible with but promote environmental goals. 1/ The WTO Appellate Body addressed in 1998. In US - Shrimp, it made clear that trade-restrictive measures promoting public policy goals are compatible with WTO rules if they (a) genuinely promote a legitimate objective and (b) are non-discriminatory towards other WTO Members. 2/

For the WTO dispute settlement crowd, a nugget from the 22.6 Arbitration in US - Supercalendared Paper. The US challenged the validity of the "post-demise" Appellate Body report twice: at the DSB, then before the arbitrator. The DSB adopted the report nonetheless, rejecting the positive consensus proposal (maybe for the first time?). The arbitrator stated that it had no discretion to second-guess the adopted report. So the report was adopted and became valid for all relevant purposes.

🧵Does the ICJ have jurisdiction to head Ukraine's case? People seem to have doubts, but this comes from a common misconception (even among lawyers) that the only claims that an international court can hear are claims that someone else is violating an obligation.

https://twitter.com/HarrietSalem/status/1497954689358475267

What the Genocide Convention and other treaties provide is that a certain court (here the ICJ) is entitled to hear "disputes about the interpretation or application" of the treaty. Thus, there must be (i) a dispute; (ii) about the interpretation or application of the convention.

We now have @USTradeRep support for a TRIPS waiver (if not for the TRIPS waiver). I hope @Trade_EU and @Itamaraty_EN will follow. So here's a thread on (A) what TRIPS allows, waiver or not; (B) what rights a TRIPS waiver adds; and (C) what we should try to get beyond a waiver.1/

https://twitter.com/berndlange/status/1390035687253106694

A. The TRIPS already features a number of exceptions to its rules. Most well known is the exception for compulsory licensing of patents (Art 31). Countries don't need WTO authorization to use this exception. Last week, the Brazilian Senate approved a new law to speed this up. 2/

A bit of Brexit & Brazilian pop culture. Involving, obviously, football. More specifically, one of our greater football legends: Mané Garrincha, the (literally) crooked-legged master. Do yourself a favour and start by watching him perform (1950s and 60s)1/

https://twitter.com/GeorginaEWright/status/1389961657892409345

Garrincha was famous not only for being an incredible dribbler but also for being simple-minded. But it was the kind of simple-mindedness that, combined with his amazing skills, often got people around him wondering whether it was actually some form of superior wisdom. 2/

@MonicaHakimi @loyaladvisor @snlester Hi (answering as per @loyaladvisor request). You're right that "catastrophic" is the wrong word. But certainly importance of WTO as center for decision-making has suffered a lot. Last year, only 5 new requests for consultations were filed - the lowest no in history. 1/ @MonicaHakimi @loyaladvisor @snlester By contrast, RTA adjudication seems on the rise. So besides no longer being the center for new negotiations, WTO may be losing position of center where rules of the road are adjudicated. Without AB reports, panel reports seem to be taken as guidance at best. 2/

🧵I have just spoken to a few students about Trade and Environment, an area that continues to draw a lot of interest but that is also plagued by old misunderstandings. So here's a thread clarifying the current 'relationship between trade law and the environment' in the WTO. 1/ First of all, the GATT has no environmental exception. The reason: it was drafted in 1947. This is long before Stockholm 1972 and Rio 1992 set up the contemporary understandings of environment and sustainability. Yes, international acknowledgment of these issues is just 50 yo! 2/

OK, so by genuine popular demand here comes a thread on Sequencing, ranked #17 in Problems of International Law You've Never Heard of. Sit back and relax (it's illuminating), but be prepared to hear lots about the WTO procedural code, the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU).1/

https://twitter.com/adityaroy123451/status/1355374631343935493

When WTO Members were designing WTO dispute settlement, they wanted it to provide both an efficient enforcement mechanism for violations (mostly the US) and an assurance against retaliation applied unilaterally, without a basis on a dispute settlement decision (everyone else). 2/

🧵I'm not normally a "decolonize the curriculum" type but as I polish our Foundations of International Economic Law course to make it a course about ideas rather than events I can't help notice it's largely a course about the ideas of old European men (& the odd Euro-American).1/ It can see that it is only our internalized acceptance that this is where our ideas come from that makes this acceptable. How odd it would be if we had a whole foundational course be about the arguments by South Asian women, of which there are as many as Euro-American men. 2/

🧵Just taught my first Zoom lecture to 75 International Law Master’s students scattered around Amsterdam & the world. A few thoughts: 1. Let students participate. Out of 75, maybe 8 did, and I was asking one question every 5 minutes or so. There is no reason to create rules for speech unless it objectively gets out of control. (Granted, I got the Monday 9 am slot so many may not have been particularly awake.)

@jbentonheath @rodrikdani There are two problems with the argument. First, this is not a case where the WTO is being used to prevent self-harm. None of the complainants is trying to prevent the US from imposing costs on itself. The WTO is, as Lighthizer would have it, being used to enforce a contract. 1/n @jbentonheath @rodrikdani @rodrikdani 's take would seem to prevent any international agreement from existing, or, what would amount to the same thing, would require all of them to include an exception stating 'nothing in this agreement prevents any party from breaching this agreement should it so wish.2/

1/ Thread on filling Appellate Body vacancies by majority or 'consensus minus one'. TL;DR: Contrary to many highly esteemed lawyers, I fail to see how this can be done under WTO rules, and doing it against WTO rules would destroy the organization itself. 2/ Like every non-dispute-related DSB decision, AB appointments must be made by positive consensus (DSU 2(4), 17(2)). Consensus is achieved when ‘no Member, present at the meeting of the DSB when the decision is taken, formally objects to the proposed decision’ (DSU footnote 1).