IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

The Burden of Proof in National Treatment Disputes and the Environment

  • Horn, Henrik


    (Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN))

The basic legal instrument in the WTO Agreement regulating domestic environmental policies is the GATT National Treatment (NT) provision. The practical ambit of this clause is largely determined by the allocation of the burden of proof (BoP) in NT disputes. The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of this burden for trade liberalization and for the environment, in a situation where imports may cause environmental damage. The paper finds that there may be a tension between NT and environmental concerns, but that this is not likely to arise in the context of severe threats to the environment. In any event, relieving regulating countries of the BoP will have fundamentally unclear implications for the environment.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Research Institute of Industrial Economics in its series Working Paper Series with number 791.

in new window

Length: 34 pages
Date of creation: 02 Mar 2009
Date of revision:
Publication status: Published in Developing Countries in the WTO Legal System, Thomas, Chantal, Trachtman, Joel (eds.), 2009, pages 1-1, Oxford University Press.
Handle: RePEc:hhs:iuiwop:0791
Contact details of provider: Postal: Research Institute of Industrial Economics, Box 55665, SE-102 15 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: +46 8 665 4500
Fax: +46 8 665 4599
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Song Shin, H, 1996. "Adversarial and Inquisitorial Procedures in Arbitration," Economics Papers 124, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
  2. Bagwell,K. & Staiger,R.W., 1998. "An economic theory of GATT," Working papers 15, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
  3. Henrik Horn, 2006. "National Treatment in the GATT," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(1), pages 394-404, March.
  4. Chris William Sanchirico, 2008. "A Primary-Activity Approach to Proof Burdens," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(1), pages 273-313, 01.
  5. Horn, Henrik & Mavroidis, Petros C., 2008. "The Permissible Reach of National Environmental Policies," Working Paper Series 739, Research Institute of Industrial Economics, revised 20 Jun 2008.
  6. Giovanni Maggi & Robert W. Staiger, 2008. "On the Role and Design of Dispute Settlement Procedures in International Trade Agreements," NBER Working Papers 14067, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  7. Sumeet Gulati & Devesh Roy, 2008. "National Treatment and the optimal regulation of environmental externalities," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 41(4), pages 1445-1471, November.
  8. Horn, Henrik & Mavroidis, Petros C., 2009. "Burden of Proof in Environmental Disputes in the WTO: Legal Aspects," Working Paper Series 793, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
  9. Baksi, S. & Ray Chaudhuri, A., 2008. "Transboundary Pollution, Trade Liberalization, and Environmental Taxes," Discussion Paper 2008-78, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
  10. Ferrara, Ida & Missios, Paul & Murat Yildiz, Halis, 2009. "Trading rules and the environment: Does equal treatment lead to a cleaner world?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 206-225, September.
  11. Kamal Saggi & Nese Sara, 2008. "National Treatment At The Wto: The Roles Of Product And Country Heterogeneity," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 49(4), pages 1365-1394, November.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hhs:iuiwop:0791. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Elisabeth Gustafsson)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.