欧盟航空排放交易体系在东京和芝加哥受阻：多方治理体系中的单方法律主导

The EU Aviation ETS Caught between Kyoto and Chicago:Unilateral Legal Entrepreneurship in the Multilateral Governance System

2012年1月1日,欧盟指令2008/101/EC正式生效,它将欧盟排放交易体系(ETS)适用范围扩展到国内和国际民用航空,这将争议由合法性层面上升到空前的高度。尽管事实上这项指令不论国籍应用于所有航空公司,但欧盟立法者将外国航空公司及其发生在欧盟航空之外的二氧化碳排放也纳入其法律适用,这就激怒了第三国,遭到发展中国家的严厉批评,尤其是中国和印度。本文写作目的是探究尽管存在多边谈判,并且ETS体系在其他法律管辖权中也进行了国际法律移植,为何欧盟ETS所追求的环境目标并未使国际社会认同其单边行为。因此,本文旨在对气候变化全球治理的当前形势进行初步评估。本文重点关注了该争议中欧盟和中国的立场,讨论了欧盟反对方探寻气候变化制度和国际航空制度之间的规范性冲突,并且欧盟单边行为由于缺乏程序合法性激怒了第三国,他们认为这是对自己国家主权的侵犯。因此推断在现行国际体系中,制度目标和原则的和谐性源自政治决定,该政治决定的缺失将会阻碍多方合作目标的实现。此外,在这个背景下,违反其他制度成员的意愿,单方实施另一种解决方法企图取代多边规则制定,很可能会遭到越来越多的强国日趋激烈的反对。

The entry into force,on January 1st,2012,of the European Union Directive 2008/101/EC extending the European Emission Trading System to domestic and international civil aviation has taken the dispute regarding its legitimacy to unprecedented heights.The choice of the EU legislator to include foreign air carriers and their CO2 emissions that occurred beyond EU airspace infuriated third countries,while the fact that the directive applies the same treatment to all airline operators whatever their nationality met vivid criticism from developing countries,in particular China and India.This paper investigates the reasons why the environmental objective pursued by the EU Aviation ETS does not seem sufficient to render its unilateral adoption acceptable to the international community,despite staging multilateral negotiations and despite the flourishing national transplants of the ETS system in other jurisdictions.Thereby it provides a preliminary assessment of what the current row implies for the global governance of climate change.Devoting particular attention to the positions of the EU and China in this dispute,it argues that the opposition to EU endeavor finds its roots in the normative frictions between the climate change regime and the international aviation regime,while the lack of process legitimacy of EU unilateralism provoked third countries'claims to the infringement of their national sovereignty.Thus,it concludes that in the current international system,the harmonization of regimes' normative goals and principles must result from a political choice,the absence of which can effectively frustrate the achievement of multilateral cooperation goals.Moreover,in such context,the unilateral imposition of an alternative path involving the other regime members against their consent,to palliate multilateral norm-making,is likely to meet increasingly strong opposition from an increasing number of powerful countries.