legal analysis on the inclusion of civil aviation - CISDL
legal analysis on the inclusion of civil aviation - CISDL
legal analysis on the inclusion of civil aviation - CISDL
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
LEGAL ANALYSIS ON THE INCLUSION OF<br />
CIVIL AVIATION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION<br />
EMISSIONS TRADING SYSTEM<br />
<strong>CISDL</strong><br />
Centre for Internati<strong>on</strong>al<br />
Sustainable Development Law
The missi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Centre for Internati<strong>on</strong>al Sustainable Development Law (<strong>CISDL</strong>) is to<br />
promote sustainable societies and <strong>the</strong> protecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> ecosystems by advancing <strong>the</strong> understanding,<br />
development and implementati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al sustainable development law.<br />
Editor:<br />
Mr. Verki Michael Tunteng is a Legal Research Fellow with <strong>the</strong> <strong>CISDL</strong>.<br />
C<strong>on</strong>tributors:<br />
Mr. Tanveer Ahmad is a member <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> McGill University Institute <strong>of</strong> Air and Space Law.<br />
Ms. Katharina Rogalla v<strong>on</strong> Bieberstein is an Associate Fellow with <strong>the</strong> <strong>CISDL</strong>.<br />
Ms. Caroline Haywood is an Associate Fellow with <strong>the</strong> <strong>CISDL</strong>.<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>. Y<strong>on</strong>g-Min Bian is a Legal Research Fellow with <strong>the</strong> <strong>CISDL</strong>.<br />
Mr. Fabiano De Andrade Corrêa is an Associate Fellow with <strong>the</strong> <strong>CISDL</strong>.<br />
Ms. Sarah Marsolais-Ricard is a member <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>CISDL</strong> Legal Research Group.<br />
C<strong>on</strong>tact Informati<strong>on</strong>:<br />
Centre for Internati<strong>on</strong>al Sustainable Development Law<br />
Faculty <strong>of</strong> Law, McGill University<br />
3644 Peel St., M<strong>on</strong>treal, Quebec, H3A 1W9 Canada<br />
Tel: (+1) 514 398 8918<br />
Fax: (+1) 514 398 4659<br />
Email: secretariat@cisdl.org<br />
www.cisdl.org<br />
Published May 2012<br />
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
1. Introducti<strong>on</strong> ............................................................................................... 3<br />
2. Case Comment - Ruling <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> Legality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU Emissi<strong>on</strong>s Trading<br />
System ............................................................................................................... 3<br />
2.1 Airline Industry Perspectives ..................................................................................................... 3<br />
2.2 Internati<strong>on</strong>al Treaties and Customary Internati<strong>on</strong>al Law Principles ................................... 5<br />
2.3 The Role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> ECJ Ruling ...................................................... 5<br />
2.4 The Role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Kyoto Protocol in <strong>the</strong> ECJ Ruling ............................................................... 7<br />
2.5 Unresolved Debate ...................................................................................................................... 8<br />
3. Aviati<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong> EU Emissi<strong>on</strong>s Trading System ..................................... 8<br />
3.1 ICAO mandate under <strong>the</strong> Kyoto Protocol .............................................................................. 8<br />
3.2 ICAO Progress <strong>on</strong> Greenhouse Gas Emissi<strong>on</strong>s ..................................................................... 9<br />
3.3 Obstacles to <strong>the</strong> Progress <strong>of</strong> ICAO ........................................................................................ 10<br />
4. Unilateral approaches in Internati<strong>on</strong>al Law ............................................ 11<br />
4.1 Unilateral Measures in Aviati<strong>on</strong>: Aircraft noise as a case study .......................................... 12<br />
5. The EU ETS and Internati<strong>on</strong>al Law ........................................................ 13<br />
5.1 The View <strong>of</strong> ICAO .................................................................................................................... 15<br />
5.2 The Commissi<strong>on</strong>’s View <strong>on</strong> EU ETS expansi<strong>on</strong> to Aviati<strong>on</strong> ............................................. 16<br />
6. Aviati<strong>on</strong> Emissi<strong>on</strong>s: Challenging ICAO’s Exclusive Jurisdicti<strong>on</strong> ........... 17<br />
7. China’s Reacti<strong>on</strong> to <strong>the</strong> Directive ............................................................. 18<br />
7.1 Retaliatory Measures and Future Aircraft Orders ................................................................. 18<br />
7.2 Justificati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> China’s Positi<strong>on</strong> ............................................................................................ 18<br />
2
1. Introducti<strong>on</strong><br />
This Working Paper identifies <str<strong>on</strong>g>legal</str<strong>on</strong>g> issues raised by <strong>the</strong> inclusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> greenhouse gas emissi<strong>on</strong>s<br />
from aviati<strong>on</strong> activities in <strong>the</strong> European Uni<strong>on</strong>’s Emissi<strong>on</strong>s Trading System. A recent ruling by<br />
<strong>the</strong> European Court <strong>of</strong> Justice upholding <strong>the</strong> validity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> measures adopted by <strong>the</strong> European<br />
Uni<strong>on</strong> has added to <strong>the</strong> <strong>on</strong>going discussi<strong>on</strong>.<br />
Beginning with an overview and comment <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> ruling <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> European Court <strong>of</strong> Justice, this<br />
Working Paper addresses <strong>the</strong> interacti<strong>on</strong>s and tensi<strong>on</strong>s between internati<strong>on</strong>al law <strong>on</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong> and<br />
<strong>on</strong> climate change, including <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Internati<strong>on</strong>al Civil Aviati<strong>on</strong> Organizati<strong>on</strong> in<br />
regulating greenhouse gas emissi<strong>on</strong>s from aviati<strong>on</strong>. It also summarizes <strong>the</strong> positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> China in<br />
opposing <strong>the</strong> European measures, preferring a global policy soluti<strong>on</strong> to <strong>the</strong> regulati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> aircraft<br />
emissi<strong>on</strong>s.<br />
2. Case Comment - Ruling <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> Legality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU Emissi<strong>on</strong>s<br />
Trading System<br />
The European Court <strong>of</strong> Justice (hereinafter <strong>the</strong> “ECJ”) sitting as Grand Chamber upheld <strong>the</strong><br />
validity <strong>of</strong> Directive 2008/101 1 (<strong>the</strong> “Directive”) in Air Transport Associati<strong>on</strong> v. SS for Energy and<br />
Climate Change, 2 in resp<strong>on</strong>se to a reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Treaty<br />
<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> Functi<strong>on</strong>ing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> European Uni<strong>on</strong> (hereinafter <strong>the</strong> “TFEU”) 3 from <strong>the</strong> High Court <strong>of</strong> Justice<br />
<strong>of</strong> England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Divisi<strong>on</strong> (Administrative Court). This reference<br />
c<strong>on</strong>cerned <strong>the</strong> validity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Directive, which amended Directive 2003/87 4 to include greenhouse<br />
gas emissi<strong>on</strong>s from aviati<strong>on</strong> activities in <strong>the</strong> European Uni<strong>on</strong> Emissi<strong>on</strong>s Trading System (<strong>the</strong><br />
“EU ETS”). Broadly, <strong>the</strong> ECJ ruling addressed two questi<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>the</strong> first being <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
under which internati<strong>on</strong>al treaties and customary internati<strong>on</strong>al law principles could be relied <strong>on</strong><br />
when assessing <strong>the</strong> validity <strong>of</strong> European Community law, and <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d being <strong>the</strong> validity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Directive in this c<strong>on</strong>text. 5<br />
2.1 Airline Industry Perspectives<br />
The airline industry 6 str<strong>on</strong>gly opposed <strong>the</strong> inclusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong> activities within <strong>the</strong> EU ETS or<br />
more specifically <strong>the</strong> inclusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> emissi<strong>on</strong>s by n<strong>on</strong>-EU carriers outside EU territory. 7 The main<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>legal</str<strong>on</strong>g> arguments brought before <strong>the</strong> ECJ were <strong>the</strong> following:<br />
1 EC, Directive 2008/101/EC <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> European Parliament and <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Council <strong>of</strong> 19 November 2008 amending Directive<br />
2003/87/EC so as to include aviati<strong>on</strong> activities in <strong>the</strong> scheme for greenhouse gas emissi<strong>on</strong> allowance trading within <strong>the</strong> Community,<br />
[2009] O.J. L 8/3 [Directive 2008/101].<br />
2 Air Transport Associati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> America and o<strong>the</strong>rs v. Secretary <strong>of</strong> State for Energy and Climate Change, C-366/10, <strong>on</strong>line:<br />
InfoCuria – Case-law <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Court <strong>of</strong> Justice<br />
(visited March 1, 2012)<br />
[Decisi<strong>on</strong>].<br />
3 Treaty <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> Functi<strong>on</strong>ing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> European Uni<strong>on</strong>, 25 March 1957, [2010] O.J. C 83/47, art. 267 [TFEU].<br />
4 EC, Directive 2003/87/EC <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> European Parliament and <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Council <strong>of</strong> 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse<br />
gas emissi<strong>on</strong> allowance trading within <strong>the</strong> Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, [2003] O.J. L 275/32.<br />
5 See Decisi<strong>on</strong>, supra note 2, para. 1.<br />
6 In this secti<strong>on</strong> ‘airline industry’ refers to <strong>the</strong> Internati<strong>on</strong>al Air Transport Associati<strong>on</strong> (IATA) and <strong>the</strong> Nati<strong>on</strong>al<br />
Airlines Council <strong>of</strong> Canada (NACC). IATA and NACC are trade associati<strong>on</strong>s which, respectively, represent <strong>the</strong><br />
airlines which account for approximately 93% <strong>of</strong> all scheduled internati<strong>on</strong>al airline services (IATA) and Canada’s<br />
four largest passenger air carriers (NACC): An interveners‘ brief submitted to <strong>the</strong> European Court <strong>of</strong> Justice („ECJ“)<br />
by <strong>the</strong> Internati<strong>on</strong>al Air Transport Associati<strong>on</strong> (IATA) and <strong>the</strong> Nati<strong>on</strong>al Airlines Council <strong>of</strong> Canada (NACC), Case<br />
3
• The EU breaches internati<strong>on</strong>al treaty obligati<strong>on</strong> as Article 2(2) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Kyoto Protocol to<br />
<strong>the</strong> United Nati<strong>on</strong>s Framework C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> Climate Change 8 (<strong>the</strong> “Kyoto Protocol”)<br />
provides that <strong>the</strong> Internati<strong>on</strong>al Civil Aviati<strong>on</strong> Organizati<strong>on</strong> (“ICAO”) has “exclusive<br />
resp<strong>on</strong>sibility” for reducing greenhouse gas emissi<strong>on</strong>s from <strong>the</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al aviati<strong>on</strong><br />
sector and thus that <strong>the</strong> EU as a signatory <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Kyoto Protocol must work through<br />
ICAO. Similarly, <strong>the</strong> parties to <strong>the</strong> EU/US Open Skies Agreement agreed to pursue<br />
emissi<strong>on</strong>s trading measures “within <strong>the</strong> framework <strong>of</strong> ICAO”. 9<br />
• The EU breaches internati<strong>on</strong>al customary law (reflected, inter alia, in <strong>the</strong> Chicago<br />
C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> Internati<strong>on</strong>al Civil Aviati<strong>on</strong> (<strong>the</strong> “Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>”), <strong>the</strong> EU/US<br />
Open Skies Agreement and o<strong>the</strong>r bilateral agreements), as <strong>the</strong> EU “applies <strong>the</strong> ETS to<br />
those parts <strong>of</strong> flights which take place outside <strong>the</strong> airspace <strong>of</strong> EU Member States and<br />
<strong>the</strong>reby subjects <strong>the</strong> territory <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r states and <strong>the</strong> high seas to EU sovereignty”. 10 By<br />
requiring aircraft operators to surrender emissi<strong>on</strong> allowances for internati<strong>on</strong>al flights<br />
crossing EU boundaries when flying to and from European aerodromes <strong>the</strong> ETS imposes<br />
extraterritorial obligati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> foreign airlines and thus c<strong>on</strong>travenes <strong>the</strong> fundamental<br />
principle <strong>of</strong> state sovereignty. 11<br />
• The EU breaches <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> (and o<strong>the</strong>r EU bilateral agreements) as <strong>the</strong><br />
scheme imposes ei<strong>the</strong>r an il<str<strong>on</strong>g>legal</str<strong>on</strong>g> charge or an il<str<strong>on</strong>g>legal</str<strong>on</strong>g> tax <strong>on</strong> aircraft operators: 12 According<br />
to Article 15 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> any impositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> a charge o<strong>the</strong>r than for <strong>the</strong><br />
use <strong>of</strong> airports and air navigati<strong>on</strong> facilities is prohibited. 13 Since <strong>the</strong> EU ETS imposes a<br />
charge <strong>on</strong> take-<strong>of</strong>f or landing that is not related to <strong>the</strong> associated airport or navigati<strong>on</strong>al<br />
costs it c<strong>on</strong>stitutes an il<str<strong>on</strong>g>legal</str<strong>on</strong>g> charge under <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>. 14 If <strong>the</strong> EU ETS does<br />
not impose an il<str<strong>on</strong>g>legal</str<strong>on</strong>g> charge (which is denied), <strong>the</strong>n it imposes at least an il<str<strong>on</strong>g>legal</str<strong>on</strong>g> tax,<br />
because emissi<strong>on</strong>s are linked to <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> fuel and Article 24 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong><br />
as well as <strong>the</strong> EU/US Open Skies Agreement provide that fuel shall be exempt from<br />
duties etc. 15<br />
C-366/10, pg. 1 (Executive Summary), <strong>on</strong>line: . [Airline industry]<br />
7 Ibid; unknown,”IATA says EU's approach to emissi<strong>on</strong>s trade problematic”, Xinhuanet (13 February 2012), <strong>on</strong>line:<br />
Xinhuanet .<br />
8 United Nati<strong>on</strong>s Framework C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> Climate Change, 4 June 1992, 1771 U.N.T.S. 107, Can.T.S. 1994 No. 7 (entered<br />
into force 21 March 1994).<br />
9 Airline industry, supra note 17, para (7), (34) and (40).<br />
10 Ibid., para (38) and (39).<br />
11 Ibid., para (30), (31) and (38).<br />
12 Ibid., para (40).<br />
13 Article 15 (Airport and similar charges) Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>: ... “Any charges that may be imposed or permitted to be<br />
imposed by a c<strong>on</strong>tracting State for <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> such airports and air navigati<strong>on</strong> facilities by <strong>the</strong> aircraft <strong>of</strong> any o<strong>the</strong>r c<strong>on</strong>tracting State shall<br />
not be higher,<br />
(a) As to aircraft not engaged in scheduled internati<strong>on</strong>al air services, than those that would be paid by its nati<strong>on</strong>al aircraft <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> same<br />
class engaged in similar operati<strong>on</strong>s, and<br />
(b) As to aircraft engaged in scheduled internati<strong>on</strong>al air services, than those that would be paid by its nati<strong>on</strong>al aircraft engaged in similar<br />
internati<strong>on</strong>al air services.<br />
All such charges shall be published and communicated to <strong>the</strong> Internati<strong>on</strong>al Civil Aviati<strong>on</strong> Organizati<strong>on</strong>: provided that, up<strong>on</strong><br />
representati<strong>on</strong> by an interested c<strong>on</strong>tracting State, <strong>the</strong> charges imposed for <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> airports and o<strong>the</strong>r facilities shall be subject to review by<br />
<strong>the</strong> Council, which shall report and make recommendati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>the</strong>re<strong>on</strong> for <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> State or States c<strong>on</strong>cerned. No fees, dues or<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r charges shall be imposed by any c<strong>on</strong>tracting State in respect solely <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> right <strong>of</strong> transit over or entry into or exit from its territory <strong>of</strong><br />
any aircraft <strong>of</strong> a c<strong>on</strong>tracting State or pers<strong>on</strong>s or property <strong>the</strong>re<strong>on</strong>.”<br />
14 Airline industry, supra note 17, para (35).<br />
15 Ibid., para (36); Article 24 (Customs duty) Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>: “(a) Aircraft <strong>on</strong> a flight to, from, or across <strong>the</strong> territory <strong>of</strong><br />
ano<strong>the</strong>r c<strong>on</strong>tracting State shall be admitted temporarily free <strong>of</strong> duty, subject to <strong>the</strong> customs regulati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> State. Fuel, lubricating oils,<br />
spare parts, regular equipment and aircraft stores <strong>on</strong> board an aircraft <strong>of</strong> a c<strong>on</strong>tracting State, <strong>on</strong> arrival in <strong>the</strong> territory <strong>of</strong> ano<strong>the</strong>r<br />
4
Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, <strong>the</strong> airline industry was <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> opini<strong>on</strong> that <strong>the</strong> EU ETS imposes obligati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong><br />
o<strong>the</strong>r nati<strong>on</strong>s as well as <strong>on</strong> third country nati<strong>on</strong>als and that by doing so <strong>the</strong> EU acts in breach <strong>of</strong><br />
public internati<strong>on</strong>al law as it expanded <strong>the</strong> ETS without <strong>the</strong>se third parties c<strong>on</strong>sent. 16<br />
2.2 Internati<strong>on</strong>al Treaties and Customary Internati<strong>on</strong>al Law Principles<br />
The ECJ held that <strong>the</strong> following customary internati<strong>on</strong>al law principles applied to its <str<strong>on</strong>g>analysis</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> validity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Directive:<br />
• Each State has sovereignty over its airspace;<br />
• No part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> high seas may come under <strong>the</strong> sovereignty <strong>of</strong> a State; and<br />
• Freedom to fly over <strong>the</strong> high seas is guaranteed. 17<br />
With respect to applicable internati<strong>on</strong>al treaty law, <strong>the</strong> ECJ identified Articles 7, 11(1), 11(2)(c),<br />
and 15(3) read in c<strong>on</strong>juncti<strong>on</strong> with articles 2 and 3(4) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> United States – European Uni<strong>on</strong> Air<br />
Transport Agreement (hereinafter <strong>the</strong> “Open Skies Agreement”). 18<br />
In its judgment, <strong>the</strong> ECJ addressed <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> inclusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> emissi<strong>on</strong>s from<br />
aviati<strong>on</strong> activities in <strong>the</strong> EU ETS c<strong>on</strong>stitutes a duty, tax, fee or charge <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> fuel load, and as<br />
such prohibited under <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> 19 <strong>of</strong> 1944 and <strong>the</strong> Open Skies Agreement. 20 On this<br />
point, <strong>the</strong> ECJ held that this was not <strong>the</strong> case, c<strong>on</strong>cluding ra<strong>the</strong>r that <strong>the</strong> EU ETS is a marketbased<br />
measure (“MBM”). 21 In reaching this c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>, <strong>the</strong> ECJ differentiated between a levy or<br />
tax based <strong>on</strong> fuel held or c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> and a pecuniary burden <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> aircraft’s operati<strong>on</strong> under<br />
<strong>the</strong> EU ETS. 22<br />
2.3 The Role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> ECJ Ruling<br />
The ECJ held that <strong>the</strong> Directive could not be assessed in light <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>, noting<br />
that although all EU Member States were parties to <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>, <strong>the</strong> EU itself was<br />
not. 23 Specifically, <strong>the</strong> ECJ c<strong>on</strong>cluded that although <strong>the</strong> first paragraph <strong>of</strong> Article 351 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
TFEU implies a duty <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> part <strong>of</strong> EU instituti<strong>on</strong>s not to impede <strong>the</strong> performance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
obligati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> Member States under <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>, 24 that duty is designed to ensure<br />
c<strong>on</strong>tracting State and retained <strong>on</strong> board <strong>on</strong> leaving <strong>the</strong> territory <strong>of</strong> that State shall be exempt from customs duty, inspecti<strong>on</strong> fees or similar<br />
nati<strong>on</strong>al or local duties and charges. This exempti<strong>on</strong> shall not apply to any quantities or articles unloaded, except in accordance with <strong>the</strong><br />
customs regulati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> State, which may require that <strong>the</strong>y shall be kept under customs supervisi<strong>on</strong>.<br />
(b) Spare parts and equipment imported into <strong>the</strong> territory <strong>of</strong> a c<strong>on</strong>tracting State for incorporati<strong>on</strong> in or use <strong>on</strong> an aircraft <strong>of</strong> ano<strong>the</strong>r<br />
c<strong>on</strong>tracting State engaged in internati<strong>on</strong>al air navigati<strong>on</strong> shall be admitted free <strong>of</strong> customs duty, subject to compliance with <strong>the</strong> regulati<strong>on</strong>s<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> State c<strong>on</strong>cerned, which may provide that <strong>the</strong> articles shall be kept under customs supervisi<strong>on</strong> and c<strong>on</strong>trol.”<br />
16 Airline industry, supra note 17, para (34).<br />
17 See ibid., para. 111.<br />
18 Ibid.; Air Transport Agreement, United States and European Uni<strong>on</strong>, 25 and 30 April 2007, E.U. Series 005/2011: Cm<br />
8137, [2007] O.J. L 134/4, arts. 2, 3(4), 7, 11(1), 11(2)(c) [Open Skies Agreement]; Open Skies Agreement, ibid., art. 15(3) as<br />
amended by Protocol to amend <strong>the</strong> Air Transport Agreement between <strong>the</strong> United States <strong>of</strong> America and <strong>the</strong> European Community<br />
and its Member States, signed <strong>on</strong> April 25 and 30, 2007, [2010] O.J. L 223/1, art. 3 [Protocol amending Open Skies Agreement].<br />
19 C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> Internati<strong>on</strong>al Civil Aviati<strong>on</strong>, 7 December 1944, 61 STAT. 1180, T.I.A.S. NO. 1591, 15 U.N.T.S. 295,<br />
Can. T.S. 1944 No. 36, ICAO Doc. 7300/9 [Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>].<br />
20 See Decisi<strong>on</strong>, supra note 2, para. 147; Open Skies Agreement, supra note 18, art. 11.<br />
21 See Decisi<strong>on</strong>, supra note 2, para. 147.<br />
22 See Decisi<strong>on</strong>, ibid., paras. 141 – 147.<br />
23 See ibid., paras. 3, 60.<br />
24 TFEU, supra note 3, art. 351.<br />
5
that EU Member States c<strong>on</strong>tinue to exercise <strong>the</strong>ir powers under <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> and<br />
does not bind <strong>the</strong> EU in that regard. 25<br />
The decisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ECJ to not c<strong>on</strong>sider <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> in its <str<strong>on</strong>g>analysis</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> validity <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Directive in light <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al treaty law has been viewed as c<strong>on</strong>troversial in light <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
fundamental place <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> in internati<strong>on</strong>al <strong>civil</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong>. The Chicago<br />
C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>, <strong>of</strong>ten described as <strong>the</strong> “C<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>” 26 <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al <strong>civil</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong>, 27 established<br />
<strong>the</strong> Internati<strong>on</strong>al Civil Aviati<strong>on</strong> Organizati<strong>on</strong> (“ICAO”) 28 as <strong>the</strong> global forum for cooperati<strong>on</strong><br />
am<strong>on</strong>g its 191 Member States in all fields <strong>of</strong> <strong>civil</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong>, 29 and is <strong>the</strong> primary source <strong>of</strong> public<br />
internati<strong>on</strong>al air law. 30 Milde observed that “[t]he provisi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> [Chicago] C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> are<br />
mandatory since <strong>the</strong>re is no provisi<strong>on</strong> permitting any reservati<strong>on</strong>s to <strong>the</strong> C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>. The<br />
mandatory nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> is underlined by Article 82 in which C<strong>on</strong>tracting States<br />
committed <strong>the</strong>mselves to abrogate any inc<strong>on</strong>sistent obligati<strong>on</strong>s and understandings and not to<br />
enter into any such obligati<strong>on</strong>s or understanding.” 31<br />
C<strong>on</strong>sidering <strong>the</strong> provisi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Open Skies Agreement, 32 an air services agreement, but not<br />
those <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>, while determining <strong>the</strong> validity <strong>of</strong> a measure that affects<br />
internati<strong>on</strong>al <strong>civil</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong>, is c<strong>on</strong>troversial in light <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> fact that all air services agreements,<br />
whe<strong>the</strong>r bilateral or multilateral, are authorized and governed by <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>. 33<br />
Ano<strong>the</strong>r approach would have been for <strong>the</strong> ECJ to c<strong>on</strong>sider Article 11 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Chicago<br />
C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> as this provisi<strong>on</strong> has been reproduced in article 7(1) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Open Skies Agreement<br />
without <strong>the</strong> phrase “Subject to <strong>the</strong> provisi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> [<strong>the</strong> Chicago] C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>”. 34 An Article 11<br />
25 See Decisi<strong>on</strong>, supra note 2, para. 61.<br />
26 Dempsey argues that “[a]ny chr<strong>on</strong>ological review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al aviati<strong>on</strong> law must begin with<br />
<strong>the</strong> “C<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>” <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al <strong>civil</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong>, <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> 1944”. Paul Stephen Dempsey, Public<br />
Internati<strong>on</strong>al Air Law (M<strong>on</strong>treal: McGill University, Institute and Center for Research in Air & Space Law, 2008) at 69.<br />
27 Ibid.<br />
28 Ibid. at 49.<br />
29 See <strong>on</strong>line: ICAO in brief, ICAO (visited February 29, 2012).<br />
30 Michael Milde, “Internati<strong>on</strong>al Air Law and ICAO” in Marietta Benkö, ed., Essential Air and Space Law, vol. 4<br />
(Utrecht, Ne<strong>the</strong>rlands: Eleven Internati<strong>on</strong>al Publishing, 2008) at 17. Giemulla admired <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> by<br />
stating that “[l]egal globalizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong> is <strong>on</strong>ly possible under <strong>the</strong> principle <strong>of</strong> ‘internati<strong>on</strong>alism’ (as opposed to<br />
‘supranati<strong>on</strong>alism’) through <strong>the</strong> following:<br />
- a c<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> in which <strong>the</strong> members pledge to comply with or implement decisi<strong>on</strong>s reached toge<strong>the</strong>r (by<br />
majority). In aviati<strong>on</strong>, this is <strong>of</strong> course <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>;<br />
- an organizati<strong>on</strong> that can reach such decisi<strong>on</strong>s. In aviati<strong>on</strong>, this is <strong>of</strong> course <strong>the</strong> ICAO”. Elmar M. Giemulla,<br />
“Chapter 1: Chicago System: Genesis and Main Characteristics” in Elmar M. Giemulla & Ludwig Weber, eds.,<br />
Internati<strong>on</strong>al and EU Aviati<strong>on</strong> Law: Selected Issues (AH Alphen aan den Rijn, The Ne<strong>the</strong>rlands: Kluwer Law<br />
Internati<strong>on</strong>al, 2011) 3 at 5 [footnotes omitted].<br />
31 Milde, ibid. at 18 [footnote omitted].<br />
32 Open Skies Agreement, supra note 18.<br />
33 Article 6, which authorizes <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> air services agreements, provides that “No scheduled internati<strong>on</strong>al air<br />
service may be operated over or into <strong>the</strong> territory <strong>of</strong> a c<strong>on</strong>tracting State, except with <strong>the</strong> special permissi<strong>on</strong> or o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
authorizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> that State, and in accordance with <strong>the</strong> terms <strong>of</strong> such permissi<strong>on</strong> or authorizati<strong>on</strong>.” Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>,<br />
supra note 19, art. 6.<br />
34 Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>, supra note 19, art. 11; Open Skies Agreement, supra note 18, art. 7(1). Article 11 <strong>of</strong> Chicago<br />
C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>, supra note 19, provides:<br />
Subject to <strong>the</strong> provisi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> this C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>, <strong>the</strong> laws and regulati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> a c<strong>on</strong>tracting State relating to <strong>the</strong> admissi<strong>on</strong><br />
to or departure from its territory <strong>of</strong> aircraft engaged in internati<strong>on</strong>al air navigati<strong>on</strong>, or to <strong>the</strong> operati<strong>on</strong> and navigati<strong>on</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> such aircraft while within its territory, shall be applied to <strong>the</strong> aircraft <strong>of</strong> all c<strong>on</strong>tracting States without distincti<strong>on</strong> as<br />
to nati<strong>on</strong>ality, and shall be complied with by such aircraft up<strong>on</strong> entering and departing from or while within <strong>the</strong><br />
territory <strong>of</strong> that State.<br />
Ibid., art. 11.<br />
Article 7(1) <strong>of</strong> Open Skies Agreement, supra note 18, provides:<br />
The laws and regulati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> a Party relating to <strong>the</strong> admissi<strong>on</strong> to or departure from its territory <strong>of</strong> aircraft engaged in<br />
internati<strong>on</strong>al air navigati<strong>on</strong>, or to <strong>the</strong> operati<strong>on</strong> and navigati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> such aircraft while within its territory, shall be<br />
6
<str<strong>on</strong>g>analysis</str<strong>on</strong>g> would have required <strong>the</strong> ECJ to c<strong>on</strong>sider o<strong>the</strong>r provisi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong><br />
due to <strong>the</strong> phrase “Subject to <strong>the</strong> provisi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> [<strong>the</strong> Chicago] C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>”, 35 and enhanced <strong>the</strong><br />
significance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> judgment as an <str<strong>on</strong>g>analysis</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al treaty law. 36<br />
2.4 The Role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Kyoto Protocol in <strong>the</strong> ECJ Ruling<br />
The Court held that <strong>the</strong> Kyoto Protocol, in particular Article 2(2), 37 could not be taken into<br />
account when assessing <strong>the</strong> validity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Directive. 38 It must be borne in mind that <strong>the</strong> very<br />
basis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU ETS, an MBM, is <strong>the</strong> Kyoto Protocol, 39 which is expressed in <strong>the</strong> Directive and<br />
was acknowledged by <strong>the</strong> ECJ. 40 Although <strong>the</strong> EU is a party to both <strong>the</strong> UNFCCC and <strong>the</strong><br />
Kyoto Protocol and, hence, <strong>the</strong>se two internati<strong>on</strong>al agreements are binding <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU<br />
instituti<strong>on</strong>s and must prevail over EU law in accordance with article 216(2) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> TFEU, 41 <strong>the</strong><br />
ECJ refused to c<strong>on</strong>sider <strong>the</strong>se agreements applying <strong>the</strong> criteria established through its own<br />
jurisprudence. 42 Interestingly, at <strong>on</strong>e point, this Court referred to <strong>the</strong> same agreements to bolster<br />
its own submissi<strong>on</strong> leading to <strong>the</strong> holding that <strong>the</strong> Directive was valid. 43 It is surprising to find<br />
that a legislati<strong>on</strong> that has been enacted to c<strong>on</strong>form to internati<strong>on</strong>al obligati<strong>on</strong>(s) arising from<br />
internati<strong>on</strong>al agreement(s) cannot be evaluated in light <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> same agreement(s) unless some<br />
criteria, not emerging from <strong>the</strong> same agreement(s), are met.<br />
applied to <strong>the</strong> aircraft utilized by <strong>the</strong> airlines <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r Party, and shall be complied with by such aircraft up<strong>on</strong><br />
entering or departing from or while within <strong>the</strong> territory <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> first Party.<br />
Ibid., art. 7(1).<br />
35 Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>, supra note 19, art. 11.<br />
36 It is worth noting that any provisi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>, supra note 19, must be interpreted in accordance<br />
with <strong>the</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al law <strong>of</strong> treaties. See e.g. Milde, “Internati<strong>on</strong>al Air Law”, supra note 30 at 18.<br />
37 Kyoto Protocol to <strong>the</strong> United Nati<strong>on</strong>s Framework C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> Climate Change, 16 March 1998, 2303 U.N.T.S. 148, art.<br />
2(2) (entered into force 16 February 2005) [Kyoto Protocol].<br />
38 See Decisi<strong>on</strong>, supra note 2, paras. 73 – 78.<br />
39 “Countries with commitments under <strong>the</strong> Kyoto Protocol to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissi<strong>on</strong>s must meet<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir targets primarily through nati<strong>on</strong>al measures. As an additi<strong>on</strong>al means <strong>of</strong> meeting <strong>the</strong>se targets, <strong>the</strong> Kyoto<br />
Protocol introduced three market-based mechanisms, <strong>the</strong>reby creating what is now known as <strong>the</strong> “carb<strong>on</strong> market.”<br />
The Kyoto mechanisms are:<br />
● Emissi<strong>on</strong>s Trading<br />
● The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)<br />
Joint Implementati<strong>on</strong> (JI)”. Online: Mechanisms under <strong>the</strong> Kyoto Protocol, United Nati<strong>on</strong>s Framework<br />
C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> Climate Change <br />
(visited March 2, 2012).<br />
40 See Directive 2008/101, supra note 1; see Decisi<strong>on</strong>, supra note 2, paras. 24 – 33, 73 – 77, 128.<br />
41 TFEU, supra note 3, art. 216(2).<br />
42 See Decisi<strong>on</strong>, supra note 2, paras. 51 – 56.<br />
43 Ibid., para. 128. “As for <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> operator <strong>of</strong> an aircraft in such a situati<strong>on</strong> is required to surrender<br />
allowances calculated in <strong>the</strong> light <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> whole <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al flight that its aircraft has performed or is going to<br />
perform from or to such an aerodrome, it must be pointed out that, as European Uni<strong>on</strong> policy <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> envir<strong>on</strong>ment<br />
seeks to ensure a high level <strong>of</strong> protecti<strong>on</strong> in accordance with Article 191(2) TFEU, <strong>the</strong> European Uni<strong>on</strong> legislature<br />
may in principle choose to permit a commercial activity, in this instance air transport, to be carried out in <strong>the</strong><br />
territory <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> European Uni<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong> that operators comply with <strong>the</strong> criteria that have been established<br />
by <strong>the</strong> European Uni<strong>on</strong> and are designed to fulfil <strong>the</strong> envir<strong>on</strong>mental protecti<strong>on</strong> objectives which it has set for itself,<br />
in particular where those objectives follow <strong>on</strong> from an internati<strong>on</strong>al agreement to which <strong>the</strong> European Uni<strong>on</strong> is a<br />
signatory, such as <strong>the</strong> [UNFCCC] and <strong>the</strong> Kyoto Protocol.” Ibid.<br />
7
2.5 Unresolved Debate<br />
The ECJ’s <str<strong>on</strong>g>analysis</str<strong>on</strong>g> and interpretati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Article 15(3) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Open Skies Agreement, 44 in<br />
c<strong>on</strong>juncti<strong>on</strong> with Articles 2 and 3(4) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> same agreement, 45 establishing that <strong>the</strong> EU ETS is not<br />
prohibited under <strong>the</strong> Open Skies Agreement, however admirable, 46 leaves important questi<strong>on</strong>s<br />
unresolved. Specifically, <strong>the</strong> judgment could have benefitted from an interpretati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> phrase<br />
“fair and equal opportunity” as provided for in Article 2 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Open Skies Agreement. The view<br />
that n<strong>on</strong>-discriminatory applicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU ETS ensures “fair and equal opportunity for <strong>the</strong><br />
airlines <strong>of</strong> both Parties to compete in providing <strong>the</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al air transportati<strong>on</strong> governed by<br />
[<strong>the</strong> Open Skies] Agreement” 47 is not likely to be shared outside <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU.<br />
3. Aviati<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong> EU Emissi<strong>on</strong>s Trading System<br />
ICAO was tasked in <strong>the</strong> Kyoto Protocol to lead global acti<strong>on</strong> to reduce greenhouse gas emissi<strong>on</strong>s<br />
from <strong>the</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong> industry. While it asserts its leading role in tackling <strong>the</strong> envir<strong>on</strong>mental impact <strong>of</strong><br />
air transport, ICAO has faced various challenges in <strong>the</strong> adopti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> effective measures. It is in<br />
this c<strong>on</strong>text that <strong>the</strong> European Uni<strong>on</strong> has unilaterally adopted legislati<strong>on</strong> to include <strong>the</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong><br />
industry in <strong>the</strong> EU ETS. The EU’s aviati<strong>on</strong> emissi<strong>on</strong>s policy can <strong>the</strong>refore be situated in <strong>the</strong><br />
broader debate <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>legal</str<strong>on</strong>g>ity <strong>of</strong> unilateral envir<strong>on</strong>mental measures with extraterritorial effect.<br />
3.1 ICAO mandate under <strong>the</strong> Kyoto Protocol<br />
In <strong>the</strong> negotiati<strong>on</strong>s leading to <strong>the</strong> Kyoto Protocol, states party to <strong>the</strong> United Nati<strong>on</strong>s Framework<br />
C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> Climate Change (<strong>the</strong> “UNFCCC”) discussed how to include emissi<strong>on</strong>s from <strong>the</strong><br />
internati<strong>on</strong>al aviati<strong>on</strong> sector in a global climate change agreement. 48 These discussi<strong>on</strong>s focused <strong>on</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> issue <strong>of</strong> how to allocate internati<strong>on</strong>al aviati<strong>on</strong> greenhouse gas emissi<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>gst countries. 49<br />
Various opti<strong>on</strong>s were discussed including a divisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> emissi<strong>on</strong>s between <strong>the</strong> countries <strong>of</strong> origin<br />
and destinati<strong>on</strong>, assigning allowances based <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>s who purchased or sold jet fuel, or <strong>the</strong><br />
nati<strong>on</strong>ality <strong>of</strong> aircraft. 50 No agreement <strong>on</strong> this issue was reached, and although States party to <strong>the</strong><br />
Kyoto Protocol must report emissi<strong>on</strong>s from <strong>the</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al aviati<strong>on</strong> sector in <strong>the</strong>ir nati<strong>on</strong>al<br />
greenhouse gas inventories, <strong>the</strong>se emissi<strong>on</strong>s are not included in <strong>the</strong> calculati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> developed<br />
countries’ emissi<strong>on</strong> reducti<strong>on</strong> commitments. 51<br />
As a compromise Article 2.2 was inserted into <strong>the</strong> Kyoto Protocol, with <strong>the</strong> aim <strong>of</strong> promoting<br />
c<strong>on</strong>tinued dialogue:<br />
44 Open Skies Agreement, supra note 18, art. 15(3) as amended by Protocol amending Open Skies Agreement, supra note 18, art.<br />
3.<br />
45 Open Skies Agreement, ibid., arts. 2, 3(4).<br />
46 See Decisi<strong>on</strong>, supra note 2, paras. 148 – 156.<br />
47 Open Skies Agreement, supra note 18, art. 2.<br />
48 Erik Haites,“Linking emissi<strong>on</strong>s trading schemes for internati<strong>on</strong>al aviati<strong>on</strong> and shipping emissi<strong>on</strong>s” (2009)9 Climate<br />
Policy 415, 417.<br />
49 SebastienOberthür, “Instituti<strong>on</strong>al interacti<strong>on</strong> to address greenhouse gas emissi<strong>on</strong>s from internati<strong>on</strong>al transport:<br />
ICAO, IMO and Kyoto Protocol” (2003) 3 Climate Policy 191, 196.<br />
50 David McCollum, Gregory Gould& David Greene“Greenhouse gas emissi<strong>on</strong>s from aviati<strong>on</strong> and marine<br />
transportati<strong>on</strong>: mitigati<strong>on</strong> potential and policies.” (2009) Pew Center <strong>on</strong> Global Climate Change: Soluti<strong>on</strong>s White<br />
Paper Series, 26-27.<br />
51 Kati Kulovesi, “Make your own special s<strong>on</strong>g, even if nobody else sings al<strong>on</strong>g: Internati<strong>on</strong>al aviati<strong>on</strong> emissi<strong>on</strong>s and<br />
<strong>the</strong> EU emissi<strong>on</strong>s trading scheme” (2011) 2 Climate Policy 4, 3.<br />
8
“The Parties included in Annex I shall pursue limitati<strong>on</strong> or reducti<strong>on</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> emissi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> greenhouse gases not c<strong>on</strong>trolled by <strong>the</strong> M<strong>on</strong>treal<br />
Protocol from aviati<strong>on</strong> and marine bunker fuels, working through <strong>the</strong><br />
Internati<strong>on</strong>al Civil Aviati<strong>on</strong> Organizati<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong> Internati<strong>on</strong>al<br />
Maritime Organizati<strong>on</strong>, respectively.” 52<br />
ICAO was established by <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> 53 with <strong>the</strong> mandate to promote <strong>the</strong> safe and<br />
orderly growth <strong>of</strong> <strong>civil</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong> and to foster <strong>the</strong> planning and development <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al air<br />
transport. 54 The Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> does not address greenhouse gas emissi<strong>on</strong>s from <strong>the</strong><br />
aviati<strong>on</strong> sector. However, ICAO has developed binding internati<strong>on</strong>al standards and regulati<strong>on</strong>s<br />
<strong>on</strong> envir<strong>on</strong>mental issues. 55 At <strong>the</strong> 37 th ICAO Assembly held in M<strong>on</strong>treal in November <strong>of</strong> 2010,<br />
ICAO maintained that it holds a leading role in tackling <strong>the</strong> envir<strong>on</strong>mental impact <strong>of</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong> and<br />
acknowledged its resp<strong>on</strong>sibility in this area. 56<br />
3.2 ICAO Progress <strong>on</strong> Greenhouse Gas Emissi<strong>on</strong>s<br />
Since it was delegated resp<strong>on</strong>sibility in 1997 to regulate and limit internati<strong>on</strong>al aviati<strong>on</strong> emissi<strong>on</strong>s,<br />
various commentators have characterised <strong>the</strong> progress <strong>of</strong> ICAO as slow. 57 In 2004, ICAO<br />
adopted three major envir<strong>on</strong>mental goals, <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> which was “to limit or reduce <strong>the</strong> impact <strong>of</strong><br />
aviati<strong>on</strong> greenhouse gas emissi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> global climate”. 58 At <strong>the</strong> 37 th ICAO Assembly, Member<br />
States committed to a global annual average fuel efficiency improvement <strong>of</strong> two per cent through<br />
to 2020 and an aspirati<strong>on</strong>al goal <strong>of</strong> a global fuel efficiency improvement rate <strong>of</strong> two per cent per<br />
annum from 2021 to 2050. 59 In additi<strong>on</strong>, Member States adopted a medium-term aspirati<strong>on</strong>al<br />
goal <strong>of</strong> maintaining global net carb<strong>on</strong> dioxide (CO 2 ) emissi<strong>on</strong>s from internati<strong>on</strong>al aviati<strong>on</strong> at 2020<br />
levels. 60<br />
ICAO has invited Member States to submit voluntary nati<strong>on</strong>al acti<strong>on</strong> plans outlining <strong>the</strong>ir CO 2 -<br />
reducti<strong>on</strong> policies and activities by June 2012. 61 There is in principle agreement between ICAO<br />
Member States that <strong>the</strong> most desirable policy design is a market-based mechanism, including<br />
emissi<strong>on</strong>s trading schemes. 62 C<strong>on</strong>sequently, ICAO has developed a framework <strong>of</strong> guiding<br />
principles for <strong>the</strong> development and design <strong>of</strong> market-based mechanisms by Member States. 63 It<br />
should be noted that <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> guiding principles is that participati<strong>on</strong> in any domestic marketbased<br />
mechanism should be <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> mutual c<strong>on</strong>sent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> countries involved. 64<br />
52 Kyoto Protocol, opened for signature 16 March 1998, 37 ILM 22 (entered into force 16 February 2005), art 2.2.<br />
53 C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> Internati<strong>on</strong>al Civil Aviati<strong>on</strong>, opened for signature 1 December 1944 (entered into force 5 March 1947),<br />
art. 43. (‘Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>’).<br />
54 Ibid., art 44.<br />
55 Internati<strong>on</strong>al Civil Aviati<strong>on</strong> Organisati<strong>on</strong>, ‘ICAO in brief’ (2011) accessed <strong>on</strong> 30 November 2011.<br />
56 Internati<strong>on</strong>al Civil Aviati<strong>on</strong> Organisati<strong>on</strong>, Resoluti<strong>on</strong>s Adopted by <strong>the</strong> Assembly at its 37th Sessi<strong>on</strong>, A37-18:<br />
C<strong>on</strong>solidated statement <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tinuing ICAO policies and practices related to envir<strong>on</strong>mental protecti<strong>on</strong>: General<br />
provisi<strong>on</strong>s, noise and local air quality and A37-19: C<strong>on</strong>solidated statement <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tinuing ICAO policies and practices<br />
related to envir<strong>on</strong>mental protecti<strong>on</strong> – Climate Change (2010) (‘Resoluti<strong>on</strong> A37-19’).<br />
57 Seeinter alia Haites,supra note 1, 418; Oberthür, supra note 2, 192; Andrew Macintosh and Lailey Wallace,<br />
“Internati<strong>on</strong>al aviati<strong>on</strong> emissi<strong>on</strong>s to 2025: Can emissi<strong>on</strong>s be stabilised without restricting demand” (2009) 37(1)<br />
Energy Policy264, 265.<br />
58 Internati<strong>on</strong>al Civil Aviati<strong>on</strong> Organisati<strong>on</strong>, ‘Envir<strong>on</strong>ment Branch’ (2011) accessed <strong>on</strong><br />
30 November 2011.<br />
59 Resoluti<strong>on</strong> A37-19, supra note 9, para. 4<br />
60 Ibid., para 6.<br />
61 Ibid., para.9-10.<br />
62 Haites, supra note 1, 418; Brian F. Havel and Gabriel S. Sanchez, “Toward a Global Aviati<strong>on</strong> Emissi<strong>on</strong>s<br />
Agreement” (2011)HELRForthcoming (available <strong>on</strong>line at SSRN: ), 9.<br />
63 Resoluti<strong>on</strong> A37-19, supra note 9, para. 14 and Annex.<br />
64 Ibid.<br />
9
Forty-two European countries made a reservati<strong>on</strong> to this guideline, due to <strong>the</strong> potential c<strong>on</strong>flict<br />
with <strong>the</strong> inclusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> EU ETS. 65<br />
These aspirati<strong>on</strong>al targets and guiding frameworks are <strong>the</strong> result <strong>of</strong> more than a decade <strong>of</strong> work<br />
by ICAO <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> regulati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong> greenhouse gas emissi<strong>on</strong>s. ICAO states that its acti<strong>on</strong> so<br />
far is “an important first step to address greenhouse gas emissi<strong>on</strong>s from internati<strong>on</strong>al aviati<strong>on</strong>”. 66<br />
It would <strong>the</strong>refore be prudent to investigate which factors have hindered ICAO’s adopti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> an<br />
internati<strong>on</strong>al agreement regulating aviati<strong>on</strong> emissi<strong>on</strong>s.<br />
3.3 Obstacles to <strong>the</strong> Progress <strong>of</strong> ICAO<br />
After <strong>the</strong> failure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> UNFCCC to include internati<strong>on</strong>al aviati<strong>on</strong> emissi<strong>on</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> Kyoto<br />
Protocol, <strong>the</strong>re has been a general political reluctance to negotiate an agreement under ICAO. 67<br />
Commentators have questi<strong>on</strong>ed whe<strong>the</strong>r ICAO’s mandate to promote <strong>the</strong> growth <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong><br />
industry is compatible with <strong>the</strong> mitigati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> emissi<strong>on</strong>s from internati<strong>on</strong>al aviati<strong>on</strong>. 68 The<br />
emphasis <strong>on</strong> growth is dem<strong>on</strong>strated in a statement in Resoluti<strong>on</strong> A36/22 which urges Member<br />
States to “refrain from envir<strong>on</strong>mental measures that would adversely affect <strong>the</strong> orderly and<br />
sustainable development <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al <strong>civil</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong>”. 69 Indeed, ICAO has been accused <strong>of</strong><br />
serving “as much, if not more, as a forum for champi<strong>on</strong>ing causes to preclude <strong>the</strong> sector from<br />
mandatory measures aimed at reducing [greenhouse gas] emissi<strong>on</strong>s as it has for developing such<br />
measures”. 70<br />
A sec<strong>on</strong>d major obstacle has been <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>flict between <strong>the</strong> principle <strong>of</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> but<br />
differentiated resp<strong>on</strong>sibilities c<strong>on</strong>tained in <strong>the</strong> UNFCCC and <strong>the</strong> Kyoto Protocol and <strong>the</strong><br />
principle <strong>of</strong> n<strong>on</strong>-discriminati<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tained in <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>. 71 The principle <strong>of</strong><br />
comm<strong>on</strong> but differentiated resp<strong>on</strong>sibilities ‘‘recognises that developed countries are principally<br />
historically resp<strong>on</strong>sible for <strong>the</strong> current high levels <strong>of</strong> greenhouse gas emissi<strong>on</strong>s in <strong>the</strong><br />
atmosphere.” 72 Subsequently, <strong>the</strong> burden for reducing greenhouse gas emissi<strong>on</strong>s is to be placed<br />
primarily <strong>on</strong> developed nati<strong>on</strong>s. The principle <strong>of</strong> n<strong>on</strong>-discriminati<strong>on</strong> states that all regulati<strong>on</strong>s,<br />
standards and rules are to apply equally to aircraft <strong>of</strong> all countries, without distincti<strong>on</strong> as to<br />
nati<strong>on</strong>ality. 73 Developing countries <strong>the</strong>refore seek some form <strong>of</strong> lesser obligati<strong>on</strong>, following <strong>the</strong><br />
principle <strong>of</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> but differentiated resp<strong>on</strong>sibility, while developed countries insist <strong>on</strong><br />
equality. Member States have reached an impasse in negotiati<strong>on</strong>s c<strong>on</strong>ducted through ICAO,<br />
resulting in limited global acti<strong>on</strong> to date. 74 The slow envir<strong>on</strong>mental progress <strong>of</strong> ICAO to address<br />
<strong>the</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al aviati<strong>on</strong> greenhouse gas emissi<strong>on</strong>s has compelled <strong>the</strong> EU to take unilateral<br />
acti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> this issue.<br />
65 McCollum, Gould& Greene, supra note 3, 27.<br />
66 Internati<strong>on</strong>al Civil Aviati<strong>on</strong> Organisati<strong>on</strong>, ‘Programme <strong>of</strong> Acti<strong>on</strong>: Declarati<strong>on</strong> by <strong>the</strong> High-level Meeting <strong>on</strong><br />
Internati<strong>on</strong>al Aviati<strong>on</strong> and Climate Change’ (2009) (HLM-ENV/09).<br />
67 FarhanaYaminand Joanna Depledge, The Internati<strong>on</strong>al Climate Change Regime: A Guide to Rules, Instituti<strong>on</strong>s and<br />
Procedures (CUP, 2004), 136.<br />
68 Oberthür, supra note 2, 195.<br />
69 Jana Chiavari, SiriniWithana and Marc Pallemaerts, “The Role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU in Attempting to ‘Green’ <strong>the</strong> ICAO”<br />
(2008) EPIGOV Paper No. 35, Ecologic – Institute for Internati<strong>on</strong>al and European Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Policy<br />
, 29.<br />
70 Claybourne Fox Clarke and ThiagoChagas, “Aviati<strong>on</strong> and Climate Change Regulati<strong>on</strong>” in David Freest<strong>on</strong>e and<br />
Charlotte Streck (eds), Legal Aspects <strong>of</strong> Carb<strong>on</strong> Trading (OUP, 2009), 609.<br />
71 Jasper Faber and Linda Brinke,“The Inclusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Aviati<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> EU Emissi<strong>on</strong>s Trading System: An Ec<strong>on</strong>omic<br />
and Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Assessment” (2011) ICTSD Programme <strong>on</strong> Trade and Envir<strong>on</strong>ment, Trade and Sustainable<br />
Energy Series, Issue Paper No. 5 (Internati<strong>on</strong>al Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development) ,<br />
17-18.<br />
72 UNFCCC, ‘Kyoto Protocol’.<br />
73 Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>, supra note 6, art. 11.<br />
74 Chiavari, Withana and Pallemaerts, supra note 22, 29-30.<br />
10
4. Unilateral approaches in Internati<strong>on</strong>al Law<br />
There is an <strong>on</strong>-going debate regarding <strong>the</strong> effectiveness and desirability <strong>of</strong> countries unilaterally<br />
adopting measures aimed at <strong>the</strong> regulati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> envir<strong>on</strong>ment but which apply extraterritorially,<br />
or outside <strong>the</strong> territorial jurisdicti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> legislating country. 75 Domestic or regi<strong>on</strong>al measures<br />
may indirectly impact third party countries by requiring certain acti<strong>on</strong> to be taken, if <strong>the</strong>y wish to<br />
c<strong>on</strong>tinue trading with <strong>the</strong> legislating country.<br />
Two examples <strong>of</strong> such unilateral measures illustrate <strong>the</strong> challenges involved. First, countries<br />
implementing an emissi<strong>on</strong>s trading scheme or carb<strong>on</strong> tax may include measures to protect <strong>the</strong><br />
competitiveness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir energy-intensive industries, such as border tax adjustments. 76 The<br />
adjustment <strong>of</strong> energy taxes at <strong>the</strong> border imposes a tax <strong>on</strong> imports equivalent to <strong>the</strong> cost <strong>of</strong><br />
carb<strong>on</strong> imposed <strong>on</strong> a similar domestic product and based <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> product has been<br />
produced abroad without a carb<strong>on</strong> price. Border tax adjustments aim to protect <strong>the</strong> competiti<strong>on</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> domestic industries that will face higher producti<strong>on</strong> costs than <strong>the</strong>ir internati<strong>on</strong>al competitors,<br />
due to <strong>the</strong> carb<strong>on</strong> price. However, <strong>the</strong>y simultaneously impose an obligati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> third country<br />
importers to pay <strong>the</strong> equivalent <strong>of</strong> a carb<strong>on</strong> price, if that third country has not adopted<br />
comparative climate change abatement measures. 77 This type <strong>of</strong> measure is extraterritorial to <strong>the</strong><br />
extent that it impacts industries <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> importing country.<br />
A sec<strong>on</strong>d famous example <strong>of</strong> a unilateral measure with extraterritorial effect is <strong>the</strong> “Shrimp-<br />
Turtle” case heard by <strong>the</strong> World Trade Organisati<strong>on</strong> (<strong>the</strong> “WTO”) Appellate Body. 78 In this case,<br />
<strong>the</strong> United States (<strong>the</strong> “US”) introduced regulati<strong>on</strong>s to limit <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> sea turtles being<br />
trapped by shrimp trawling practices. 79 These regulati<strong>on</strong>s included an obligati<strong>on</strong> to limit <strong>the</strong><br />
importati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> shrimp from countries that had not taken comparative measures to protect sea<br />
turtles. 80 The ruling <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Appellate Body has been interpreted as justifying envir<strong>on</strong>mental<br />
policies with extraterritorial effect provided certain safeguards are met, including <strong>the</strong><br />
c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> comparative regulati<strong>on</strong>s in third countries and <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>ducting <strong>of</strong> prior<br />
negotiati<strong>on</strong>s with <strong>the</strong> aim <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cluding an internati<strong>on</strong>al agreement. 81 The Appellate Body noted<br />
that good-faith efforts to find a multilateral soluti<strong>on</strong> were sufficient, and c<strong>on</strong>sequently it has been<br />
argued that “a multilateral approach, although str<strong>on</strong>gly preferred over a unilateral approach,<br />
cannot be required if no agreement is possible after good faith negotiati<strong>on</strong>s.” 82<br />
Never<strong>the</strong>less, <strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>legal</str<strong>on</strong>g>ity <strong>of</strong> unilateral measures with extraterritorial effect c<strong>on</strong>tinues to be hotly<br />
debated. The principle <strong>of</strong> sovereignty, which asserts that States have exclusive sovereignty over<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir own territory, may be violated by such measures. 83 Unilateral measures that also impact a<br />
third country’s envir<strong>on</strong>mental affairs arguably breach this principle. However, Howse, a leading<br />
WTO scholar, has argued that trade measures such as border tax adjustments are territorial ra<strong>the</strong>r<br />
than extraterritorial measures, as <strong>the</strong>y apply at <strong>the</strong> border, which is within <strong>the</strong> territorial<br />
jurisdicti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> regulating state. 84<br />
75 Kulovesi, supra note 4, 12-13.<br />
76 Frank Biermann and Rainer Brohm, “Implementing <strong>the</strong> Kyoto Protocol without <strong>the</strong> USA: <strong>the</strong> strategic role <strong>of</strong><br />
energy tax adjustments at <strong>the</strong> border” (2005) 4 Climate Policy 289, 291.<br />
77 Ibid.<br />
78 See Report <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Appellate Body, United States – Import Prohibiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products,<br />
WT.DS58/AB/R 12 October 1998.<br />
79 Susan L. Sakmar, “Free Trade and Sea Turtles: The Internati<strong>on</strong>al and Domestic Implicati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Shrimp-Turtle<br />
Case” (1999) 10 CJIELP345, 349.<br />
80 Ibid.<br />
81 Kulovesi, supra note 4, at 15.<br />
82 LudvineTamiotti, ‘The <str<strong>on</strong>g>legal</str<strong>on</strong>g> interface between carb<strong>on</strong> border measures and trade rules’ (2011) 11 Climate Policy<br />
1202, 1207.<br />
83 Ian Brownlie, Principles <strong>of</strong> Public Internati<strong>on</strong>al Law, 7 th ed (New York: Oxford University Press: 2008) at ch 6.<br />
84 Kulovesi, supra note 4, at 13.<br />
11
The adopti<strong>on</strong> by States <strong>of</strong> measures aimed at protecting <strong>the</strong> envir<strong>on</strong>ment, however admirable,<br />
raises c<strong>on</strong>cerns that <strong>the</strong> extensive use <strong>of</strong> unilateral measures by an increasing number <strong>of</strong> countries<br />
will damage <strong>the</strong> legitimacy <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al acti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> global comm<strong>on</strong>s’ problems. 85 Moreover, if<br />
many countries were to employ unilateral measures, this could result in an undesirable<br />
fragmentati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> envir<strong>on</strong>mental protecti<strong>on</strong>. 86<br />
4.1 Unilateral Measures in Aviati<strong>on</strong>: Aircraft noise as a case study<br />
Unilateral measures have previously been adopted in <strong>the</strong> field <strong>of</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong>. In 1999, a dispute arose<br />
between <strong>the</strong> EU and <strong>the</strong> US over internati<strong>on</strong>al noise c<strong>on</strong>trol standards when <strong>the</strong> EU unilaterally<br />
adopted <strong>the</strong> so-called “Hushkit Regulati<strong>on</strong>”. Aircraft noise is a particularly sensitive issue for <strong>the</strong><br />
EU, as EU airports are <strong>of</strong>ten in areas <strong>of</strong> dense populati<strong>on</strong>, and public pressure <strong>on</strong> politicians to<br />
address this envir<strong>on</strong>mental problem is str<strong>on</strong>g. 87 Following slow progress by ICAO <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> issue <strong>of</strong><br />
aircraft noise c<strong>on</strong>trol measures, <strong>the</strong> EU adopted more stringent noise c<strong>on</strong>trol measures than<br />
those endorsed by ICAO. Never<strong>the</strong>less, <strong>the</strong> EU maintained its support for global measures<br />
through ICAO, if it resulted in appropriate envir<strong>on</strong>mental protecti<strong>on</strong>. 88<br />
For purposes <strong>of</strong> certificati<strong>on</strong> and registrati<strong>on</strong>, aircraft are divided into four chapters. To be<br />
certified as a Chapter 3 or 4 aircraft, an aircraft must have an engine that produces minimal noise.<br />
ICAO binding standards to c<strong>on</strong>trol aircraft noise allowed Chapter 2 aircraft engines to be<br />
technically modified with hushkits, which acted as a muffler to reduce noise. 89 These aircraft<br />
could <strong>the</strong>n be recertified to meet <strong>the</strong> standards <strong>of</strong> Chapter 3 aircraft in relati<strong>on</strong> to noise. The<br />
EU’s Hushkit Regulati<strong>on</strong> proposed to ban such modified aircraft from EU airspace, <strong>on</strong>ly<br />
allowing aircraft that had been originally certified as complying with Chapter 3 noise standards. 90<br />
The EU argued that <strong>the</strong> modified Chapter 2 aircraft were still noisier than Chapter 3 aircraft,<br />
caused more air polluti<strong>on</strong> and had higher fuel c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong>. 91 The Hushkit Regulati<strong>on</strong> was deeply<br />
criticised and c<strong>on</strong>tested by <strong>the</strong> US, as hush-kitting was a comm<strong>on</strong> practice am<strong>on</strong>g American<br />
airlines. 92 In c<strong>on</strong>trast, <strong>the</strong> EU had hardly any hush-kitted aircraft. The US <strong>the</strong>refore interpreted<br />
<strong>the</strong> Hushkit Regulati<strong>on</strong> not as an envir<strong>on</strong>mental measure, but as a protecti<strong>on</strong>ist trade restricti<strong>on</strong><br />
<strong>on</strong> US aircraft. 93 In particular, <strong>the</strong> US criticised <strong>the</strong> purported extraterritorial reach <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Hushkit<br />
Regulati<strong>on</strong>, as it applied to all aircraft operating into and out <strong>of</strong> EU airports, regardless <strong>of</strong><br />
nati<strong>on</strong>ality. 94 Ultimately, <strong>the</strong> EU’s unilateral acti<strong>on</strong> raised <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> aircraft noise c<strong>on</strong>trol<br />
to such an extent that ICAO adopted a streng<strong>the</strong>ned internati<strong>on</strong>al noise standard in resp<strong>on</strong>se,<br />
mandating Chapter 4 noise standards for all aircraft and prohibiting hush-kitting. 95<br />
This case study has multiple linkages to <strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>analysis</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Directive. The EU has adopted strict<br />
greenhouse gas emissi<strong>on</strong> reducti<strong>on</strong> targets – to reduce emissi<strong>on</strong>s by 20 per cent below 1990 levels<br />
85 Ibid., at 24.<br />
86 Ibid.<br />
87 Paul Dempsey, “Competiti<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> Air: European Uni<strong>on</strong> Regulati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Commercial Aviati<strong>on</strong>”(2001) 66 J Air Law<br />
&Comm 979, 1141.<br />
88 Fox Clarke and Chagas, supra note 23, 619-620.<br />
89 OnnoRijsdijk, “EC Aviati<strong>on</strong> Scheme: Ban <strong>on</strong> Hush-Kitted Aircraft” (2002) XXIVAir and Space Law 2, 101.<br />
90 Ibid., 100-101.<br />
91 Benedicte A Claes, “Aircraft Noise Regulati<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> European Uni<strong>on</strong>: The Hushkit Problem” (2000) 65 J Air Law<br />
&Comm 329, 331.<br />
92 Rijsdijk, supra note 42, 101.<br />
93 Dempsey, supra note 40, 1141.<br />
94 Joanne W Young, “Globalism versus Extraterritoriality. C<strong>on</strong>sensus versus Unilaterlism: Is <strong>the</strong>re a Comm<strong>on</strong><br />
Ground A US Perspective” (1999) XXIV(4/5) Air and Space Law 209, 214.<br />
95 Chiavari, Withana and Pallemaerts, supra note 22, 23.<br />
12
y 2020. 96 The EU must reduce emissi<strong>on</strong>s from <strong>the</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong> sector in order to achieve <strong>the</strong>se<br />
reducti<strong>on</strong> targets. Therefore, <strong>the</strong> political will and <str<strong>on</strong>g>legal</str<strong>on</strong>g> impetus exist for <strong>the</strong> EU to reduce its<br />
aviati<strong>on</strong> emissi<strong>on</strong>s. Whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> EU’s unilateral acti<strong>on</strong> will provide <strong>the</strong> impetus for ICAO to<br />
adopt CO 2 emissi<strong>on</strong>s standards or propose a global emissi<strong>on</strong>s trading scheme is as yet<br />
unknown. 97<br />
5. The EU ETS and Internati<strong>on</strong>al Law<br />
In 2003 <strong>the</strong> European Uni<strong>on</strong> (EU) established a scheme for greenhouse gas emissi<strong>on</strong> allowance<br />
trading within <strong>the</strong> Community (in <strong>the</strong> following EU ETS) through Directive 2003/87/EC. 98 The<br />
EU ETS aims at reducing anthropogenic emissi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> certain greenhouse gases in a cost-effective<br />
and ec<strong>on</strong>omically efficient manner. It is administered by <strong>the</strong> Commissi<strong>on</strong>er <strong>on</strong> Climate Acti<strong>on</strong> as<br />
well as nati<strong>on</strong>al competent authorities in EU member states. 99<br />
Starting in 2005 with <strong>the</strong> first emissi<strong>on</strong> trading period (2005-2007), <strong>the</strong> total emissi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> EU<br />
industry sectors covered by <strong>the</strong> scheme were capped and at <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> each compliance cycle<br />
companies needed to surrender allowances matching <strong>the</strong>ir emissi<strong>on</strong>s in order to comply with <strong>the</strong><br />
EU regulati<strong>on</strong>s and avoid sancti<strong>on</strong>s. 100 The big share <strong>of</strong> emissi<strong>on</strong> allowances was allocated<br />
directly and free <strong>of</strong> charge, a smaller percentage was aucti<strong>on</strong>ed and allowances could also be<br />
acquired through trading <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> carb<strong>on</strong> market. Starting with <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d emissi<strong>on</strong> trading period<br />
(2008-2012), companies could also purchase certified allowances from clean energy projects<br />
under <strong>the</strong> Kyoto Protocol Mechanisms. 101<br />
In 2010 <strong>the</strong> industrial installati<strong>on</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> scheme accounted for almost half <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU's<br />
CO 2 emissi<strong>on</strong>s and 40% <strong>of</strong> its total greenhouse gas emissi<strong>on</strong>s. 102 Critics <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> scheme highlight<br />
<strong>the</strong> fact that triggered by <strong>the</strong> EU’s financial and ec<strong>on</strong>omic crisis carb<strong>on</strong> prices have been<br />
especially low since 2011, keeping <strong>the</strong> scheme from actually incentivising <strong>the</strong> reducti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
greenhouse gas emissi<strong>on</strong>s. This issue <strong>of</strong> oversupply <strong>of</strong> credits is very likely to be addressed in <strong>the</strong><br />
third phase <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> scheme, which starts in 2013. 103<br />
96 European Commissi<strong>on</strong>, ‘What is <strong>the</strong> EU doing <strong>on</strong> climate change’ <strong>on</strong>line:<br />
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/brief/eu/index_en.htm.<br />
97 Chiavari, Withana and Pallemaerts, supra note 22, 31.<br />
98 Directive 2003/87/EC <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> European Parliament and <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Council <strong>of</strong> 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme<br />
for greenhouse gas emissi<strong>on</strong> allowance trading within <strong>the</strong> Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC<br />
(OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32) [Directive 2003/87/EC].<br />
99 Directive 2003/87/EC, Article 1 (Subject matter), para (30), Article 3 (Definiti<strong>on</strong>s) (c) and Annex 1, 2.<br />
100 According to Directive 3003/87/EC, Article 3 (Definiti<strong>on</strong>s) (a) ‘allowance’ means an allowance to emit <strong>on</strong>e t<strong>on</strong>ne<br />
<strong>of</strong> carb<strong>on</strong> dioxide equivalent during a specified period.<br />
101 Directive 2003/87/EC, Article 11 (Allocati<strong>on</strong> and issue <strong>of</strong> allowances) and Article 30 para (3) (Review and fur<strong>the</strong>r<br />
development).<br />
102 European Commissi<strong>on</strong>, Climate Acti<strong>on</strong>, EU Emissi<strong>on</strong> Trading System, 15 November 2010, <strong>on</strong>line: EC<br />
; European Commissi<strong>on</strong>, Climate Acti<strong>on</strong>, Reducing<br />
emissi<strong>on</strong>s from <strong>the</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong> sector, 10 January 2012, <strong>on</strong>line: EC<br />
<br />
103 Alessandro Torello, “EU Carb<strong>on</strong>-Market Changes Move Ahead” Wallstreet Journal (28 February 2012), <strong>on</strong>line:<br />
Wallstreet<br />
Journal<br />
; Jay Maroo, “Can <strong>the</strong> EU Emissi<strong>on</strong>s Trading Scheme survive Europe's debt crisis” Energy Risk (5 December<br />
2011), <strong>on</strong>line: Risk.net ;<br />
Muriel Boselli, “French bank sees EU's CO2 emissi<strong>on</strong>s flat in 2011” Reuters (26 March 2012),<br />
<strong>on</strong>line: Reuters ;<br />
unknown, “Carb<strong>on</strong> prices - Breathing difficulties: A market in need <strong>of</strong> a miracle” The<br />
Ec<strong>on</strong>omist (3 March 2012), <strong>on</strong>line: The Ec<strong>on</strong>omist .<br />
13
With <strong>the</strong> entry into force <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Directive, greenhouse gas emissi<strong>on</strong>s from aviati<strong>on</strong> activities have<br />
been regulated by <strong>the</strong> EU ETS since January 1, 2012. The Directive is <strong>the</strong>refore <strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>legal</str<strong>on</strong>g> basis for<br />
<strong>the</strong> inclusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> emissi<strong>on</strong>s from all domestic or internati<strong>on</strong>al flights arriving at and departing<br />
from Community aerodromes in <strong>the</strong> scheme. 104<br />
In 2012, <strong>the</strong> total quantity <strong>of</strong> allowances allocated to aircraft operators is equivalent to 97 % <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> ‘historical aviati<strong>on</strong> emissi<strong>on</strong>s’ and from 2013 <strong>on</strong>wards 95 %. 105 Thereby, 15 % <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total<br />
quantity <strong>of</strong> allowances is aucti<strong>on</strong>ed, from 2013 <strong>on</strong> 3 % will be set aside in a special reserve for<br />
aircraft operators expanding <strong>the</strong>ir business and <strong>the</strong> remaining allowances – and <strong>the</strong>refore <strong>the</strong><br />
biggest share – are allocated free <strong>of</strong> charge in each trading period and after aircraft operators<br />
applied for <strong>the</strong>m at <strong>the</strong> competent authorities <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir administering member state. 106<br />
To meet <strong>the</strong>ir obligati<strong>on</strong>s under <strong>the</strong> Directive aircraft operators may also buy emissi<strong>on</strong> credits<br />
from clean energy projects carried out in third countries under <strong>the</strong> Kyoto Protocol mechanisms 107<br />
or <strong>the</strong>y can buy allowances <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> carb<strong>on</strong> market – including allowances from o<strong>the</strong>r sectors. If<br />
aircraft operators do not comply with <strong>the</strong> requirements <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Directive <strong>the</strong>y will face sancti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
including an operating ban at last resort. 108<br />
The Directive also holds a de-minimis regulati<strong>on</strong> and excludes airlines operating limited services<br />
within <strong>the</strong> scope <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Community scheme. 109 In additi<strong>on</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong> activities per definiti<strong>on</strong><br />
exclude am<strong>on</strong>gst o<strong>the</strong>rs small aircrafts as well as state, military, rescue, emergency and training<br />
flights. 110<br />
To avoid double regulati<strong>on</strong> and also as a possible step towards a global agreement <strong>on</strong> greenhouse<br />
gas emissi<strong>on</strong> reducti<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong> sector <strong>the</strong> Directive highlights <strong>the</strong> opti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> linking <strong>the</strong><br />
scheme with emissi<strong>on</strong> trading schemes from o<strong>the</strong>r countries or regi<strong>on</strong>s through bilateral<br />
arrangements. More generally, <strong>the</strong> Directive calls <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> Commissi<strong>on</strong> to “c<strong>on</strong>sider <strong>the</strong> opti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
available in order to provide for optimal interacti<strong>on</strong> between <strong>the</strong> Community scheme and o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
country’s measures”, if <strong>the</strong>se measures “have an envir<strong>on</strong>mental effect at least equivalent to that<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Directive, to reduce <strong>the</strong> climate impact <strong>of</strong> flights to (and from) <strong>the</strong> Community”. 111<br />
Allowances for aviati<strong>on</strong> activity in 2012 will need to be surrendered by 30 April 2013. 112<br />
The airline industry has also expressed c<strong>on</strong>cerns that <strong>the</strong> unilateral approach <strong>of</strong> EU Member<br />
States will impede o<strong>the</strong>r States from introducing <strong>the</strong>ir own measures to reduce aviati<strong>on</strong><br />
104 Directive 2008/101/EC, para (16) and Annex 1. (b).<br />
105 Ibid., para (39) Chapter II Aviati<strong>on</strong>, Article 3c (Total quantity <strong>of</strong> allowances for aviati<strong>on</strong>) and according to Article<br />
1 (Amendments to Directive 2003/87/EC) 3. (b) (s) ‘historical aviati<strong>on</strong> emissi<strong>on</strong>s’ means <strong>the</strong> mean average <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
annual emissi<strong>on</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> calendar years 2004, 2005 and 2006 from aircraft performing an aviati<strong>on</strong> activity listed in<br />
Annex I.<br />
106 Ibid., para (20) and (39) Chapter II Aviati<strong>on</strong>, Article 3d (Method <strong>of</strong> allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> allowances for aviati<strong>on</strong> through<br />
aucti<strong>on</strong>ing), Article 3e (Allocati<strong>on</strong> and issue <strong>of</strong> allowances to aircraft operators), Article 3f (Special reserve for certain<br />
aircraft operators).<br />
107 Ibid. para (24) and (39) Chapter IV Provisi<strong>on</strong>s Applying to Aviati<strong>on</strong> and Stati<strong>on</strong>ary Installati<strong>on</strong>s (8) – In 2013 <strong>the</strong><br />
provisi<strong>on</strong> will be subject to review taking into c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al climate change<br />
regime.<br />
108 Ibid., para (26).<br />
109 Ibid., para (18).<br />
110 Ibid., Annex 1. (c) Aviati<strong>on</strong>.<br />
111 Ibid., para (17).<br />
112 Ibid., para (39) Chapter IV Provisi<strong>on</strong>s applying to aviati<strong>on</strong> and stati<strong>on</strong>ary installati<strong>on</strong>s, Article 10 (b) 2a; Mythili<br />
Bhusnurmath, “European Uni<strong>on</strong>'s fancy flight emissi<strong>on</strong>s” The Ec<strong>on</strong>omic Times (20 February 2012), <strong>on</strong>line: The<br />
Ec<strong>on</strong>omic Times .<br />
14
emissi<strong>on</strong>s, because <strong>of</strong> difficulties in avoiding double regulati<strong>on</strong> in internati<strong>on</strong>al aviati<strong>on</strong>. The fact<br />
that <strong>the</strong> EU ETS includes provisi<strong>on</strong>s enabling <strong>the</strong> linkage to o<strong>the</strong>r schemes does not lead to a<br />
different assessment according to <strong>the</strong> industry, as <strong>the</strong> EU would always be in a positi<strong>on</strong> to<br />
unilaterally amend its legislati<strong>on</strong>. 113<br />
5.1 The View <strong>of</strong> ICAO<br />
In a working paper, adopted <strong>on</strong> November 2, 2011, <strong>the</strong> ICAO Council is invited to urge <strong>the</strong> EU<br />
and its Member States to refrain from including flights by n<strong>on</strong>-EU carriers to and from airports<br />
located in <strong>the</strong> territory <strong>of</strong> EU Member States in <strong>the</strong> ETS. 114 The paper is backed by 26 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 36<br />
Member States <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> ICAO Council – including China, Japan, Russia and <strong>the</strong> United States.<br />
Besides <strong>the</strong> eight EU Member States that opposed <strong>the</strong> adopti<strong>on</strong> Australia and Canada were<br />
absent at <strong>the</strong> vote. Although <strong>the</strong> paper is not <str<strong>on</strong>g>legal</str<strong>on</strong>g>ly binding for <strong>the</strong> Council or any ICAO<br />
member it reflects <strong>the</strong> str<strong>on</strong>g oppositi<strong>on</strong> to <strong>the</strong> inclusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> ETS by <strong>the</strong> majority<br />
<strong>of</strong> ICAO member countries. 115<br />
The paper claims that <strong>the</strong> unilateral measure <strong>of</strong> including <strong>civil</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> EU ETS<br />
c<strong>on</strong>travenes <strong>the</strong> articles <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> and its Preamble and that it violates <strong>the</strong><br />
principle <strong>of</strong> state sovereignty laid down in Article 1 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> as well as relevant<br />
provisi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> UNFCCC. Moreover, <strong>the</strong> paper claims that implementati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU ETS<br />
without ICAO’s c<strong>on</strong>currence would undermine ICAO’s leading role in matters related to aviati<strong>on</strong><br />
and envir<strong>on</strong>ment and in particular pre-empt and negate ICAO Assembly Resoluti<strong>on</strong> A37-19 116 ,<br />
which was also supported by EU Member States. The resoluti<strong>on</strong> calls <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> Council to develop<br />
a framework for market-based measures and to present it before <strong>the</strong> 38 th Assembly. 117 However,<br />
<strong>the</strong> Resoluti<strong>on</strong> includes a set <strong>of</strong> guiding principles for <strong>the</strong> design and implementati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marketbased<br />
measures and Member States are urged to respect <strong>the</strong>se when designing new and<br />
implementing existing market-based measures for internati<strong>on</strong>al aviati<strong>on</strong>. Although Member States<br />
are still urged to engage in c<strong>on</strong>structive bilateral and/ or multilateral c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong>s and<br />
negotiati<strong>on</strong>s with o<strong>the</strong>r states to reach agreements <strong>the</strong> Resoluti<strong>on</strong> thus refrains from <strong>the</strong><br />
restrictive Assembly Resoluti<strong>on</strong> A36-22, which required ‘mutual agreements’ for emissi<strong>on</strong> trading<br />
schemes affecting internati<strong>on</strong>al aviati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> any size. Never<strong>the</strong>less, Resoluti<strong>on</strong> A37-19 also<br />
reaffirms <strong>the</strong> declarati<strong>on</strong> that ICAO is <strong>the</strong> most appropriate forum for future discussi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong><br />
soluti<strong>on</strong>s to internati<strong>on</strong>al aviati<strong>on</strong> emissi<strong>on</strong>s including marked-based mechanisms. 118<br />
113 Ibid., para (28).<br />
114 Internati<strong>on</strong>al Civil Aviati<strong>on</strong> Organizati<strong>on</strong> (ICAO), working paper, Council — 194th Sessi<strong>on</strong>, 17 October 2011, C-<br />
WP/13790, Subject No. 50: Questi<strong>on</strong>s related to <strong>the</strong> envir<strong>on</strong>ment: Inclusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Internati<strong>on</strong>al Civil Aviati<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong><br />
European Uni<strong>on</strong> Emissi<strong>on</strong>s Trading Scheme (EU ETS) and its impact (presented by Argentina, Brazil, Burkina Faso,<br />
Camero<strong>on</strong>, China, Colombia, Cuba, Egypt, Guatemala, India, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Paraguay,<br />
Peru, Republic <strong>of</strong> Korea, Russian Federati<strong>on</strong>, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Swaziland, Uganda, <strong>the</strong> United<br />
Arab Emirates and <strong>the</strong> United States), <strong>on</strong>line: Greenair<br />
[ICAO working paper].<br />
115 Compare EU Emissi<strong>on</strong>s Trading Scheme faces pushback from UN Civil Aviati<strong>on</strong> Body, Bridges Weekly Trade<br />
News Digest, Vol. 15, no. 38, 9 th November 2011, <strong>on</strong>line: Internati<strong>on</strong>al Centre for Trade and Sustainable<br />
Development (ICTSD) [EU ETS faces pushback, ICTSD]; States<br />
opposed to Europe’s emissi<strong>on</strong>s trading scheme win ICAO Council backing but EU remains defiant, Greenair<br />
<strong>on</strong>line.com, 3 November 2011, <strong>on</strong>line: Greenair (accessed<br />
<strong>on</strong> December 13, 2011) [Greenair].<br />
116 ICAO, Assembly Resoluti<strong>on</strong> A37-19, ‘C<strong>on</strong>solidated Statement <strong>of</strong> C<strong>on</strong>tinuing ICAO Policies and Practices<br />
Related to Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Protecti<strong>on</strong> – Climate Change’, Doc.A37-WP/402,P/66, 7 October 2010, <strong>on</strong>line: ICAO<br />
[ICAO, Assembly Resoluti<strong>on</strong> A37-19].<br />
117 ICAO working paper, supra note 28, para (2.1)-(2.4) , (4.2) .<br />
118 ICAO, Assembly Resoluti<strong>on</strong> A37-19, supra note 30; ICAO, Assembly Resoluti<strong>on</strong> A36-22, ‘C<strong>on</strong>solidated<br />
Statement <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tinuing ICAO policies and practices related to envir<strong>on</strong>mental protecti<strong>on</strong>’; September 2007, <strong>on</strong>line:<br />
ICAO ; Michel Adam, “ICAO Assembly’s<br />
15
5.2 The Commissi<strong>on</strong>’s View <strong>on</strong> EU ETS expansi<strong>on</strong> to Aviati<strong>on</strong><br />
In line with <strong>the</strong> provisi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Directive, <strong>the</strong> European Commissi<strong>on</strong> (<strong>the</strong> “EC”) regards <strong>the</strong><br />
inclusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong> within <strong>the</strong> EU ETS as an important step to fulfil its internati<strong>on</strong>al<br />
commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissi<strong>on</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> transport sector. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, and also<br />
in accordance with <strong>the</strong> provisi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Directive, <strong>the</strong> EC regularly highlights that <strong>the</strong> EU ETS<br />
may serve as a model for <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> emissi<strong>on</strong>s trading worldwide. In that sense, <strong>the</strong> inclusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
aviati<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> EU ETS does not stand in c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> to <strong>the</strong> EU’s commitment <strong>of</strong> finding a<br />
global soluti<strong>on</strong> for reducing emissi<strong>on</strong>s from <strong>civil</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong> (through ICAO), but can be seen as a<br />
first step towards a global mechanism. 119<br />
Ms. C<strong>on</strong>nie Hedegaard, <strong>the</strong> commissi<strong>on</strong>er <strong>on</strong> climate acti<strong>on</strong>, thus called <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> ICAO to<br />
c<strong>on</strong>centrate <strong>on</strong> finding a viable global soluti<strong>on</strong> instead <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>demning nati<strong>on</strong>al or regi<strong>on</strong>al<br />
soluti<strong>on</strong>s like <strong>the</strong> EU ETS – especially since <strong>the</strong> EU is ‘delivering <strong>on</strong> its commitment to reduce<br />
emissi<strong>on</strong>s in line with ICAO-endorsed principles’. 120 She also reaffirmed <strong>the</strong> EU’s wish to ‘engage<br />
c<strong>on</strong>structively with third countries during <strong>the</strong> implementati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> ETS legislati<strong>on</strong>’. 121 As an<br />
example <strong>of</strong> how <strong>the</strong> EC could resp<strong>on</strong>d to o<strong>the</strong>r country’s measures, that have an envir<strong>on</strong>mental<br />
effect at least equivalent to that <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Directive, <strong>the</strong> EC names <strong>the</strong> exclusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> flights arriving<br />
from that state from <strong>the</strong> EU ETS. 122 And Jos Delbeke, Commissi<strong>on</strong>'s director-general for climate,<br />
recently pointed out that ETS aviati<strong>on</strong> legislati<strong>on</strong> could also be changed if <strong>the</strong>re is an<br />
internati<strong>on</strong>al agreement <strong>on</strong> reducing emissi<strong>on</strong>s. 123<br />
The <str<strong>on</strong>g>legal</str<strong>on</strong>g>ity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU ETS and thus its compatibility with internati<strong>on</strong>al law was subject <strong>of</strong> an EC<br />
presentati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> ‘aviati<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> EU ETS’ held at <strong>the</strong> ICAO Council in September 2011. The<br />
relevant part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> presentati<strong>on</strong> focuses <strong>on</strong> why <strong>the</strong> EU ETS is not a tax as well as its<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sistency with <strong>the</strong> UNFCCC principle <strong>of</strong> ‘comm<strong>on</strong> but differentiated resp<strong>on</strong>sibilities’<br />
(CBDR). 124 Regarding CBDR <strong>the</strong> EC claims that <strong>the</strong> EU ETS does not apply to states, but to<br />
businesses active in <strong>the</strong> EU market, whereas <strong>the</strong> CBDR applies to states and <strong>the</strong> climate measures<br />
Resoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> Climate Change: A ‘Historic’ Agreement” (date unknown) pg. 24 [Adam] ; Brian F. Havel & Gabriel<br />
S. Sanchez, “Toward a Global Aviati<strong>on</strong> Emissi<strong>on</strong>s Agreement” (August 17, 2011) Harvard Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Law<br />
Review, Forthcoming, <strong>on</strong>line: SSRN: , pg. 10, 11; Steven Truxal, “The ICAO<br />
Assembly Resoluti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> Aviati<strong>on</strong> and Climate Change: An Historic Agreement, a Breakthrough Deal and <strong>the</strong><br />
Cancun Effect” (2011) 37:2 Air and Space Law, 217-242, pg. 224.<br />
119 Compare Directive 2008/101/EC, para (9) and (17); EU Commissi<strong>on</strong> presentati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> EU ETS at<br />
<strong>the</strong> ICAO Council Briefing, 29 September 2011, slide 43, <strong>on</strong>line: EC<br />
[EC presentati<strong>on</strong>]; EU ETS<br />
faces pushback, ICTSD, supra note 29; Greenair, supra note 29; European Commissi<strong>on</strong>, Climate Acti<strong>on</strong>, Reducing<br />
emissi<strong>on</strong>s from <strong>the</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong> sector, 10 January 2012, <strong>on</strong>line: EC<br />
<br />
120 Greenair, supra note 29.<br />
121 Aviati<strong>on</strong> into <strong>the</strong> EU ETS: C<strong>on</strong>nie Hedegaard „glad to see that <strong>the</strong> EU Directive is fully compatible with<br />
internati<strong>on</strong>al law“, European Commissi<strong>on</strong>, Climate Acti<strong>on</strong>, newsroom, 6 October 2011, <strong>on</strong>line: EC (accessed <strong>on</strong> December 13, 2011).<br />
122 EU Commissi<strong>on</strong> presentati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> EU ETS at <strong>the</strong> ICAO Council Briefing, 29 September 2011,<br />
<strong>on</strong>line: EC, [EC presentati<strong>on</strong>].<br />
Compare also Directive 2008/101/EC, para (17). And according to Mrs. Hedegaard negotiati<strong>on</strong>s regarding possible<br />
excepti<strong>on</strong>s from <strong>the</strong> EU ETS are already <strong>on</strong>going with Russia and China (EU ETS faces pushback, ICTSD, supra<br />
note 29).<br />
123 Dave Keating, “EU 'flexible' <strong>on</strong> ETS if global deal is reached” European Voice (8 February 2012), <strong>on</strong>line:<br />
European Voice .<br />
124 EC presentati<strong>on</strong>, supra note 36.<br />
16
that <strong>the</strong>y take. In additi<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> EC underlines, that discriminating between operators <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> basis<br />
<strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>ality would be incompatible with <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>. 125<br />
To dem<strong>on</strong>strate that <strong>the</strong> EU ETS is nei<strong>the</strong>r a tax nor a charge <strong>the</strong> EC first highlights that<br />
emissi<strong>on</strong>s trading is clearly recognised by ICAO as a policy instrument distinct from taxes and<br />
charges. 126 Then <strong>the</strong> EC highlights <strong>the</strong> following characteristics <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU ETS:<br />
• The key objective <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> policy is to limit emissi<strong>on</strong>s, not to raise revenues;<br />
• Most allowances are allocated for free, a small proporti<strong>on</strong> is <strong>of</strong>fered at aucti<strong>on</strong>s; and<br />
• 100% <strong>of</strong> revenues should be spent by EU Member States <strong>on</strong> climate change mitigati<strong>on</strong><br />
and adaptati<strong>on</strong>. 127<br />
6. Aviati<strong>on</strong> Emissi<strong>on</strong>s: Challenging ICAO’s Exclusive Jurisdicti<strong>on</strong><br />
Despite <strong>the</strong> primacy purportedly accorded to ICAO by <strong>the</strong> Kyoto Protocol, <strong>the</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al law<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>civil</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong> provides regulatory space for a global approach to reducing aviati<strong>on</strong> emissi<strong>on</strong>s.<br />
States have exclusive sovereignty over <strong>the</strong>ir territory and general authority over <strong>the</strong>ir nati<strong>on</strong>als. 128<br />
The submissi<strong>on</strong> to <strong>the</strong> disciplines <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> world trade system implicates <strong>the</strong> right <strong>of</strong> every State to<br />
regulate its ec<strong>on</strong>omy, and <strong>the</strong> actors within that ec<strong>on</strong>omy, 129 by freely accepting restraints <strong>on</strong> its<br />
commercial sovereignty. While ICAO is endowed under Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> and UNFCCC,<br />
with certain powers <strong>of</strong> oversight regarding aviati<strong>on</strong> emissi<strong>on</strong>s, it does not have exclusive<br />
stewardship; States remain free to work within or outside ICAO to develop a c<strong>on</strong>sensual treatybased<br />
approach to carb<strong>on</strong> emissi<strong>on</strong>s reducti<strong>on</strong>.<br />
Despite Article 2(2) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Kyoto Protocol and an ICAO resoluti<strong>on</strong> reaffirming ICAO’s<br />
legitimacy as <strong>the</strong> lead internati<strong>on</strong>al body charged with developing a global resp<strong>on</strong>se to aviati<strong>on</strong>’s<br />
role in climate change, 130 it is true that ICAO resoluti<strong>on</strong>s have been charactiersed as “s<strong>of</strong>t law”. 131<br />
The resoluti<strong>on</strong>s do not specify whe<strong>the</strong>r ICAO’s members imagine a global treaty imposing<br />
MBMs such as emissi<strong>on</strong>s trading, or ra<strong>the</strong>r foresee a purely n<strong>on</strong>-binding framework. 132 Moreover,<br />
ICAO’s 2010 Resoluti<strong>on</strong> suggests that its Member States no l<strong>on</strong>ger see ICAO as <strong>the</strong> sole or<br />
exclusive agency for internati<strong>on</strong>al aviati<strong>on</strong> emissi<strong>on</strong>s c<strong>on</strong>trol. The Resoluti<strong>on</strong> sets forth a series <strong>of</strong><br />
“Guiding Principles” for <strong>the</strong> impositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> both bilateral and multilateral MBMs. The use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
term “Guiding Principles” suggests that Member States elected not to attribute exclusive<br />
jurisdicti<strong>on</strong> over <strong>the</strong> regulati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> global emissi<strong>on</strong>s from aviati<strong>on</strong> to ICAO, notwithstanding<br />
Article 2(2) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Kyoto Protocol. Presumably, so l<strong>on</strong>g as <strong>the</strong> Protocol’s Parties do not venture<br />
bey<strong>on</strong>d ICAO’s mandates as listed in <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> and expressed through Assembly<br />
Resoluti<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>the</strong>re would be no c<strong>on</strong>flict if two States, certain clusters <strong>of</strong> States, or even all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
ICAO member States were to negotiate an emissi<strong>on</strong>s reducti<strong>on</strong> treaty outside ICAO.<br />
125 Ibid., slide 40 and for a general discussi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CBDR principle in <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>text <strong>of</strong> reducing <strong>the</strong> emissi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong><br />
aviati<strong>on</strong> view Adam, supra note 232, pg. 25-28.<br />
126 Compare e.g. ICAO, Assembly resoluti<strong>on</strong> 37-19, supra note 27.<br />
127 EC presentati<strong>on</strong>, slide 37, supra note 36. Compare also Directive 2008/101/EC, para (21), (39) Article 3d<br />
(Method <strong>of</strong> allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> allowances for aviati<strong>on</strong> through aucti<strong>on</strong>ing).<br />
128 RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE UNITED STATES §206(a)<br />
129 M. Sornarajah, “The Internati<strong>on</strong>al Law <strong>on</strong> Foreign Investment”, 1999 (3 rd ed. 2010)<br />
130 ICAO, C<strong>on</strong>solidated Statement <strong>of</strong> C<strong>on</strong>tinuing ICAO Policies and Practices Related to Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Protecti<strong>on</strong>,<br />
Assembly Resoluti<strong>on</strong> A37/19, (2007)<br />
131 Jack L. Goldsmith & Eric A. Posner, “Internati<strong>on</strong>al Agreements: A Rati<strong>on</strong>al Choice Approach”, 44 Va. J. Int.L.<br />
Law<br />
132 Assembly Resoluti<strong>on</strong> A37/19, (2007), paras.13<br />
17
7. China’s Reacti<strong>on</strong> to <strong>the</strong> Directive<br />
Although a draft <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Directive had been released in January 2009, China took an active stance<br />
two years later. Its reacti<strong>on</strong>s have included protest, c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong> and joint-protest with likeminded<br />
States, proposed litigati<strong>on</strong> and retaliatory measures.<br />
China’s positi<strong>on</strong> is that <strong>the</strong> regulati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> greenhouse gas emissi<strong>on</strong>s from aviati<strong>on</strong> should be<br />
accomplished under a multilateral arrangement. As a rising power, China expects to participate in<br />
<strong>the</strong> rule-making process in all internati<strong>on</strong>al fields. The Directive, from a China perspective, has<br />
relegated China to a purely “rule-taking” positi<strong>on</strong>.<br />
China welcomed <strong>the</strong> new proposal released by <strong>the</strong> ICAO recently <strong>on</strong> four potential<br />
mechanisms 133 which, if accepted by parties, may resp<strong>on</strong>d to <strong>the</strong> EU decisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> aviati<strong>on</strong>. After<br />
parties reach an agreement <strong>on</strong> how <strong>the</strong>y will mitigate greenhouse gases by adopting <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
mechanisms, China hopes that <strong>the</strong> EU will suspend its decisi<strong>on</strong> to include foreign airlines in <strong>the</strong><br />
EU ETS.<br />
7.1 Retaliatory Measures and Future Aircraft Orders<br />
On 7 July 2011, <strong>the</strong> Civil Aviati<strong>on</strong> Administrati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> China and Russia’s Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Transportat published a Joint-Declarati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> Inclusi<strong>on</strong> Aviati<strong>on</strong> Activities to <strong>the</strong> EU ETS, which<br />
c<strong>on</strong>demned <strong>the</strong> EU’s decisi<strong>on</strong> to include internati<strong>on</strong>al aviati<strong>on</strong> activities in its ETS, and raised <strong>the</strong><br />
possibility <strong>of</strong> pursuing retaliatory measures. 134 On 1 August 2011, 21 airlines assembled in Beijing<br />
and adopted <strong>the</strong> Beijing Comm<strong>on</strong> Declarati<strong>on</strong>, a joint protest against <strong>the</strong> Directive, which <strong>the</strong>y<br />
claimed violated internati<strong>on</strong>al law.<br />
Retaliatory measures c<strong>on</strong>sidered by China include import restricti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> products originating in<br />
<strong>the</strong> EU as well as a tax <strong>on</strong> jet fuel, coupled with a refund <strong>of</strong> taxes collected from Chinese<br />
airlines. 135 Additi<strong>on</strong>ally, possible orders by Chinese airlines <strong>of</strong> European-built aircraft (Airbus<br />
A380 and A330 models) were put into questi<strong>on</strong>. The trading history <strong>of</strong> aircraft between China<br />
and both <strong>the</strong> United States and <strong>the</strong> EU dem<strong>on</strong>strates that <strong>the</strong> orders were never purely<br />
commercial transacti<strong>on</strong>s. 136<br />
7.2 Justificati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> China’s Positi<strong>on</strong><br />
China opposes <strong>the</strong> inclusi<strong>on</strong> by <strong>the</strong> EU <strong>of</strong> emissi<strong>on</strong>s from aviati<strong>on</strong> activities originating outside<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU in <strong>the</strong> EU ETS as c<strong>on</strong>templated by <strong>the</strong> Directive, and has advanced <strong>the</strong> following<br />
reas<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>on</strong> various occasi<strong>on</strong>s, to justify its positi<strong>on</strong>:<br />
133 Aviati<strong>on</strong> Brief, ICAO Sees Difficult Path to Emissi<strong>on</strong> Plan, http://www.aviati<strong>on</strong>brief.com/p=6620 (last visited<br />
23 March 2012). There are no ‘<strong>of</strong>ficial’ comments from Chinese government <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> ICAO proposal. However,<br />
Haibo Chai, <strong>the</strong> Deputy Secretary <strong>of</strong> Chinese Civil Aviati<strong>on</strong> Associati<strong>on</strong> made very positive comments. So do several<br />
Chinese experts. See ICAO’s Proposal to Replace EU’s Carb<strong>on</strong> Tax Might Get Support from US and China, Jingji<br />
Cankao Bao ( 经 济 参 考 报 ),19 March 2012.<br />
134 Article 5,Совместное заявлениеМинистерства транспорта Российской Федерации иУправления гражданской авиации<br />
Китайской Народной Республикипо вопросу о включении авиации в Европейскую систему торговли квотами наэмиссию<br />
парниковых газов.<br />
135 EU’s Carb<strong>on</strong> Tax for Envir<strong>on</strong>ment and Benefit China Brewing Nati<strong>on</strong>al Counter-measures, Liaowang ( 嘹 望 ),26<br />
March 2012, available at http://news.sohu.com/20120326/n338915054.shtml (last visited 26 March 2012).<br />
136 The Secrets in Ordering Boeing and Airbus, Caijing( 财 经 ), 21 February 2005.<br />
18
• EU lacks authority to regulate global greenhouse gas emissi<strong>on</strong>s resulting from aviati<strong>on</strong><br />
activities.<br />
• The EU, in adopting <strong>the</strong> Directive, disregards <strong>the</strong> Principle <strong>of</strong> Comm<strong>on</strong> but<br />
Differentiated Resp<strong>on</strong>sibility in <strong>the</strong> UNFCCC and <strong>the</strong> Kyoto Protocol.<br />
• Since UNFCCC was signed, China argues all <strong>the</strong> time that according to <strong>the</strong> principle <strong>of</strong><br />
comm<strong>on</strong> but differentiated resp<strong>on</strong>sibilities, developing states have no resp<strong>on</strong>sibilities, or<br />
no mandatory resp<strong>on</strong>sibilities to mitigate <strong>the</strong>ir greenhouse gas emissi<strong>on</strong>s. In recent<br />
internati<strong>on</strong>al climate negotiati<strong>on</strong>, China showed more flexibility in accepting mandatory<br />
resp<strong>on</strong>sibilities; however, it refuses to assume resp<strong>on</strong>sibility in <strong>the</strong> same way as a<br />
developed state does. According to China’s own plan, <strong>the</strong> emissi<strong>on</strong> from airlines will be<br />
reduced 3% per t<strong>on</strong> kilometre in 2015 compared to that in 2010. 137<br />
• EU cannot exercise extraterritorial jurisdicti<strong>on</strong> over n<strong>on</strong>-EU airlines for <strong>the</strong>ir greenhouse<br />
gas emissi<strong>on</strong>s.<br />
• The Directive violates Articles 1, 11, 12, 15 and 24 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>. Although<br />
<strong>the</strong> European Court found that <strong>the</strong> EU is not bound by <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> because<br />
it is not a party to it, EU Member States are bound by <strong>the</strong> Chicago C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
obligati<strong>on</strong>s under it c<strong>on</strong>tradict <strong>the</strong>ir obligati<strong>on</strong>, under European Community law, to<br />
implement <strong>the</strong> Directive.<br />
• The Directive violates bilateral agreements <strong>on</strong> Civil Air Transportati<strong>on</strong> between China<br />
and 21 EU Member States.<br />
• The Directive potentially challenges <strong>the</strong> Principle <strong>of</strong> Special and Differential Treatment <strong>of</strong><br />
WTO GATS.<br />
137 Civil Aviati<strong>on</strong> Administrati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> China, The 12 th Five-year Plan <strong>of</strong> Development <strong>of</strong> Civil Aviati<strong>on</strong>, secti<strong>on</strong> III.<br />
19