Developing countries have legitimate and significant apprehensions about the imposition of Northern environmental concerns on the international trade agenda. However, it is also becoming clear that even if it is possible to delay the induction of a stronger environmental focus within the global trade regime, it cannot be postponed indefinitely. The events at the Third Ministerial Meeting of the World Trade Organization suggest that the issue will have to be dealt with sooner rather than later. The relevant question for the South is no longer whether environmental concerns should influence trade rules, or even when, but how. This article argues that the developing countries cannot afford to dis-engage themselves from the discussion. It proposes a proactive and positive strategy for the South for future international negotiations: one that seeks the achievement of sustainable development through an active engagement of the developing countries in the trade and environment discourse.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Brack, D. (Ed.). (1998). Trade and environment: Conflict or compatibility. London: Earthscan and the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
2.
Brittan, L. (1998). Trade and environment after Singapore. In D. Brack, Trade and environment: Conflict or compatibility (pp. 18-25). London: Earthscan and the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
3.
Halle, M. (2000). Seattle and sustainable development (International Institute for Sustainable Development, World Trade Organization Series) [On-line]. Available: http://iisd.ca/pdf/seattleandsd.pdf
4.
Jha, V., Hewison, G., & Underhill, M. (Eds.). (1997). Trade, environment and sustainable development: A South Asian perspective. London: Macmillan.
5.
Khan, S. R. (in press). Trade liberalization and the environment: Southern concerns. In S. R. Khan (Ed.), Trade and environment: North and South perspectives and Southern responses.
6.
Najam, A. (1994a). The case for a South secretariat in international environmental negotiation (Working Paper Series 94-8). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Law School Program on Negotiation.
7.
Najam, A. (1994b). Prediction for Cairo: A reaffirmation, a reversal, realignment, and a refusal.Environmental Conservation, 21(2): 105-110.
8.
Najam, A. (1995). International environmental negotiation: A strategy for the South.International Environmental Affairs, 7, 249-287.
9.
Najam, A. (1996). A developing countries' perspective on population, environment and development.Population Research and Policy Review, 15(1): 1-19.
10.
Najam, A. (1997). Global climate change negotiations: How should the developing countries respond?South Letter, 29, 14-16.
11.
Najam, A. (1998).International environmental negotiation: The case for a South secretariat (SDPI Monograph Series, Monograph No. 6). Islamabad, Pakistan: Sustainable Development Policy Institute.
12.
Najam, A., (2000). The case for a law of the atmosphere.Atmospheric Environment, 34, 4047-4049.
13.
Najam, A., & Sagar, A. (1998). Avoiding a cop-out: Moving towards Systematic decisionmaking under the climate convention,Climatic Change, 39, iii-ix.
14.
Nath, K. (1997). Trade, environment and sustainable development. In V. Jha, G. Hewison, & M. Underhill (Eds.),Trade, environment and sustainable development: A South Asian perspective (pp. 15-20). London: Macmillan.
15.
Raghavan, C. (1999).The new issues and developing countries (Third World Network Trade and Development Series) [On-line]. Available: http://www.twnside.org.sg/souths/twn/title/rag-cn.htm
16.
Roberts, S., & Robins, N. (Eds.). (2000).The reality of sustainable trade. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.
17.
Runnalls, D. (1996).Shall we dance? What the North needs to do to fully engage the South in the trade and sustainable development debate [On-line]. Available: http://iisd.ca/trade/dance.htm
18.
Sampson, G. P. (1999).Trade, the environment, and the WTO: Apolicy agenda (Policy Essay No. 27). Washington, DC: Overseas Development Council.
19.
Shahin, M. (1998). Developing country perspective. In D. Brack (Ed.),Trade and environment: Conflict or compatibility? (pp. 150-163). London: Earthscan and the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
20.
South Centre. (1998).The WTO multilateral trade agenda and the South. Geneva: Author.
21.
Susskind, L. E. (1994).Environmental diplomacy: Negotiating more effective global agreements. New York: Oxford University Press.
22.
Uimonen, P. (1999). The environmental dilemmas of the World Trade Organization. In J. J. Schott (Ed.),Launching new global trade talks: An action agenda (Special Report 12, pp. 111-132). Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
23.
von Moltke, K. (1999, August 25).Trade and the environment: The linkages and the politics. Paper presented at The Roundtable on Trade and Environment, Canberra, Australia.
24.
Whalley, J. (1996). Trade and environment, the WTO, and the developing countries. In R. Z. Lawrence, D. Robrik, & J. Whalley (Eds.),Emerging agenda for global trade: High stakes for developing countries (Policy Essay No. 20, pp. 81-98). Washington, DC: Overseas Development Council.
25.
Youssef, H. (1999).Special and differential treatment for developing countries in the WTO (Trade Related Agenda, Development and Equity Working Paper No. 2). Geneva: South Centre.
