2024年気候変動・貿易・持続可能性協定（ACCTS）における化石燃料補助金禁止：国際投資法の観点から

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:国際投資法と気候政策の交差領域における法的リスク分析の枠組みを提供する。

🏢実務担当者:化石燃料関連事業を持つ企業は、補助金改革に伴う投資紛争リスクと規制変更リスクを評価する際に参考にできる。

🏛政策担当者:化石燃料補助金改革を進める際の国際投資協定上の制約と、規制権を確保する条約設計の重要性を示す。

The 2024 Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability (ACCTS), signed by Costa Rica, Iceland, New Zealand, and Switzerland, is the first legally binding international agreement containing fossil fuel subsidy (FFS) prohibitions. At the same time, as the ACCTS operates within an entrenched international economic law framework, there exist important questions concerning the compatibility of FFS prohibitions with existing legal regimes, including international investment law (IIL). This article explores this interaction. It first outlines the scope of ACCTS FFS prohibitions. While the ACCTS attempts to discipline a wide range of subsidies, it also contains various limitations and carve-outs, thus reducing its potential impact. The article then analyses possible legal tensions between FFS reforms and existing IIL obligations of States (fair and equitable treatment, indirect expropriation, national treatment, and most-favored-nation), and examines the potential for investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) proceedings to arise out of FFS reform efforts. The analysis uses two strands of ISDS jurisprudence, the first involving the fossil fuel industry, and the second concerning subsidy-related disputes, to highlight the potential for IIL to constrain States’ regulatory autonomy concerning FFS reform. The research finds that the four ACCTS Members face limited exposure due to limited investment treaty networks and low levels of subsidization, but also that broader international reform efforts may significantly increase the likelihood of ISDS challenges. Although IIL creates risks for climate action, many States refrain from paradigm-shifting policymaking, and the regime remains firmly established. Therefore, the article proposes a roadmap for States seeking to implement FFS reforms while mitigating exposure to investment disputes. This includes ensuring that domestic reforms do not conflict with international legal obligations, expressly incorporating the right to regulate within new-generation treaties, and modernizing old-generation treaties. While the ACCTS constitutes an interesting step towards aligning trade and climate objectives, its transformative potential remains constrained by entrenched neoliberal international economic law frameworks including the IIL regime. Ultimately, genuine progress towards reform in line with climate change imperatives and meaningful sustainability transitions requires efforts beyond piecemeal adjustments to existing legal frameworks in order to confront deeper structural tensions between international economic law and planetary boundaries.

• openalex https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2026.2735054first seen 2026-10-19 04:57:54