欧盟航空碳排放交易机制的法律分析

发布时间：2018-05-30 15:03

本文选题：航空碳税 + EU　；参考：《湘潭大学》2013年硕士论文

【摘要】：按照2008/101/EC号指令的规定，从2012年1月1日开始，国际航空运输业将会被纳入到欧盟碳排放交易机制（EU ETS)中，届时，所有在欧盟境内机场起降的国际航班都将受一定排放配额的限制，超额部分要向欧盟购买排放额度，实际上相当于是在征收“航空碳税”。欧盟此举无疑引发了非欧盟国家和航空公司的强烈反对，部分国家还采取措施予以联合抵制。尽管欧盟在一片反对声中暂停了航空碳排放交易机制的实施，但是并不代表欧盟将永久取缔该项指令的实施，其亦有可能在排除阻碍后继续启动航空碳税的征收。欧盟2008/101/EC号指令的颁布以及欧盟征收航空碳税的行动不符合相关国际性公约和国际习惯法的规定。首先，欧盟不加区别的对所有起降在其境内机场的国际航班统一征收航空碳税，有违《联合国气候变化框架公约》及《京都议定书》下“共同但有区别责任原则”。发展中国家在《京都议定书》的碳减排承诺中并没有强制减排的义务，而欧盟此举势必将其严苛的碳减排任务变向转嫁给了发展中国家。其次，欧盟对进出其境内机场的国际航班征收全程的航空碳税不符合国际法有关域外管辖的规定。根据国际习惯法上的“效果理论”，一国国内法的域外适用首先必须是该域外行为对本国具有实质性影响。同时，国内法的域外适用也不能损害其他国家以及整个国际社会的利益。然而，，事实上，国际航空业的碳排放并没有对欧盟产生实质性、根本性的影响，欧盟此举无非是以航空碳减排之名，行碳减排成本转嫁之实，其区域法律的域外适用对整个国际社会，尤其是发展中国家的航空业造成了巨大的压力。因此，欧盟将国际航空纳入其单边碳排放交易机制，实际上是不符合习惯国际法上的“效果理论”。作为欧盟最大的贸易伙伴国以及最大的发展中国家，欧盟航空碳税的征收对中国对欧贸易无疑会产生重大影响，加之中国的航空服务业本身发展水平还很低，沉重的航空碳税负担将不利于我国航空业的进一步发展。因此，我国有必要对航空碳排放交易领域保持密切关注，并积极思考应对之策。具体而言，中国一方面可以通过诉讼途径来挑战欧盟航空域外管辖权的扩张，另一方面，也应尽快构建本国的碳交易市场，建立等效机制来抵制欧盟征收航空碳税。同时，也应积极通过外交等途径尽可能消除欧盟航空碳税对中国的不利影响，包括联合世界上其它国家一同抵制欧盟单边征收航空碳税等。
[Abstract]:According to the 2008/101/EC Directive, from January 1, 2012, the international air transport industry will be included in the European Union carbon Emission Trading Mechanism (EU ETS). All international flights to and from airports in the EU will be subject to certain emission quotas, and the excess will buy credits from the EU, effectively imposing an "air carbon tax." The EU's move has undoubtedly sparked strong opposition from non-EU countries and airlines, and some have taken steps to boycott it. Although the European Union has suspended the implementation of an aviation carbon trading scheme amid opposition, it does not mean the EU will permanently ban the directive, and it is likely to continue to impose an aviation carbon tax without hindrance. The promulgation of the EU 2008/101/EC Directive and the EU's action to levy an air carbon tax are inconsistent with relevant international conventions and international customary law. First, the European Union imposes a uniform air carbon tax on all international flights taking off and landing at its airports without distinction, contrary to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate change and the Kyoto Protocol. Developing countries have no obligation to do so in their Kyoto commitments, and the European Union's move is set to shift its onerous mandate to developing countries. Secondly, the European Union imposes a full air carbon tax on international flights to and from its airports, which does not comply with the provisions of international law on extraterritorial jurisdiction. According to the "effect theory" of international customary law, the extraterritorial application of a country's domestic law must first be that the extraterritorial act has a substantial impact on its own country. At the same time, the extraterritorial application of domestic law must not harm the interests of other countries and the international community as a whole. However, in fact, the carbon emissions from the international aviation industry have not had a substantial, fundamental impact on the European Union. The EU's move is nothing more than a transfer of the cost of reducing carbon emissions in the name of aviation carbon emission reduction. The extraterritorial application of its regional laws has placed great pressure on the international community as a whole, especially on the aviation industry in developing countries. Therefore, the EU's inclusion of international aviation in its unilateral carbon emissions trading mechanism is in fact inconsistent with the "effect theory" in customary international law. As the largest trading partner of the EU and the largest developing country, the imposition of the EU Air carbon tax will undoubtedly have a significant impact on China's trade with Europe, and the level of development of China's aviation service industry itself is still very low. Heavy aviation carbon tax burden will not be conducive to the further development of China's aviation industry. Therefore, it is necessary for China to pay close attention to the field of aviation carbon emissions trading and actively consider the countermeasures. In particular, on the one hand, China can challenge the expansion of EU aviation extraterritorial jurisdiction through litigation, on the other hand, it should also set up its own carbon trading market as soon as possible and establish an equivalent mechanism to resist the imposition of aviation carbon tax by the EU. At the same time, we should try our best to eliminate the negative effects of EU Air carbon tax on China through diplomacy and other channels, including joining other countries in the world to resist the unilateral imposition of Air carbon tax by the EU and so on.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D996.9

【参考文献】