Carbon credits as EU like it: Property, immunity, tragiCO2medy?

While there have been many legal studies of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), none seem to have considered the EU ETS from the perspective of private law, particularly the private law issues that stem from the ambiguous legal nature of the 'carbon credit'. Such ambiguit...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: LOW, Kelvin F. K., LIN, Jolene
Format: text
Language:English
Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2015
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1771
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/3723/viewcontent/CarbonCredits_EU_2015_pp.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Singapore Management University
Language: English
id sg-smu-ink.sol_research-3723
record_format dspace
spelling sg-smu-ink.sol_research-37232020-01-21T15:18:56Z Carbon credits as EU like it: Property, immunity, tragiCO2medy? LOW, Kelvin F. K. LIN, Jolene While there have been many legal studies of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), none seem to have considered the EU ETS from the perspective of private law, particularly the private law issues that stem from the ambiguous legal nature of the 'carbon credit'. Such ambiguity translates into regulatory uncertainty and business risks of the sort that occurred in Armstrong DLW GmbH v Winnington Networks Ltd [2013] Ch 156, an English case involving fraud and 'stolen' European Union Allowances (EUAs). From an environmental law and policy perspective, uncertainty does not bode well for the EU ETS's regulatory effectiveness and environmental integrity. From a property law perspective, the legal nature of the EUA begs for clarification in order to give holders of EUAs certainty of their rights and obligations, the absence of which led to the litigation in Armstrong v Winnington taking on an unduly convoluted complexion. The authors argue that one of the critical failures of the EU ETS lies in its failure to properly define the fundamental legal nature of the EUA. While this omission to define can be explained away by deference to the principle of subsidiarity, it can be argued that the omission stems also from a failure to appreciate the legal nature of intangible property as well as a misunderstanding of the way in which registers of rights operate. Handicapped by conceptual failings, the EU ETS exposes participants to unnecessary uncertainty that national courts will find difficult to resolve. 2015-11-01T07:00:00Z text application/pdf https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1771 info:doi/10.1093/jel/eqv020 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/3723/viewcontent/CarbonCredits_EU_2015_pp.pdf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law eng Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University carbon credits property registry fraud European Union emissions trading Environmental Law Law and Society
institution Singapore Management University
building SMU Libraries
continent Asia
country Singapore
Singapore
content_provider SMU Libraries
collection InK@SMU
language English
topic carbon credits
property
registry
fraud
European Union
emissions trading
Environmental Law
Law and Society
spellingShingle carbon credits
property
registry
fraud
European Union
emissions trading
Environmental Law
Law and Society
LOW, Kelvin F. K.
LIN, Jolene
Carbon credits as EU like it: Property, immunity, tragiCO2medy?
description While there have been many legal studies of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), none seem to have considered the EU ETS from the perspective of private law, particularly the private law issues that stem from the ambiguous legal nature of the 'carbon credit'. Such ambiguity translates into regulatory uncertainty and business risks of the sort that occurred in Armstrong DLW GmbH v Winnington Networks Ltd [2013] Ch 156, an English case involving fraud and 'stolen' European Union Allowances (EUAs). From an environmental law and policy perspective, uncertainty does not bode well for the EU ETS's regulatory effectiveness and environmental integrity. From a property law perspective, the legal nature of the EUA begs for clarification in order to give holders of EUAs certainty of their rights and obligations, the absence of which led to the litigation in Armstrong v Winnington taking on an unduly convoluted complexion. The authors argue that one of the critical failures of the EU ETS lies in its failure to properly define the fundamental legal nature of the EUA. While this omission to define can be explained away by deference to the principle of subsidiarity, it can be argued that the omission stems also from a failure to appreciate the legal nature of intangible property as well as a misunderstanding of the way in which registers of rights operate. Handicapped by conceptual failings, the EU ETS exposes participants to unnecessary uncertainty that national courts will find difficult to resolve.
format text
author LOW, Kelvin F. K.
LIN, Jolene
author_facet LOW, Kelvin F. K.
LIN, Jolene
author_sort LOW, Kelvin F. K.
title Carbon credits as EU like it: Property, immunity, tragiCO2medy?
title_short Carbon credits as EU like it: Property, immunity, tragiCO2medy?
title_full Carbon credits as EU like it: Property, immunity, tragiCO2medy?
title_fullStr Carbon credits as EU like it: Property, immunity, tragiCO2medy?
title_full_unstemmed Carbon credits as EU like it: Property, immunity, tragiCO2medy?
title_sort carbon credits as eu like it: property, immunity, tragico2medy?
publisher Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
publishDate 2015
url https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1771
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/3723/viewcontent/CarbonCredits_EU_2015_pp.pdf
_version_ 1772829740105728000