본 연구에서는 EU 택소노미의 경제적 함의와 보호무역주의적 성격을 분석한다. 택소노미는 유럽연합의 녹색 경제 전환을 위한 분류 체계로, 기후 변화 대응을 목표로 한다. 본 논문은 유럽연합의 환경정책과 무역 정책의 연계성을 살펴보고, 택소노미가 무역 장벽으로 작용할 가능성을 검토한다. 유럽연합은 환경정책을 통해 국제무역에서의 경쟁 우위를 유 지하고, 역외 기업들에게 친환경 기준을 부과하여 무역 장벽을 형성한다. 이를 통해 유럽연합은 역내 경제 활성화와 산업 경쟁력을 강화하며, 글 로벌 공급망 재편과 친환경 투자 유치를 도모한다. 본 연구는 유럽연합 의 환경정책이 보호무역주의적 성격을 가지는지 평가하고, 그 경제적 영 향을 고찰한다.

Geopolitical risk is now among the most important factors in the formulation of multinational corporate strategy and the US trade policy. The US has aggressively enacted national-security-based trade sanctions, which recently include export controls on semiconductor chips and restrictions on outbound and inbound investment. The US has also adopted major legislation providing historical subsidies and tax breaks. Congress and the courts have upheld the president’s use of national security as a basis of trade actions and generally supported his protectionist policies. Trade should not be restricted or weaponized. Global and national rules need to be strengthened and, perhaps, a bit updated, but protectionism in the name of national security is a losing argument. The growing movement by the US to rely more on national security and protectionism in formulating trade policy is a very worrisome development. No one in Washington is proposing a return to pre-Trump policies. The real question is how far US trade policy will continue to change in the near future. Geopolitics will give us the answer.

There has been a tectonic shift in the trade relationship between the United States (US) and China. This can be seen in the passage of new US legislation, recent US trade restrictions on exports and investment transactions with China, and worsening US relations with the World Trade Organization (WTO), particularly with its dispute resolution system. The Trump administration initiated a haphazard tariff and trade war with China, reversing decades of US trade policy pursuant to its long-standing stances of supporting free trade. To the dismay of many in the trade community within the US and globally, the trade actions by President Trump have been significantly extended and broadened by the Biden administration in its first two years, despite the expectation that it would reverse many of Trump’s policies. In this article, I present seven observations concerning President Trump’s and President Biden’s trade policies.

Renewable energy is frequently seen as one of the world’s most promising industries, as it promises a sustainable future in the surge of climate change. Nevertheless, several trade disputes emerge as nations implement policies to boost the domestic green energy industry, putting current trade laws to the test and leaving the detrimental effects on the development of renewable energy technologies. As a result, trade tensions have risen, particularly in bilateral relations between the United States and China. It is impossible to deny that current trade disputes over renewable energy products have practical consequences for governments, institutions, and enterprises. Rising trade protectionism in the energy industry may endanger the fulfillment of specific sustainable development targets. Keeping that in mind, this study aims to examine the recent trade disputes over China’s renewable energy products at the multilateral forum of the WTO, while analyzing protectionism in the context of international trade and practices.