탄소국경조정제도의 국제적 비교 현황과 국내 도입에 관한 제어국가의 법정책적 과제

Abstract

Joint efforts to reduce carbon within the global environmental chain are ongoing. However, the effect has been halved because ‘carbon leakage’, a phenomenon in which carbon reduction efforts are offset by passive countries or companies, has occurred. The international community could not overcome the limitation to sanction or enforce a passive attitude. In game theory, it is the best strategy to reduce carbon by working together, but it was not. The introduction of the carbon border adjustment system as a game changer to fundamentally prevent carbon leakage and change the direction of the game toward a joint carbon reduction effort has been argued, but has now reached the stage where it is being implemented in earnest. The 'Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism' (CBAM) evaluates carbon reduction efforts when importing or exporting carbon-intensive products, and additionally 'adds a levy' for the amount of carbon that exceeds the standard value. It refers to a control mechanism that 'refunds' or 'exempts or reduces burden' like a subsidy for more reduced efforts. The carbon border adjustment system is initially applied to cement, steel, iron, aluminum, fertilizer, and electricity, but will gradually expand its scope and boundary. We trade carbon-reducing products and carbon-intensive products at the same time, relying heavily on exports and imports from the EU and the US. Depending on how the Korean government and companies prepare for the carbon border adjustment system in the EU and the United States, manage our carbon trading market, and make efforts to reduce carbon throughout the industry, the carbon border adjustment system may be a big shock or an opportunity to secure new competitiveness. The carbon border adjustment system includes both types of fiscal measures and types of non-fiscal measures. The EU carbon border adjustment system will be operated in a way that provides benefits as much as carbon reduction efforts while allowing the purchase of CBM certificates at the average weekly price of carbon credits in conjunction with the carbon trading system. Depending on the point of view of the nature of the obligation to purchase emission permits, some view it as the same financial measure as tax. In the case of the obligation to purchase carbon credits imposed by the carbon border adjustment mechanism, it is similar to tax, but it is premised on the return of benefits without the purpose of securing tax revenue. The carbon border adjustment system may play a role in structurally transforming the environmental field where non-cooperative game theory has been applied to one where cooperative game theory is applied. The tree of the carbon border adjustment system should be considered in relation to the forest as a climate change countermeasure. Through trial and error, the EU came up with a new carbon emission trading system that has been relaxed since the Paris Agreement, while emphasizing autonomy and considering speed control. We can view this in terms of the EU's Green New Deal policy. EU is claiming the legal legitimacy of the EU carbon border adjustment system by invoking the GATT Article XX exceptions for environmental protection, and a logical conflict is occurring. Freedom of free and fair competition is a core and important value and order for the international community to coexist. However, the benefits of environmental protection, which require efforts to cope with climate change through carbon reduction efforts, cannot be regarded as inferior. Therefore, I think that it is necessary to approach this as a norm-harmonic interpretation method. In addition, I think that depending on the case, the punishment should be in accordance with the principle of proportionality. Therefore, in this study, the EU's legislative package, 'Fit for 55', etc., the legislative contents that change according to the interests of the US, China and other countries are reviewed to draw implications. In addition, the status related to the domestic introduction of the carbon border adjustment system was checked. 「The Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth for Response to the Climate Crisis」,「ACT ON THE ALLOCATION AND TRADING OF GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSION PERMITS」, 「Regulations on the establishment and operation of the 2050 Carbon Neutrality Committee」, 「CARBON MATERIALS CONVERGENCE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION SUPPORT ACT” and 「CARBON MATERIALS CONVERGENCE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION SUPPORT ACT」, etc., as well as related Supreme Court precedents and decisions of the Constitutional Court were reviewed to derive legislative policy tasks. Now, it should be understood that the carbon border adjustment system is intended to effectively help the domestic legal implementation of climate change conventions such as the Paris Convention. In addition to this legal revision, the domestic carbon emission trading system should be activated and linked with the carbon border adjustment system so that it can receive equal or similar evaluations in the EU and the United States. To this end, while using self-regulation and regulated self-regulation which means co-regulation, in parallel with existing high-level regulations, it is necessary to expand the specific guarantee of incentives for carbon reduction efforts. To this end, the state must act as an environmental state and at the same time a Ensuring state and a Steering state according to the principle of distance and proportionality in the basis of the constitution at the area of administration. And the theory of the constitution and administrative law also needs to be modernized so that it can harmoniously solve modern problems such as the carbon border adjustment system.