미국/EU의 주요 통상정책과 통상규범 간의 상관관계

This study analyzes the recent trade policies of the United States and the European Union (EU), and assesses how these policies relate to and align with international trade norms, including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs), and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM). U.S. trade policy encompasses a range of measures, including tariffs, protectionism, strategic industry promotion, and supply chain stabilization. This study focuses particularly on the Advanced Manufacturing Production Credit (AMPC) to examine its consistency with GATT, TRIMs, and ASCM. While AMPC may potentially violate the GATT national treatment obligation, its compliance with the most-favored-nation (MFN) treatment and the prohibition on local content requirements is likely maintained. From a TRIMs perspective, AMPC is not readily characterized as a mandatory measure, although its operation may entail certain indirect effects arising from the conditions attached to the tax credit. Under the ASCM, AMPC does not appear to fall within the category of prohibited subsidies; however, depending on its specific design and application, it may be susceptible to characterization as an actionable subsidy, thereby leaving open the possibility of international disputes. The EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and sustainable product regulations exemplify the integration of environmental and trade policies and may be partially justified under the environmental exceptions in the GATT and TBT agreements. However, for such exceptions to be valid in practice, measures must be free from arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination and should not constitute disguised protectionism. If the emission measurement criteria fail to adequately consider the regulatory conditions of exporting countries, CBAM could be assessed as an excessive trade-restrictive measure under the TBT. Conversely, measures designed with transparent scientific standards and equal procedural opportunities are more likely to be recognized as non-discriminatory and consistent with trade norms. This study suggests that, in responding to the new trade paradigm, states may need to place particular emphasis on maintaining short-term trade stability and predictability. At the same time, over the long term, there appears to be a need for the international community to engage in collective reflection on more systematic and strategic approaches to policy design, as well as on the refinement of trade norms in light of the evolving global trade environment.