In this study, I have identified three areas of regulation where conflicts may arise between trade and environmental protection. I have examined how the Court of Justice and the Supreme Court (Part 1) and the Community and the US federal legislatures (Part 2) have attempted to deal with such conflicts. The objective of this conclusion is (i) to highlight the main findings made in Parts 1 and 2; and (ii) to place the question of the relationship between trade and environmental protection in the broader context of the world trading system.

One of the central findings of this study is that the relationship between trade and environmental protection varies considerably depending on the area of environmental regulation in question. Even if equally designed to protect the environment, state regulations governing product standards, process standards and the movement and disposal of waste raise trade issues that are conceptually distinct. There is no one conflict between trade and environmental protection, but several kinds of conflict depending on which of these areas of environmental regulation is involved. Only the instruments to solve such conflicts (i.e., judicial and legislative intervention) remain constant. But, again, the usefulness of these instruments varies considerably depending on the area of environmental regulation in question.

In the area of product standards, the conflicts between trade and environmental protection have traditionally been solved through a mix of negative and positive harmonization.