Lecture 9 Flashcards
What are the two classes of claims made for linking trade and environmental concerns?
- emphasizing the cross border nature of many environmental problems that entail externalities beyond jurisdiction
- shared natural resources or common water or air bodies that straddle boundaries of more than one jurisdiction.
Are trade sanctions effective?
yes, in about 1/3 of all cases, and are likely to be more effective when large countries use them against small countries
What is “level the competitive playing field”?
the argument that it is unfair for countries with lax environmental standards to exert downward pressure through trade, on the more stringent environmental standards, hence risking a race to the bottom.
GATT Framework
none of the gatt/wto agreements contain detailed provisions on the relationship between trade policy and the environment
Tuna-Dolphin (1991)
one of the first environmental cases, the US imposed an embargo on imports of tuna caught by bad fishing methods.
GATT Article XX(b)/g
allows measures to be adopted to protect ppl/plants/resources relating to conservation, as long as the restrinctions are in conjunction with domestic production/consumption
GATT finding in tuna-dolphin (1991)
Panel found a violation of article xi (quantitative restrictions) ad rejected the application of either art xxg/b on the grounds that these exceptions can only be applied to health, safety or conservation concerns arising within the territorial jurisdiction of the country seeking to justify trade restrictions.
Tuna-Dolphin 1994
- US legislation allowing shipping of tuna through a third country, challenged by EU.
- Panel found a violation of Art XI.
Reformulated Gasoline (1996)
Brazil and Venezuela challenged US clean air act because it was discriminatory, AB found discrimination
Shrimp-Turtles 1998
Leading WTO Appellate Body decision on the relationship between trade and the environment.
- Asian countries challenged US ban on shrimp imports
- Opposite of Reform Gasoline, AB found measures inconsistent with GATT agreements
Application of article XX
Art XX must not be applied in a manner that would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries. Implying a principle of good faith or abuse of rights.
EC- Seal Products
norway v canada argued that the EC seal regulation afforded privilege access to seal products originating in the EC and specific other countries. Exceptions for seal products hunted by Inuit or indigenous communities (the IC exception) and seal products hunted for marine resource management (the MRM exception.
Appellate Body decision in EC Seal Products
found that the ec seal regime was inconsistent with GATT articles I and III.4. The violation impaired the competitive relationship between imports from some countries relative to others, and between foreign and domestically produced like products, thus requiring justification under Article xx
what are the two objectives of the EC Seal Regime identified by the Panel?
- addressing public moral concerns about EU participation as consumers in an inhumane market
- addressing public morals relating to the number of killed seals
Findings of the Appellate Body EC- Seal case
found that the EU failed to demonstrate how the discrimination resulting from the manner in which the EU seal regime treats IC hunts, ambiguities could allow for abuse, and therefore the EU had not justified the EU seal regime under the chapeau to GATT article XX(a)
