International trade—WTO—quantitative restrictions—environmental protection—endangered species—U.S. import ban on shrimp

1999 ◽  
Vol 93 (2) ◽  
pp. 507-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernard H. Oxman ◽  
Gregory Shaffer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Trade ◽  
Endangered Species ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Turtle Species ◽  
Wild Fauna ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
Gatt 1994

United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products.World Trade Organization, Appellate Body, October 12, 1998.In May 1996, the United States effectively prohibited imports of shrimp and shrimp products from all countries that do not require commercial shrimp trawlers to use turtle-excluder devices (TEDs) to permit endangered species of sea turtles to escape from trawling nets to avoid drowning. In January 1997, India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand requested that the WTO Dispute Settlement Body establish a panel to determine whether this import ban, among other things, violates the prohibition on quantitative restrictions in Article XI of GATT (1994). The United States maintained that its import ban was permitted under the exceptions set forth in paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT Article XX. Four turtle species that migrate in and out of waters subject to the complaining parties’ jurisdiction are listed as endangered under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and are covered by the relevant U.S. regulation.

WTO Dispute Settlement Body—Article XX environmental exceptions to GATT—national treatment—consistency urith GATT of U.S. rules regarding imports of reformulated gasoline

1996 ◽  
Vol 90 (4) ◽  
pp. 669-674 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith Hippler Bello ◽  
Maury D. Shenk
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Trade ◽  
World Trade Organization ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
World Trade ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
Clean Air ◽  
Gatt 1994

United States—Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline. 35ILM 603 (1996).World Trade Organization Appellate Body, April 29, 1996.In United States—Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline (Gasoline), the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Body in its first decision addressed one of the most difficult contemporary issues in international trade— the tension between the growth of international trade and the protection of the global environment. The Appellate Body decided that rules regarding standards for cleanliness of gasoline (Gasoline Rule) adopted under the Clean Air Act by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which required importers of gasoline to meet different standards from those required of domestic refiners, were not justifiable restrictions on trade under the environmental exceptions of Article XX of GATT 1994 (GATT).

Extraterritorial Shrimps, NGOs and the WTO Appellate Body

1999 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 199-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asif H. Qureshi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Market Access ◽  
The United States ◽  
Consultation Process ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Us ◽  
Wto Appellate Body ◽  
Dispute Settlement System

At the centre of the international trading order, under the framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO), lies a dispute-settlement system. This system offers a graduated conflict-resolution mechanism that begins with a consultation process; progresses to adjudication, through a panel system, and ends in an appellate process.1 Under this machinery, in October 1996 India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand (the complainants) requested joint consultations with the United States, regarding the US prohibition on the importation of certain shrimps and shrimp products caught with fishing technology considered by the United States adversely to affect the population of sea turtles—an endangered species under CITES.2 The US prohibition arose from section 609 of Public Law 101–1623 and associated regulations and judicial rulings (hereafter referred to as section 609). In a nutshell the complainants claimed denial of market access to their exports, and the United States justified this on grounds of conservation. However, as a consequence of the failure of the consultations, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body established a panel, around April 1997, to consider a joint complaint against the United States in relation to section 609. Australia, Ecuador, the European Communities, HongKong, China, Mexico and Nigeria joined the complainants as third parties. In May 1998 the panel's report was published, containing a decision in favour of the complainants. In July 1998 the United States appealed to the WTO Appellate Body, and in October 1998 the Appellate Body issued its report.4

Precedent in the WTO: Retrospective Reflections for a Prospective Dispute Settlement Mechanism

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 262-277
Author(s):  
Mariana Clara de Andrade
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
Wto Appellate Body ◽  
Legitimacy Crisis ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

Abstract Several factors triggered the legitimacy crisis which paralysed the WTO Appellate Body in December 2019. This article focuses on one of them: the criticism expressed by the United States that the ‘Appellate Body claims its reports are entitled to be treated as precedent’. This work describes the origins of the problem and examines the issue of the precedential value of adopted reports within the WTO dispute settlement. It argues that the problem cannot be addressed through textual attempts to better define the value of precedent, as some have suggested, but can be alleviated through the practice of adjudicators. Moreover, it argues that the criticisms regarding the precedential value of past reports is due to the inherent hierarchy ensuing from the existence of an appeals organ. Therefore, the demise of the Appellate Body may weaken the precedential value of past adopted reports.

United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling (Cool) Requirements (US–Cool, Article 22.6 – United States), DS384/DS386

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 526-528
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Carlson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Country Of Origin ◽  
The United States ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Domestic Livestock ◽  
Gatt 1994

On 29 May 2015, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the Article 21.5 Appellate Body reports in these disputes, and the reports of the compliance panel as modified by the Appellate Body. The findings adopted by the DSB were that the United States' amended country of origin labelling (COOL) requirements violated Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement and Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 because they continued to accord less favourable treatment to imported livestock than to like domestic livestock. Thereafter, Canada and Mexico both filed requests with the DSB for authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations under Article 22.2 of the DSU. Canada and Mexico sought authorization to suspend concessions and related obligations in the goods sector under the GATT 1994 to an annual value of CAD3.068 billion and USD713 million, respectively. The mandate of the Arbitrator in these proceedings was to ‘determine whether the level of such [proposed] suspension is equivalent to the level of nullification or impairment' to Canada and Mexico.

scholarly journals US – Lamb: United States – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia: What Should be Required of a Safeguard Investigation?

2003 ◽  
Vol 2 (S1) ◽  
pp. 72-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henrik Horn ◽  
Petros C. Mavroidis
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Safeguard Measures ◽  
Lamb Meat ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Us ◽  
Serious Injury ◽  
Gatt 1994

The United States (US) imposed, in July 1999, a safeguard on lamb meat, in the form of tariff rate import quotas, which were to be applied for a period of three years. The measure was based on findings by the US International Trade Commission that increased imports of lamb meat were a substantial cause of threat of serious injury to the US industry producing the like product. Following complaints by New Zealand and Australia that the measure was inconsistent with Articles I, II and XIX of GATT 1994, and several provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body established, in November 1999, a panel to review the consistency of the US measure with the mentioned WTO rules.

scholarly journals China – Countervailing and Anti-dumping Duties on Grain Oriented Flat-rolled Electrical Steel from the United States: exporting US AD/CVD methodologies through WTO dispute settlement?

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
THOMAS J. PRUSA ◽  
EDWIN VERMULST
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Electrical Steel ◽  
The United States ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Us ◽  
Target Country ◽  
Injury Analysis

AbstractIn July 2009, Chinese steel producers of grain oriented electrical steel filed anti-dumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) cases against US and Russian producers. The US challenged the duties for a variety a reasons, many of which involved deficiencies in the producers' application to China's investigating authority, the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (MOFCOM). The US also challenged certain aspects of MOFCOM's injury analysis. The Panel and Appellate Body ruled in favor of the US on virtually every issue. Given the deficiencies in the application and China's handling of the case, the Panel and AB decisions were justified. In a larger sense, however, we believe China may well emerge as the ‘winner’ in this dispute as this case establishes important standards for allegations and evidence in applications, standards that other countries (including the US) likely have failed to meet when they have imposed AD and CVD orders on the largest target country, China.

scholarly journals The Impending Dejudicialization of the WTO Dispute Settlement System?

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 316-321
Author(s):  
Richard H. Steinberg
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World Trade Organization ◽  
World Trade ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
The World ◽  
Dispute Settlement System

The Appellate Body (AB) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is facing a crisis. Appointment of AB members requires a consensus of the Dispute Settlement Body (comprised of all WTO members), and the United States has been blocking a consensus on further appointments since Donald J. Trump became the president. Without new appointments, the ranks of the AB have been diminishing as AB members’ terms have been expiring. If this continues (and many expect the United States to continue blocking a consensus on appointments), then in December 2019, through attrition, the number of AB members will fall below the threshold necessary to render decisions, at which point the AB will cease to function.

scholarly journals United States—Anti-dumping Measures Applying Differential Pricing Methodology to Softwood Lumber from Canada

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 (4) ◽  
pp. 735-743
Author(s):  
Niccolò Ridi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Weighted Average ◽  
The United States ◽  
Softwood Lumber ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
Wto Appellate Body ◽  
Dispute Settlement System

This dispute, brought by Canada against the United States, constitutes another chapter in three separate sagas: the enduring softwood lumber dispute between the two North American nations; the debate over the acceptability of the practice of “zeroing”; and the fight over the value and role of World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body precedent. Notably, the panel departed from established Appellate Body decisions finding, inter alia, that zeroing was permissible under a weighted average-to-transaction (W-T) methodology. This departure is remarkable, not just because it runs counter to prior jurisprudence, but also for the reasoning supporting it and the circumstances in which it occurred. Indeed, the Panel Report was issued in the midst of a crisis of the WTO dispute settlement system arising from the United States’ decision to block the reappointment of Appellate Body members. The United States justified this action, which eventually resulted in the Appellate Body losing its quorum to hear new appeals on December 10, 2019, on the basis of complaints, among others, that the Appellate Body had championed an approach to precedent that the United States found incompatible with the intended role of dispute settlement within the WTO. While members worked feverishly to formulate a compromise that might respond to the United States’ criticisms and soften the effect of the Appellate Body's approach, the Panel suggested its own. Thus, it found room to depart from prior precedent (which the United States argued had been wrongly decided) while paying lip service to the Appellate Body.

scholarly journals US – Lamb United States – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia: what should be required of a safeguard investigation?

2003 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 395-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
HENRIK HORN ◽  
PETROS C. MAVROIDIS
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Safeguard Measures ◽  
Lamb Meat ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Us ◽  
Serious Injury ◽  
Gatt 1994

The United States (US) imposed, in July 1999, a safeguard on lamb meat, in the form of tariff rate import quotas, which were to be applied for a period of three years. The measure was based on findings by the US International Trade Commission that increased imports of lamb meat were a substantial cause of threat of serious injury to the US industry producing the like product. Following complaints by New Zealand and Australia that the measure was inconsistent with Articles I, II and XIX of GATT 1994, and several provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body established, in November 1999, a panel to review the consistency of the US measure with the mentioned WTO rules.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document