Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T23:03:10.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EU Regulatory Policy and World Trade

Should all EU Institutions Care What the World Thinks?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2015

Tamara Perišin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Divergent regulatory practices in WTO compliance and external trade effects – The regulatory policy of EU ‘legislative’ institutions – The (de)regulatory policy of the ECJ – Explaining diverging regulatory practices – Policies behind diverging regulatory practices – Different institutional interaction in diverging regulatory practices – Should all EU institutions care what the world thinks?

Keywords

European Unionregulatory policyWTO compliance
Type
Articles
Information
European Constitutional Law Review , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , May 2015 , pp. 99 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Prof. Dr. Tamara Perišin, MJur (Oxon), Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb. Thanks to Harvard Law School where a part of this research was conducted within the postdoctoral visitors’ programme; to Marise Cremona, Tamara Ćapeta, James Flett, Petros Mavoridis, Donald Regan, Siniša Rodin, Mark Wu, and Derrick Wyatt for their support of this research project, useful discussions on this topic or for comments on earlier drafts; to Aleksandra Čar and Sam Koplewicz for their research assistance; and to the participants of the EUI-CLEER joint conference ‘Trade liberalisation and standardisation’, and of the Harvard European Law Association lecture series, for their valuable feedback.

References

1 Art. 216(2) TFEU.

2 Art. 21(2) TEU.

3 Art. 11(2) TEU.

4 Art. 11(3) TEU; similarly Art. 2 Protocol (No 2) on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality.

5 US – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products – AB Report, WT/DS58/AB/R, 12 October 1998, paras. 167-176; – Recourse to Article 21.5 DSU by Malaysia, AB Report, WT/DS58/AB/RW, 22 October 2001, paras. 122, 134.

6 Scott, J., The WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (Oxford University Press 2007) p. 57-58Google Scholar.

7 Transatlantic Economic Partnership 1998, <ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/international/files/trans_econ_partner_11_98_en.pdf>, visited 3 April 2014.

8 Guidelines on Regulatory Cooperation and Transparency, <ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/international/files/guidelines3_en.pdf>, visited 3 April 2014.

9 Council Regulation 3254/91/EEC of 4 November 1991 prohibiting the use of leghold traps in the Community and the introduction into the Community of pelts and manufactured goods of certain wild animal species originating in countries which catch them by means of leghold traps or trapping methods which do not meet international humane trapping standards OJ 1991 L308/1.

10 Art. 2 Regulation 3254/91/EEC.

11 Art. 3 Regulation 3254/91/EEC.

12 US - Restrictions on Imports of Tuna – unadopted GATT Panel Report (DS21/R - 39S/155) 3 September 1991; – unadopted GATT Panel Report (DS29/R) 16 June 1994.

13 Shrimp/Turtle, supra n. 5.

14 Agreement on international humane trapping standards between the EC, Canada and the Russian Federation, OJ 1998 L42/43.

15 Agreed Minute, OJ 1998 L 219/26.

16 See on this point Princen, S., ‘EC Compliance with WTO Law: The Interplay of Law and Politics’, 15 EJIL (2004) p. 555CrossRefGoogle Scholar at p. 572-573.

17 Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products, OJ 1976 L 262/169; Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on Cosmetic Products, OJ 2009 L 342/59.

18 de Búrca, G. and Scott, J., ‘The Impact of the WTO on EU Decision-making’, in G. de Búrca and J. Scott (eds.), The EU and the WTO – Legal and Constitutional Issues (Hart 2003) p. 1Google Scholar at p. 6-12. The paper was published already in 2000 as a Jean Monnet Working Paper, www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/archive/papers/00/000601.html, visited 3 April 2014.

19 Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993 amending for the sixth time Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products, OJ 1993 L 151/32.

20 The provision then became Art. 4(1)(i) Cosmetics Directive, supra n. 19.

21 1996 Commission Report on the Development, Validation and Legal Acceptance of Alternative Methods to Animal Experiments in the Field of Cosmetics, 05.05.1997, COM(97) 182 final, at p. 19, and similarly at p. 5/6, 9, 13.

22 E-0949/98 Written Question to the Commission ‘Impact on animal protection of the GATT/WTO’ by Mark Watts (PSE), 30 March 1998; and Answer to Written Question E-0949/98 given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission, 7 May 1998. See on this de Búrca, and Scott, supra n. 18, p. 8Google Scholar.

23 de Búrca, and Scott, supra n. 18, p. 9-12Google Scholar.

24 Vogel, D., ‘The WTO, International Trade and Environmental Protection: European and American Perspectives’, EUI working papers, RSC 2002/34, p.18Google Scholar.

25 Vogel, , supra n. 24, p. 18Google Scholar.

26 Vogel, , supra n. 24, p. 18Google Scholar.

27 See De Ville, F., ‘European Union Regulatory Politics in the Shadow of the WTO: WTO Rules as Frame of Reference and Rhetorical Device’, 19 Journal of European Public Policy (2012) p. 707CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Regulation 1907/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation 793/93/EEC and Commission Regulation 1488/94/EC as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, OJ 2007 L 136/3.

28 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Animal Cloning for Food Production, 19.10.2010, COM(2010) 585 final.

29 EC – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, Panel Reports, WT/DS291-293/R, 29 September 2006.

30 Cases EC – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones) – Complainant: US, Panel Report, WT/DS26/R/USA, 18 August 1997; – Complainant: Canada, Panel Report, WT/DS48/R/CAN, 18 August 1997; – AB Report, WT/DS26/AB/R and WT/DS48/AB/R, 16 January 1998.

31 Memoranda of Understanding between the United States of America / Canada and the European Commission Regarding the Importation of Beef from Animals Not Treated with Certain Growth-Promoting Hormones and Increased Duties Applied by the United States to Certain Products of the EC, WT/DS26/28, 30 September 2009 / WT/DS48/26, 22 March 2011; Regulation 464/2012/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 amending Council Regulation 617/2009/EC opening an autonomous tariff quota for imports of high-quality beef, OJ 2012 L 149/1.

32 Council Regulation 1007/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on trade in seal products, OJ 2009 L 286/36; Commission Regulation 737/2010/EU of 10 August 2010 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on trade in seal products, OJ 2010 L 216/1.

33 EC – Certain Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products, Request for Consultations by Canada, WT/DS369/1.

34 EC — Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products, AB Reports, WT/DS400&401/AB/R, 22 May 2014. For an analysis of these disputes and the issues raised, see Perišin, T., ‘Is the EU Seal Products Regulation a Sealed Deal? – EU and WTO Challenges’, 62 ICLQ (2013) p. 373CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Howse, R. and Langille, J., ‘Permitting Pluralism: The Seal Products Dispute and Why the WTO Should Permit Trade Restrictions Justified by Non-Instrumental Moral Values’, 37 Yale Journal of International Law (2012) p. 367Google Scholar; Fitzgerald, P. L., ‘“Morality” May Not Be Enough to Justify the EU Seal Products Ban: Animal Welfare Meets International Trade Law’, 14 Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy (2011) p. 85Google Scholar; de Ville, F., ‘Explaining the Genesis of a Trade Dispute: The European Union’s Seal Trade Ban’, 34 Journal of European Integration (2012) p. 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ankersmit, L. et al., ‘Diverging EU and WTO Perspectives on Extraterritorial Process Regulation’, 21 Minnesota Journal of International Law Online (Spring 2012) p. 14Google Scholar; Luan, X. and Chaisse, J., ‘Preliminary Comments on the WTO Seals Products Dispute: Traditional Hunting, Public Morals and Technical Barriers to Trade’, 22 Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy (2011) p. 79Google Scholar.

35 The relevant EU cases are: ECJ 3 October 2013, Case C-583/11 P, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami v Parliament and Council; Pending Case C-398/13 P, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami v Commission. For an analysis of the meritum of these cases, see Perišin, , supra n. 34Google Scholar.

36 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning trade in seals products, 2008/0160 (COD).

37 For a detailed analysis of the Regulation’s legislative history, see De Ville, , supra n. 34Google Scholar.

38 ECJ 12 December 1972, Case C-21-24/72, International Fruit Company v Produktschap voor Groenten en Fruit; ECJ 22 June 1989, Case 70/87, Fediol v Commission; ECJ 7 May 1991, Case C-69/89, Nakajima v Council; ECJ 5 October 1994, Case C-280/93, Germany v Council; ECJ 23 November 1999, Case C-149/96, Portugal v Council. Within the WTO, the idea that WTO law should have a direct effect was rejected during the Uruguay round, and this was also held by the Panel in US – Sections 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974 WT/DS152/R para. 7.72. See Eeckhout, P., ‘The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreement: Interconnecting Legal Systems’, 34 CMLRev (1997) p. 11Google Scholar; Snyder, F., ‘The Gatekeepers: The European Courts and WTO Law, 40 CMLRev (2003) p. 313Google Scholar; Kuijper, P. J. and Bronckers, M., ‘WTO Law in the European Court of Justice’, 42 CMLRev (2005) p. 1313Google Scholar; Dani, M., ‘Remedying European Legal Pluralism - The FIAMM and Fedon Litigation and the Judicial Protection of International Trade Bystanders’, 21 EJIL (2010) p. 303CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Germany v Council, supra n. 38. See also Opinion of AG Maduro 20 February 2008, Joined Cases C-120/06 P and C-121/06 P, FIAMM v Council and Commission and Fedon v Council and Commission, paras. 28, 29.

40 Portugal v Council, supra n. 38, para. 49, citing cases Fediol, supra n. 38, paras. 19-22 and Nakajima, supra n. 38, para. 31.

41 See ECJ 10 September 1996, Case C-61/94, Commission v Germany, para. 52 on the interpretative effect of international agreements; see ECJ 16 June 1998, Case C-53/96, Hermès International v FHT Marketing Choice BV on the interpretative effect of WTO law.

42 ECJ 12 March 2002, Joined Cases C-27/00 and C-122/00, The Queen v Omega Air and Omega Air v Irish Aviation Authority.

43 de Búrca, and Scott, supra n. 18, p. 12-16Google Scholar.

44 Arts. 2(2), 3 Council Regulation 925/1999/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration and operation within the Community of certain types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes which have been modified and recertificated as meeting the standards of volume I, Part II, Chapter 3 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, third edition (July 1993), OJ 1999 L 115/1.

45 Omega Air, supra n. 42, paras. 39-45, 54-61.

46 Omega Air, supra n. 42, paras. 40, 41.

47 Fediol, supra n. 38, Nakajima, supra n. 38.

48 Omega Air, supra n. 42, paras. 93, 94.

49 ECJ 21 December 2011, Case C-366/10, Air Transport Association of America v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.

50 For an analysis of the ECJ’s decision in this case, see Gattini, A., ‘Between Splendid Isolation and Tentative Imperialism: The EU’s Extension of Its Emission Trading Scheme to International Aviation and the ECJ’s Judgment in the ATA Case’, 61 ICLQ (2012) p. 977CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bogojević, S., ‘Legalising Environmental Leadership: A Comment on the CJEU’S Ruling in C-366/10 on the Inclusion of Aviation in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme’, 24 Journal of Environmental Law (2012) p. 345CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Scott, J., ‘The Multi-Level Governance of Climate Change’, in P. Craig and G. de Búrca, The Evolution of EU Law (Oxford University Press 2011) p. 805Google Scholar; Scott, J. and Rajamani, L., ‘EU Climate Change Unilateralism’, 23 EJIL (2012) p. 469CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 Directive 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, OJ 2009 L 8/3.

52 ATA, supra n. 49.

53 Opinion of AG Kokott 6 October 2011, Case C-366/10, Air Transport Association of America v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. AG Kokott mentions WTO law incidentally when explaining the effects of international law in the EU legal order (paras. 70, 71, 100).

54 See L. Bartels, ‘The Inclusion of Aviation in the EU ETS: WTO Law Considerations; Trade and Sustainable Energy Series’, with a Commentary by R. Howse, Trade and Sustainable Energy Series (April 2012), Issue Paper No. 6. See also Gehring, M., ‘Air Transport Association of America v Energy Secretary before the European Court of Justice: Clarifying Direct Effect and Providing Guidance for Future Instrument Design for a Green Economy in the EU’, 21 RECIEL (2012) p. 149Google Scholar. J. Coelho, ‘EU Aviation Carbon Spat Seen Unlikely to Reach WTO’, <www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/01/us-wto-aviation-carbon-idUSBRE8500WQ20120601>, visited 3 April 2014.

55 GATS Annex on Air Transport Services. For an analysis suggesting that this GATS Annex might allow the provisions of the Aviation Directive to be analysed under the GATS, see Meltzer, J., ‘Climate Change and Trade - The EU Aviation Directive and the WTO’, 15 JIEL (2012) p. 111CrossRefGoogle Scholar at p. 123-128.

56 de Búrca, and Scott, supra n. 18, p. 11-12Google Scholar.

57 De Ville, , supra n. 27, p. 713Google Scholar.

58 Princen, , supra n. 16, p. 572/3Google Scholar.

59 Tuna/Dolphin I, II, supra n. 12.

60 E.g. in EC – Asbestos, it persuaded the AB that health hazardous characteristics of asbestos should be taken into account when determining likeness (EC – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, AB Report, WT/DS135/AB/R, 12 March 2001); in EC – Hormones (supra n. 30), the EC partly succeeded in advocating a regulator-friendly interpretation of the SPS provision requiring national measures departing from an international standard to be based on a risk assessment by persuading the AB not to apply the procedural review; in EC – Sardines, the EC convinced the AB that, under the TBT, a state which departs from an international standard should not be immediately required to justify its decision (EC – Trade Description of Sardines, AB Report, WT/DS231/AB/R, 26 September 2002); in EC – Biotech (supra n. 29), the EC even took a kind of litigation risk when it argued that one national rule which has two purposes can be subject both to the SPS and the TBT agreement; in this way, somewhat counter-intuitively, it increased the chances of the rule being saved.

61 See Hoffmeister, F., ‘The Contribution of EU Practice to International Law’, in M. Cremona (ed.), Developments in EU External Relations Law (Oxford University Press 2008) p. 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62 Scott, J., ‘Extraterritoriality and Territorial Extension in EU Law’, 62 AJCL (2014) p. 87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bradford, A., ‘The Brussels Effect’, 107 NWULR (2012) p. 1Google Scholar; Damro, C., ‘Market power Europe’, 19 Journal of European Public Policy (2012) p. 682CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cremona, M., ‘The Single Market as a Global Export Brand’, 21 EBLR (2010) p. 663Google Scholar.

63 Regulation 464/2012/EU.

64 Pravda, ‘Russia bans harp seal trade. Next stop, Canada!’, <english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/21-12-2011/120030-russia_seals-0/>, visited 3 April 2014.

65 ICAO Resolution A38-18: Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to environmental protection – Climate change, November 2013, particularly Art. 19.

66 For an analysis of this, see Princen, supra n. 16, p. 563-564.

67 Prelex legislative history at <ec.europa.eu/prelex/detail_dossier_real.cfm?CL=en&DosId=106242>, visited 3 April 2014, where DG11 marks DG Environment.

68 Prelex legislative history at <ec.europa.eu/prelex/detail_dossier_real.cfm?CL=en&DosId=111137> and <ec.europa.eu/prelex/detail_dossier_real.cfm?CL=en&DosId=11501>, visited 3 April 2014 where DG01 marks DG Trade.

69 1978th Council meeting – Environment, 9 December 1996, PRES/96/360; 2017th Council meeting – Environment, Luxembourg, 19/20 June 1997, PRES/97/204.

70 2024th Council meeting – General Affairs, 22 July 1997, PRES/97/246.

71 Resolution on the signing and conclusion of an international agreement between the EC, Canada and the Russian Federation on humane trapping standards, OJ 1997 C 200/02; Legislative resolution embodying Parliament’s opinion on the amended proposal for a Council Decision concerning the signing and conclusion of an Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards between the EC, Canada and the Russian Federation (COM(97)0017 COM(97)0251 C4-0425/97 8091/97 - 97/0019(CNS)), OJ 1998 C 14/177; Legislative resolution embodying Parliament’s opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision concerning the signing and conclusion of an International Agreement in the form of an Agreed Minute between the EC and the United States of America on humane trapping standards (COM(97)0726 C4-0014/98 97/0360(CNS)), OJ 1998 C 210/31.

72 The Regulation was adopted on the basis of Treaty provisions on the CCP and the environment, Arts. 113 and 130s EC, later 133, 175 EC, now 207, 192 TFEU.

73 The legal basis for these agreements was Art. 228 EC, later 300 EC, now 218 TFEU.

74 1996 Commission Report, supra n. 21.

75 Commission Directive 97/18/EC of 17 April 1997 postponing the date after which animal tests are prohibited for ingredients or combinations of ingredients of cosmetic products, OJ 1997, L 114/43; Commission Directive 2000/41/EC of 19 June 2000 postponing for a second time the date after which animal tests are prohibited for ingredients or combinations of ingredients of cosmetic products, OJ 2000 L 145/25.

76 1996 Commission Report, supra n. 21, at p. 9.

77 E-0949/98 Written Question to the Commission ‘Impact on animal protection of the GATT/WTO’ by Mark Watts (PSE), 30 March 1998; and Answer to Written Question E-0949/98 given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission, 7 May 1998. See on this de Búrca and Scott, supra n. 18, p. 8.

78 I Report on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive amending for the seventh time Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (COM(2000) 189 - C5-0244/2000 - 2000/0077(COD)), Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, FINAL A5-0095/2001, 21 March 2001.

79 Council Directive 81/602/EEC of 31 July 1981 concerning the prohibition of certain substances having a hormonal action and of any substances having a thyrostatic action, OJ 1981 L 222/32; Council Directive 88/146/EEC of 7 March 1988 prohibiting the use in livestock farming of certain substances having a hormonal action, OJ 1988 L 70/16; Council Directive 88/299/EEC of 17 May 1988 on trade in animals treated with certain substances having a hormonal action and their meat, as referred to in Article 7 of Directive 88/146/EEC, OJ 1998 L 128/36.

80 EC – Hormones, Panel Report, supra n. 30, paras. II.28-29.

81 EC – Hormones, Panel Report, supra n. 30, para. II.29.

82 EC – Hormones, Panel Report, supra n. 30, paras. II.31-32.

83 Proposal for a Regulation, supra n. 36.

84 Perišin, supra n. 34.

85 Two MEPs posed a question on the WTO dispute to the Commission E-0373/08 Written Question to the Commission ‘The challenge of seal bans in the WTO’ by Jens Holm (GUE/NGL) and Kartika Tamara Liotard (GUE/NGL), 4 February 2008.

86 For a full list of parliamentary questions on seals and WTO compliance in the 7th parliamentary term, see <www.europarl.europa.eu/sidesSearch/sipadeMapUrl.do?L=EN&PROG=QP&SORT_ORDER=DA&S_REF_QP=%&S_RANK=%&MI_TEXT=seal+and+wto&F_MI_TEXT=seal+and+wto&LEG_ID=7>, visited 3 April 2014; and in particular see E-002592/2011 Question for written answer to the Commission ‘Measures against the annual commercial seal hunt in Canada’ by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), 17 March 2011; E-003975/11 Question for written answer to the Commission ‘Seal culling in Canada’ by Oreste Rossi (EFD), 29 April 2011; Joint answer to written questions E-002592/11, E-003975/11 given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission, 29 June 2011; E-003088/2012 Question for written answer to the Commission ‘CETA Agreement’ by Cristiana Muscardini (PPE), 21 March 2012; Answer given to written question E-003088/2012 by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission, 3 May 2012.

87 European Union Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-200, 126 Stat. 1477 (2012).

This Act can be used as a tool in a trade war, but it also gives the US Secretary of Transportation a mandate to negotiate a global agreement on aviation emissions, which is in fact what the EU would like to happen.

88 Neslen, A., ‘MEPs defy EU states on aviation emissions law’, 31 January 2014Google Scholar, <www.euractiv.com/transport/parliament-defies-european-counc-news-533156>, visited 3 April 2014.

89 Milevska, T., ‘Kallas: Global aviation emissions talks “a nightmare”’, 7 March 2014Google Scholar, <www.euractiv.com/transport/kallas-calls-global-talks-aviati-news-533967>, visited 3 April 2014, citing German MEP Pieter Liese.

90 European Parliament, ‘EU countries reject EP call for labelling of clone-derived food’, 29 March 2011, <www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=IM-PRESS&reference=20110324STO16430&secondRef=0&language=EN>, visited 3 April 2014; European Parliament News: ‘Parliament issues urgent call to regulate cloned foods’, 11 May 2011, <www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/content/20110506IPR18894/html/Parliament-issues-urgent-call-to-regulate-cloned-foods>, visited 3 April 2014; Council of the EU, ‘Novel foods - statement of the Council's Legal Service’, 17 May 2011, 10332/11, PRESSE 140, <www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/lsa/122071.pdf>, visited 3 April 2014.

91 Euractiv, , ‘Parliament rejects draft EU law allowing nanomaterials in food’, 12 March 2014Google Scholar, <www.euractiv.com/health/parliament-opposes-commission-na-news-534093>, visited 3 April 2014.

92 See e.g. Trade Policy Review - Report by the EU - Revision, WT/TPR/G/248/Rev. 1, 28 July 2011; Speech of Commissioner De Gucht at the Plenary Session of the WTO Ministerial Conference, December 2011, webcast <gaia.world-television.com/wto/2011/min11_webcast_e.htm#eec>, visited 3 April 2014.

93 See Regan, D. H., ‘What Are Trade Agreements For? – Two Conflicting Stories Told by Economists, with a Lesson for Lawyers’, 9 JIEL (2006) p. 951CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

94 Ricardo, D., On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (John Murray 1821)Google Scholar, www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Ricardo/ricP1.html, visited 3 April 2014; J. Bhagwati, In Defence of Globalization (Oxford University Press 2004).

95 Scott, supra n. 62.

96 E.g. despite the EU’s strong opposition to the use of ractopamine as animal feed and the corresponding meat ban, the Codex Alimentarius Commission approved minimal residues of this substance in meat, with a controversial vote 69-67, and 7 abstentions. EU Press Release Database ‘Codex alimentarius: statement by the EU on ractopamine’, News from the European Commission’s Midday Briefing, <europa.eu/rapid/midday-express-06-07-2012.htm>, visited 3 April 2014; Alemanno, A. and Capodieci, G., ‘Testing the Limits of Global Food Governance: The Case of Ractopamine’, 3 European Journal of Risk Regulation (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, <ssrn.com/abstract=2133908> visited 3 April 2014.