Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T17:11:19.069Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

STANDARD OF REVIEW UNDER THE SPS AGREEMENT AFTER EC- HORMONES II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2010

Michael M Du
Michael M Du
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, Chinese University of Hong Kong. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Shorter Articles, Comments and Notes
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 441 - 459
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 British Institute of International and Comparative Law

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.)

References

1 M Oesch, Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003); Durling, J, ‘Deference, But Only When Due: WTO Review of Anti-Dumping Measures’ (2003) 6 JIEL 125CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Croley, SP and Jackson, JH, ‘WTO Dispute Procedures, Standard of Review, and Deference to National Governments’ (1996) 90 AJIL 194CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Ehlermann, C-D and Lockhart, N, ‘Standard of Review in WTO Law’ (2004) 7 JIEL 493CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 DZ Cass, ‘The “Constitutionalization” of International Trade Law: Judicial Norm-Generation as the Engine of Constitutional Development in International Trade’ (2001) 12 EJIL 58.

5 WTO European Communities—Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (EC-Hormones I), Appellate Body Report (13 February 1998) WT/DS26/AB/R para 115.

6 Eg, R Howse, ‘The Most Dangerous Branch? WTO Appellate Body Jurisprudence on the Nature and Limits of the Judicial Power’ in Thomas Cottier and PC Mavroidis (eds), The Role of the Judge in International Trade Regulation (The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 2003) 11–36.

7 T Epps, International Trade and Health Protection (Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 2008); Bohanes, J, ‘Risk Regulation in WTO Law: A Procedure-Based Approach to the Precuationary Principle’ (2002) 40 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 323Google Scholar, 325–389.

8 Wagner, JM, ‘The WTO's Interpretation of SPS Agreement has Undermined Right of Governments to Establish Appropriate Level of Protection against Risk’ (2000) 31 Law & Policy in International Business 855, 855–859Google Scholar; Christoforou, T, ‘Settlement of Science-Based Trade Disputes in the WTO: A Critical Review of the Developing Case Law in the Face of Scientific Uncertainty’ (2000) 8 NYU Envtl. L J 622, 622–623Google Scholar.

9 AO Sykes, ‘Domestic Regulation, Sovereignty, and scientific Evidence Requirements: A Pessimistic View’ in George A Bermann and PC Mavroidis (eds), Trade and Human Health and Safety (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006) 257, 261.

10 Guzman, A, ‘Food Fears: Health and Safety at the WTO’ (2004) 45 Virginia Journal of International Law 1Google Scholar, 17–18; C Button, The Power to Protect: Trade, Health and Uncertainty in the WTO (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2004) 212–225.

11 WTO United States—Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC-Hormones Dispute (EC-Hormones II) Appellate Body Report (14 November 2008)WT/DS320/AB/R.

12 EC-Hormones I (n 5) paras 115 and 116.

13 ibid para 111.

14 ibid para 117.

15 ibid para 111.

16 ibid para 117.

17 Ehlermann and Lockhart (n 3) 497.

18 ibid 495; Button (n 10) 171.

19 EC-Hormones I (n 5) para 113.

20 Art 17.6 (i) of the Anti-dumping Agreement.

21 Croley and Jackson (n 2) 208.

22 WTO Thailand-Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland (5 April 2001) WT/DS122/AB/R para 117.

23 WTO US-Anti-Dumping Measures on Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan (US-Hot-Rolled Steel), Panel Report (23 August 2001) WT/DS184/R para 7.235. Button (n 10) 184–185. But see Bloche, MG, ‘WTO Deference to National Health Policy: Toward an Interpretative Principle’ (2002) 5 JIEL 825, 831–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Croley and Jackson (n 2) 208; Guzman (n 10) 23.

25 EC-Hormones I (n 5) para 114.

26 WTO US-Hot-Rolled Steel (23 August 2001)WT/DS184/AB/R para 55.

27 EC-Hormones I (n 5) para 132.

28 See eg, WTO Australia-Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, Appellate Body Report (6 November 1998)WT/DS18/AB/R para 276.

29 EC-Hormones I (n 5) para 132.

30 WTO European Communities—Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, Appellate Body Report (5 April 2001) WT/DS135/AB/R para 161.

31 R Allen ad Pardo, M, ‘The Myth of the Law-Fact Distinction’ (2003) 97 Northwestern University Law Review 4Google Scholar, 1768; Voon, T and Yanovich, A, ‘The Facts Aside: The Limitation of WTO Appeals to Issues of Law’ (2006) 40 Journal of World Trade 239Google Scholar, 244–245.

32 ibid 245.

33 J Bohanes & N Lockhart, ‘Standards of Review in WTO law’ in D Bethlehem, D McRae, R Neufeld and I Van Damme (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Economic Law (OUP, Oxford, 2009) 391.

34 EC-Hormones I (n 5) para 132.

35 ibid.

36 Voon and Yanovich (n 31) 256–257.

37 EC-Hormones I (n 5) para 133.

38 ibid para 133.

39 WTO European Communities-Measures Affecting the Importation of Certin Poultry Products, Appellate Body Report (23 July 1998) WT/DS69/AB/R para 133.

40 Guzman (n 10) 23.

41 Palmeter, D, ‘The WTO Appellate Body Needs Remand Authority’ (1998) 32 Journal of World Trade 41Google Scholar, 43; F Pierola, ‘The Question of Remand Authority for the Appellate Body’ in Andrew Mitchell (ed), Challenges and Prospects for the WTO (Cameron & May, London, 2005 193.

42 Yanovich, A and Voon, T, ‘Completing the Analysis in WTO Appeals: The Practice and Its Limitations’ (2006) 9 JIEL 933, 936CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 Eg, WTO United States—Countervailing Duty Investigation on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMs) from Korea (20 July 2005) WT/DS296/AB/R para 208; EC-Hormones II (n 11) para 735.

44 WTO Japan—Measures Affecting Agricultural Products (Japan-Varietals) Panel Report (27 October 1998)WT/DS76/R, para 8.32.

45 Bohanes and Lockhart (n 33) 412; J Peel, ‘Risk Regulation under the WTO SPS Agreement: Science as an International Normative Yardstick?’ Jean Monnet Working Paper (02/2004) 95–97.

46 Covelli, N and Hohots, V, ‘The Health Regulation of Biotech Foods under the WTO Agreements’(2003) 6 JIEL 773, 783CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 DJ Neven and JHH Weiler, ‘Japan- Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples: One Bad Apple?’ in H Horn and PC Mavroidis (eds), The WTO Case Law of 2003 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006) 291–294.

48 Japan-Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples (Japan-Apples), Appellate Body Report, WT/DS245/AB/R (10 December 2003) para 161.

49 ibid 165.

50 WTO Japan-Apples, Panel Report (15 July 2003) WT/DS245/R paras 8.123–8.127.

51 Japan-Varietals (n 44) para 8. 32.

52 Ehlermann and Lockhart (n 3) 517.

53 EC-Hormones I (n 5) paras 188–191.

54 ibid para 190. Australia-Salmon (n 28) para 121.

55 Ehlermann and Lockhart (n 3) 506.

56 WTO Thailand-Anti-dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-alloy Steel and H Beams from Porland, Appellate Body Report (5 April 2001) WT/DS122/AB/R paras 114–118; Art 17.5(2) of the Anti-dumping Agreement.

57 Ehlermann and Lockhart (n 3) 514.

58 J Pauwelyn, ‘Expert Advice in WTO Dispute Settlement’ in GA Bermann and PC Mavroidis (eds), Trade and Human Health and Safety (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006) 251–252.

59 Japan-Apples, panel report (n 50); EC-Hormones II, Panel Report (31 March 2008) WT/DS320/R.

60 EC-Hormones II (n 11) para 488.

61 ibid para 590.

62 ibid para 614 (emphasis added).

63 Art 5.1 provides: ‘Members shall ensure that their sanitary or phytosanitary measures are based on an assessment, as appropriate to the circumstances, of the risks to human, animal or plant life or health, taking into account risk assessment techniques developed by the relevant international organizations.’

64 EC-Hormones II (n 11) para 598.

65 ibid para 592.

66 ibid para 598.

67 ibid para 599.

68 ibid para 601.

69 ibid para 598.

70 EC- Hormones I (n.5) para 110.

71 ibid para 135.

72 ibid, para 138.

73 ibid, paras 138, 135.

74 EC- Hormones II (n 11) paras 603–613.

75 ibid para 611.

76 ibid para 612.

77 ibid para 613.

78 ibid para 610.

79 ibid, para 605.

80 EC- Hormones I (n 5) paras 186, 199; Japan-Apples (n 48) paras 200–206.

81 ibid para 198.

82 EC-Hormones II (n 11) para 606.

83 ibid para 562.

84 Japan-Varietals (n 44) paras 8.37– 8.41.

85 Japan-Apples (n 48) para 200.

86 WTO European Communities—Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products (EC-Biotech), Panel Report (29 September, 2006) WT/DS/291R para.7.2969.

87 Japan-Apples (n 48) para 179.

88 EC-Hormones II (n 11) para 685.

89 ibid para 688–698.

90 ibid para 697.

91 EC-Biotech (n 86) para 7.3238.

92 EC-Hormones II (n 11) para 7.612.

93 ibid para 701.

94 EC-Biotech (n 86) para 7.3260.

95 Japan-Apples (n 48) paras 180–182.

96 EC-Hormones II (n 11) para 702.

97 ibid para 699–712.

98 ibid, para 703.

99 ibid para 725.

100 Croley and Jackson (n 2) 194.

101 Wilson, B, ‘Compliance by WTO Members with Adverse WTO Dispute Settlement Rulings: The Record to Date’ (2007) 10 JIEL 397, 397–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

102 Du, MM, ‘Domestic Regulatory Autonomy under the TBT Agreement’ (2007) 6 Chinese Journal of International Law 2Google Scholar, 269–302.