Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:52:37.602Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Animals and the Impact of Trade Law and Policy: A Global Animal Law Question

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2020

Iyan Offor
Iyan Offor*
Affiliation:
Strathclyde Centre for Environmental Law and Governance, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow (UK). Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is a critical research gap regarding the trade and animal welfare interface: we do not know, empirically, what the impact of trade on animal welfare is. This gap exists, in part, as a result of the paternalism of international trade law and the underdevelopment of global animal law. This article addresses, firstly, the collision of dichotomous trade and animal welfare priorities in legal and political systems. It then explores attempts at reconciliation by the World Trade Organization and the European Union. This involves an investigation of the impact of trade on animal welfare. This impact is categorized into four component parts: (i) open markets, (ii) low animal-welfare havens, (iii) a chilling effect, and (iv) lack of labelling. Case studies from the European Union are examined. Thirdly, the article critiques trade law and policy as ill-suited primary drivers of global governance for animals. Global animal law is identified as a promising alternative, although its early development has been unduly affected by international trade law.

Keywords

Global animal lawTrade lawInternational tradeEuropean UnionAnimal welfareAnimal justice
Type
Article
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , July 2020 , pp. 239 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful engagement with this article throughout the review process. I would also like to thank Stephanie Switzer, Antonio Cardesa-Salzmann, Anne Peters, Katie Sykes, and Saskia Vermeylen for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article.

References

1 Deckha, M., ‘Animal Justice, Cultural Justice: A Posthumanist Response to Cultural Rights in Animals’ (2007) 2 Journal of Animal Law & Ethics, pp. 189–230, at 198Google Scholar (citing Hooks, B., Teaching Community: A Pedagogy of Hope (Routledge, 2003), p. 48Google Scholar).

2 Regan, T., The Case for Animal Rights (University of California Press, 2004), pp. 104–5Google Scholar.

3 Peters, A., ‘Global Animal Law: What It Is and Why We Need It’ (2016) 5(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 9–23, at 17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Peters, A., ‘Liberté, Égalité, Animalité: Human–Animal Comparisons in Law’ (2016) 5(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 25–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Fisher, C., ‘Getting Animal Welfare onto the World Trade Agenda’, in Pedler, R.H. (ed.), European Union Lobbying: Changes in the Arena (Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), pp. 155–75Google Scholar; Howse, R. & Langille, J., ‘Permitting Pluralism: The Seal Products Dispute and Why the WTO Should Accept Trade Restrictions Justified by Noninstrumental Moral Values’ (2011) 37(2) Yale Journal of International Law, pp. 367–432Google Scholar; Sykes, K., ‘Sealing Animal Welfare into the GATT Exceptions: The International Dimension of Animal Welfare in WTO Disputes’ (2014) 13(3) World Trade Review, pp. 471–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 E.g., Bollard, L., ‘Global Approaches to Regulating Farm Animal Welfare’, in Steier, G. & Patel, K. (eds), International Farm Animal, Wildlife and Food Safety Law (Springer, 2017), pp. 83–109, at 99CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kalinina, A. Lurie & M., ‘Protecting Animals in International Trade: A Study of the Recent Successes at the WTO and in Free Trade Agreements’ (2015) 30(3) American University International Law Review, pp. 431–87, at 433Google Scholar; Peters, ‘Global Animal Law’, n. 3 above, p. 17. For a rare exception, see Strader, E., ‘The Future of Horse Slaughter: What Is Best’ (2013) 15(2) Oregon Review of International Law, pp. 293–314Google Scholar.

6 Phillips, C.J.C., The Animal Trade: Evolution, Ethics and Implications (CABI Publishing, 2015), p. 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Ibid., p. 1.

8 Ibid.

9 Harrison, R., Animal Machines: The New Factory Farming Industry (Vincent Stuart Publishers Ltd, 1964)Google Scholar.

10 C. Wahlquist, ‘RSPCA Accuses Government of Backflip on Welfare for Live Exports from Australia’, The Guardian, 28 Sept. 2019, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/28/rspca-accuses-government-of-backflip-on-welfare-for-live-exports-from-australia.

11 ‘Salmon Exports Reach Record £600M’, Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation, 9 Feb. 2018, available at: http://scottishsalmon.co.uk/salmon-exports-reach-record-600m.

12 R. Edwards, ‘Horror Photos of Farmed Salmon Spark Legal Threat’, The Ferret, 27 June 2018, available at: https://theferret.scot/pictures-diseases-farmed-fish.

13 See below at Section 3.4.

14 Francione, G.L., Rain without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement (Temple University Press, 1996), pp. 3 et seqGoogle Scholar.

15 See storied accounts of animal suffering in Singer, P., Animal Liberation: Towards an End to Man's Inhumanity to Animals (Jonathan Cape Ltd, 1976)Google Scholar; Regan, n. 2 above; and Foer, J. Safran, Eating Animals (Little, Brown and Company, 2009)Google Scholar. On the value of emotional response see Donovan, J. & Adams, C.J. (eds), The Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics (Columbia University Press, 2007)Google Scholar.

16 Data sourced from Eurostat, ‘International Trade in Goods: Detailed Data’, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database.

17 Most commonly explained by reference to varying opportunity costs, division of labour and specialization, as posited by David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage: Ricardo, D., The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (John Murray, 1817)Google Scholar.

18 Van den Bossche, P. & Zdouc, W., The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization: Text, Cases and Materials, 4th edn (Cambridge University Press, 2017), pp. 19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the history of liberal and neoliberal thought, see Turner, R.S., ‘The “Rebirth of Liberalism”: The Origins of Neo-liberal Ideology’ (2007) 12(1) Journal of Political Ideologies, pp. 67–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Donna Haraway is a leader here: Haraway, D.J., When Species Meet (University of Minnesota Press, 2008)Google Scholar; Haraway, D.J., The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness (Prickly Paradigm Press, 2003)Google Scholar.

20 Donovan & Adams (n. 15 above) is central. For a modern intersectional take, see Deckha, M., ‘Toward a Postcolonial, Posthumanist Feminist Theory: Centralizing Race and Culture in Feminist Work on Nonhuman Animals’ (2012) 27(3) Hypatia, pp. 527–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 E.g., Regan, n. 2 above; Francione, G.L., Animals as Persons (Columbia University Press, 2008)Google Scholar; Wise, S.M., Rattling the Cage: Towards Legal Rights for Animals (Profile, 2000)Google Scholar.

22 Singer (n. 15 above) is central. For modern commentary see S.P. McCulloch, ‘On the Virtue of Solidarity: Animal Rights, Animal Welfarism and Animals’ Rights to Wellbeing’ (2012) Journal of Animal Welfare, pp. 5–15.

23 Francione, n. 21 above, p. 150.

24 E.g., Eurogroup for Animals, ‘Model Animal Welfare Provisions for EU Trade Agreements’, 2017, available at: http://www.eurogroupforanimals.org/wp-content/uploads/E4A-MAWP_Report-screen.pdf.

25 Garner, R., Animals, Politics and Morality, 2nd edn (Manchester University Press, 2004), pp. 85–6Google Scholar.

26 See Section 3.1 below.

27 Driesen, D.M., ‘What is Free Trade? The Real Issue Lurking Behind the Trade and Environment Debate’ (2001) 41(2) Virginia Journal of International Law, pp. 279–368, at 284Google Scholar.

28 For an overview see Gonzalez-Garibay, M., ‘The Trade-Labour and Trade-Environment Linkages: Together or Apart?’ (2011) 10(2) Journal of International Trade Law & Policy, pp. 165–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Geneva (Switzerland), 30 Oct. 1947, in force 1 Jan. 1948, available at: https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt47.pdf.

30 The Bretton Woods Agreements of 1944 constituted an important post-war effort to rebuild the international economic system.

31 Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Marrakesh (Morocco), 15 Apr. 1994, in force 1 Jan. 1995 (WTO Agreement), Preamble, recital 3, available at: http://docsonline.wto.org.

32 E.g., references to separate ‘realms’ in Esty, D.C., ‘Bridging the Trade-Environment Divide’ (2001) 15(3) Journal of Economic Perspectives, pp. 113–30, at 126CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 United States – Restrictions on Imports of Tuna, GATT Panel Report, WTO Doc. WT/DS21, unadopted, 3 Sept. 1991 (US – Tuna).

34 Archibald, C.J., ‘Forbidden by the WTO? Discrimination against a Product When its Creation Causes Harm to the Environment or Animal Welfare’ (2008) 48(1) Natural Resources Journal, pp. 15–49, at 18Google Scholar.

35 Harrop, S. & Bowles, D., ‘Wildlife Management, the Multilateral Trade Regime, Morals and the Welfare of Animals’ (1998) 1(1) Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, pp. 64–94, at 85–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Howse, R., ‘The World Trade Organization 20 Years On: Global Governance by Judiciary’ (2016) 27(1) European Journal of International Law, pp. 9–77, at 36–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Appellate Body Report, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/AB/R, 12 Oct. 1998 (US – Shrimp), para. 121.

38 R. Howse, ‘Last Week's Tuna II WTO Panel Report: Happy Ending to a Hair-raising Adventure on the High Seas’, International Economic Law and Policy Blog, 2 Nov. 2017, available at: http://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/2017/11/last-weeks-tuna-ii-wto-panel-reporthappy-ending-to-a-hair-raising-adventure-on-the-high-seas-.html.

39 Overview and further references in Van den Bossche & Zdouc, n. 18 above, pp. 544–57.

40 Ibid.

41 On the sprawling US – Tuna saga see particularly Coglianese, C. & Sapir, A., ‘Risk and Regulatory Calibration: WTO Compliance Review of the US Dolphin-Safe Tuna Labeling Regime’ (2017) 16(2) World Trade Review, pp. 327–48, at 336CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Driesen, n. 27 above, p. 300.

43 Ibid.

44 Ibid., p. 285.

45 Ibid.

46 Ibid., p. 286.

47 Lang, A., ‘Reflecting on “Linkage”: Cognitive and Institutional Change in the International Trading System’ (2007) 70(4) The Modern Law Review, pp. 523–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 Ibid., pp. 524–5.

49 Ibid., p. 547.

50 E.g., Esty, n. 32 above.

51 Lang, n. 47 above, p. 537.

52 K. Oldham, ‘WTO Meeting and Protests in Seattle (1999): Part 1’, HistoryLink.org, 13 Oct. 2009, available at: http://www.historylink.org/File/9183.

53 E.g., S. Treat & S. Sharma, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, ‘Selling off the Farm: Corporate Meat's Takeover through TTIP’, July 2016, available at: https://www.ciwf.org.uk/media/7428251/report-sellingoffthefarm-final-july-2016.pdf.

54 European Court of Auditors, ‘Special Report No 31/2018 – Animal Welfare in the EU: Closing the Gap between Ambitious Goals and Practical Implementation’, 14 Nov. 2018, available at: https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=47557.

55 See below at Section 3.5.

56 World Organization for Animal Health, Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 28th edn (2019), s. 7, available at: https://www.oie.int/standard-setting/terrestrial-code; Harrop., S. ‘Climate Change, Conservation and the Place for Wild Animal Welfare in International Law’ (2011) 23(3) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 441–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Bollard, n. 5 above, p. 95.

57 This impact is also demonstrated in the nutrition transition: Thow, A.M. et al. , ‘Trade and the Nutrition Transition: Strengthening Policy for Health in the Pacific’ (2011) 50(1) Ecology of Food and Nutrition, pp. 18–42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

58 See Section 2.2 above.

59 Ibid.

60 WTO Agreement, n. 31 above, Preamble, recital 1.

61 Non-WTO international law can affect interpretations of WTO law: US – Shrimp, n. 37 above, paras 130–2. On WTO–MEA cooperation, see Durán, G. Marín, ‘The Role of the EU in Shaping the Trade and Environment Regulatory Nexus: Multilateral and Regional Approaches’, in Van Vooren, B., Blockmans, S. & Wouters, J. (eds), The EU's Role in Global Governance: The Legal Dimension (Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 228–33Google Scholar.

62 But not, however, on animal health: Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Marrakesh (Morocco), 15 Apr. 1994, in force 1 Jan. 1995, available at: http://docsonline.wto.org.

63 Harrop, S., ‘The International Regulation of Animal Welfare and Conservation Issues through Standards Dealing with the Trapping of Wild Mammals’ (2000) 12(3) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 333–60, at 360CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 Kingston, S., Heyvaert, V. & Čavoški, A., European Environmental Law (Cambridge University Press, 2017), pp. 449–50, 488CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 Regulation (EC) 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Trade in Seal Products [2009] OJ L 286/36 (Seals Regulation).

66 Ibid., para. 4.

67 European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products, Panel Report, WTO Doc. WT/DS400/R, WT/DS401/R, 25 Nov. 2013; European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products, Appellate Body Report, WTO Doc. WT/DS400/AB/R, WT/DS/401/AB/R, 22 May 2014 (EC – Seal Products).

68 EC – Seal Products, Appellate Body Report, ibid, paras 5.337–9.

69 Dispute Settlement Body, ‘Minutes of Meeting: Held in the Centre William Rappard on 28 October 2015’, WTO Doc. WT/DSB/M/369, 20 Jan. 2016, paras 144–8.

70 Radford, M., Animal Welfare Law in Britain: Regulation and Responsibility (Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 133–7Google Scholar.

71 Fitzgerald, P., ‘Morality May Not Be Enough to Justify the EU Seal Products Ban: Animal Welfare Meets International Trade Law’ (2011) 14(2) Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, pp. 85–136, at 88Google Scholar.

72 European Court of Auditors, n. 54 above.

73 WTO Committee on Agriculture, ‘Special Session – European Communities Proposal: Animal Welfare and Trade in Agriculture’, WTO Doc. G/AG/NG/W/19, 28 June 2000.

74 Regulation 1523/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council Banning the Placing on the Market and the Import to, or Export from, the Community of Cat and Dog Fur, and Products Containing Such Fur [2007] OJ L 343/50 (Cat and Dog Fur Regulation); Seals Regulation, n. 65 above.

75 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and European Economic and Social Committee, ‘European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012–2015’, COM/2012/6 final/2, 19 Jan. 2012 (Animal Welfare Strategy), p. 10. On implementation see Cabanne, C., ‘The EU-Chile Association Agreement: A Booster for Animal Welfare’ (2013) 7(1) Bridges Trade & Biological Resources News DigestGoogle Scholar, available at: https://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/the-eu-chile-association-agreement-a-booster-for-animal-welfare.

76 A useful tool to help to visualize industrialized harm is the Voiceless Animal Cruelty Index, available at: https://vaci.voiceless.org.au.

77 Sykes, K., ‘Globalization and the Animal Turn: How International Trade Law Contributes to Global Norms of Animal Protection’ (2016) 5(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 55–79, at 57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78 Grethe, H., ‘High Animal Welfare Standards in the EU and International Trade: How to Prevent Potential “Low Animal Welfare Havens”?’ (2007) 32(3) Food Policy, pp. 315–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

79 Stevenson, P., ‘The World Trade Organisation Rules: A Legal Analysis of Their Adverse Impact on Animal Welfare’ (2002) 8 Animal Law, pp. 107–42, at 109Google Scholar; Thomas, P., ‘Playing Chicken at the WTO: Defending an Animal Welfare-based Trade Restriction under GATT's Moral Exception’ (2007) 34(3) Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, pp. 605–37, at 609Google Scholar.

80 E.g., Regulation (EC) No. 589/2008 laying down Detailed Rules for Implementing Council Regulation (EC) No. 1234/2007 as regards Marketing Standards for Eggs [2008] OJ L 163/6, Art. 32.

81 Food Chain Evaluation Consortium et al., ‘Feasibility Study on Animal Welfare Labelling and Establishing a Community Reference Centre for Animal Protection and Welfare – Part 1: Animal Welfare Labelling, Final Report’, 26 Jan. 2009, pp. 14–7, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/animals/docs/aw_other_aspects_labelling_feasibility_study_report_part1.pdf; and Farm Sanctuary, ‘The Truth Behind the Labels: Farm Animal Welfare Standards and Labelling Practices: A Farm Sanctuary Report’, Apr. 2009, https://faunalytics.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Citation1051.pdf.

82 The present author's research on this is summarized in Eurogroup for Animals, ‘Policy Brief – Method-of-Production Labelling: The Way Forward to Sustainable Trade’, 2019, pp. 9–14.

83 Directive 99/74/EC laying down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Laying Hens [1999] OJ L 203/53 (Laying Hens Directive), Art. 5(2).

84 Ibid., Art. 6.

85 Unless otherwise stated, all trade data is sourced from Eurostat, n. 16 above.

86 ‘Facts and Stats’, United Egg Producers, 2019, available at: https://unitedegg.com/facts-stats.

87 European Commission, ‘Eggs – Market Situation: Dashboard’, 13 Nov. 2019, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/eggs-dashboard_en.pdf.

88 Compassion in World Farming, ‘Statistics: Laying Hens’, 28 Aug. 2013, p. 8, available at: https://www.ciwf.org.uk/media/5235021/Statistics-Laying-hens.pdf.

89 Directive 2008/120/EC laying down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Pigs [2008] OJ L 47/5, Art. 3.

90 Animal Welfare Ordinance 455.1 2008 (Switzerland), Art. 48.

91 Directive 2008/119/EC laying down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Calves [2008] OJ L 10/7, Art. 3.

92 ‘What Is Veal?’, RSPCA Australia, 23 Sept. 2019, available at: http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-is-veal_273.html.

93 Smith, R., ‘Veal Group Housing Approved’ (2007) 79(32) FeedstuffsGoogle Scholar, available at: https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=ustrath&id=GALE|A169023539&v=2.1&it=r&sid=AONE&asid=a69b9b39; American Veal Association, ‘AVA Confirms “Mission Accomplished”: Member Companies and Farms Complete Transition to Group Housing’, 8 Jan. 2018, available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56b1263940261d30708d14b4/t/5a53ac7e53450a19f3a2fefb/1515433086810/AVA+Group+Housing+Mission+Accomplished+2018+.pdf.

94 Irish Farmers Association, ‘EU Trade Commissioner Is Undermining EU Policies on Climate Change and Animal Welfare in MERCOSUR Negotiations’, 29 Jan. 2018, available at: https://www.ifa.ie/eu-trade-commissioner-is-undermining-eu-policies-on-climate-change-and-animal-welfare-in-mercosur-negotiations.

95 van Horne, P.L.M., Competitiveness of the EU Egg Sector: International Comparison Base Year 2013 (LEI Wageningen UR, 2014), p. 20Google Scholar, available at: https://www.wur.nl/upload_mm/6/5/f/8f9e79f4-9f56-4149-ab6a-f9f718d8e934_2014-041%20vHorne_web.pdf.

96 Grethe, n. 78 above.

97 H. Windhorst, ‘The EU Egg Industry’, Zootecnica International, 25 May 2017, available at: http://zootecnicainternational.com/focus-on/eu-egg-industry.

98 Data available at: https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eggs/presentations_en.

99 These factors include demand, price fluctuation of end product and animal feed (etc), and the impact of animal health and disease outbreaks; also compliance costs, including environmental regulations, animal health rules, and offsetting by the EU Common Agricultural Policy.

100 Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2077 Opening and Providing for the Administration of Union Import Tariff Quotas for Eggs, Egg Products and Albumins Originating in Ukraine [2015] OJ L 302/57, Annex I.

101 N. Morton, ‘Global Poultry Trends: Russia and Ukraine Produce One in Three of Europe's Eggs’, The Poultry Site, 3 Apr. 2013, available at: https://thepoultrysite.com/articles/global-poultry-trends-russia-and-ukraine-produce-one-in-three-of-europes-eggs.

102 T. Steinweg, ‘Chicken Run: The Business Strategies and Impacts of Poultry Producer MHP in Ukraine’, SOMO, Sept. 2015, pp. 5, 12, 21–2, available at: https://www.somo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Chicken-Run.pdf.

103 V. Vorotnikov, ‘MHP Drives Up Ukraine Poultry Exports to EU’, Global Meat News, 28 Sept. 2018, available at: https://www.globalmeatnews.com/Article/2018/09/28/Ukraine-poultry-exports-rise#.W64CtI-OaVc.twitter.

104 Eurogroup for Animals, ‘Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: What's in it for Animals’, 2016, p. 14, available at: http://www.eurogroupforanimals.org/wp-content/uploads/TTIP-Report-External.pdf; M. Busby, ‘EU Imposes Hen Welfare Standards on Egg Imports for First Time’, The Guardian, 2 Oct. 2019, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/02/eu-imposes-hen-welfare-standards-on-egg-imports-for-first-time.

105 EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement, agreement in principle, Brussels (Belgium), 1 July 2019, available at: https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2019/june/tradoc_157964.pdf.

106 E.g., Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part [2017] OJ L 11/23, p. 237; New EU-Mexico Agreement, agreement in principle, Brussels (Belgium), 23 Apr. 2018, p. 2, available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1833.

107 The Harmonized System, a tariff classification nomenclature developed by the World Customs Organization, available at: http://www.wcoomd.org/en/topics/nomenclature/overview/what-is-the-harmonized-system.aspx.

108 Harrop & Bowles, n. 35 above, p. 64; and Fisher, n. 4 above.

109 Laying Hens Directive, n. 83 above.

110 Harrop & Bowles, n. 35 above, p. 80.

111 European Commission, ‘Answer to Written Question E-0546/2000 by William Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission on Welfare of Laying Hens’, 12 May 2000, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2000-0546&language=EN.

112 Regulation 3254/91 Prohibiting the Use of Leghold Traps 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 [1991] OJ L 308/34, Arts 2, 3.1.

113 Nollkaemper, A., ‘The Legality of Moral Crusades Disguised in Trade Laws: An Analysis of the EC “Ban” on Furs from Animals Taken by Leghold Traps’ (1996) 8(2) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 237–56, at 238CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

114 Regulation 1771/94 laying down New Provisions on the Introduction into the Community of Pelts and Manufactured Goods of Certain Wild Animal Species [1994] OJ L 184/3.

115 Commission Proposal COM/1995/737 for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3254/91 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 [1995] OJ C 58/17, Art. 4(1)–(2).

116 Nollkaemper, n. 113 above, p. 243.

117 Ibid.

118 Ibid.

119 Commission Decision of 14 October 1998 amending Council Decision 97/602/EC concerning the List referred to in the Second Subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 and in Article 1(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 35/97 [1998] OJ L 286/56.

120 Nollkaemper, n. 113 above, p. 243.

121 Regulation 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Cosmetic Products [2009] OJ L 342/52, Art. 18(1)(a)–(d).

122 Commission Proposal COM/2000/0189 for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending for the seventh time Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the Approximation of the Laws of the Member States relating to Cosmetic Products [1976] OJ C 311/E/134, para. 1.2.

123 Ibid.

124 de Búrca, G. & Scott, J. (eds), The EU and the WTO: Legal and Constitutional Issues (Hart, 2001), p. 8Google Scholar.

125 Directive 98/58/EC concerning the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes [1998] OJ L 221/23, Preamble and Art. 8.

126 I. Offor, ‘The Chilling Effect of the World Trade Organisation on European Union Animal Welfare Protection’, LLM Thesis, University of Aberdeen, Apr. 2017, pp. 76, 89.

127 European Parliament Legislative Resolution COM 2005/0221 on the Proposal for a Council Directive laying down Minimum Rules for the Protection of Chickens Kept for Meat Production [2005] OJ C 290E/86, amendment 8.

128 Ibid.

129 Offor, n. 126 above, p. 89.

130 Cat and Dog Fur Regulation, n. 74 above; Seals Regulation, n. 65 above.

131 WTO Committee on Agriculture, n. 73 above.

132 Swinbank, A., ‘Like Products, Animal Welfare and the World Trade Organization’ (2006) 40(4) Journal of World Trade, pp. 687–711, at 690Google Scholar; Hobbs, A.L. et al. , ‘Ethics, Domestic Food Policy and Trade Law: Assessing the EU Animal Welfare Proposal to the WTO’ (2002) 27(5) Food Policy, pp. 437–54, at 440CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

133 Commission, Animal Welfare Strategy, n. 75 above, p. 10.

134 Harrison, n. 9 above.

135 Cat and Dog Fur Regulation, n. 74 above, Preamble, recital 1.

136 EC – Seal Products, Appellate Body Report, n. 67 above, paras 5.199–201.

137 Howse, R., Langille, J. & Sykes, K., ‘Pluralism in Practice: Moral Legislation and the Law of the WTO after Seal Products’ (2015–16) 48(1) The George Washington International Law Review, pp. 81–150, at 114–5Google Scholar.

138 Cook, K. & Bowles, D., ‘Growing Pains: The Developing Relationship of Animal Welfare Standards and the World Trade Rules’ (2010) 19(2) Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, pp. 227–38, at 228CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Charnovitz, S., ‘The Law of Environmental PPMs in the WTO: Debunking the Myth of Illegality’ (2002) 27(1) Yale Journal of International Law, pp. 59–110, at 76–80; and Fitzgerald, n. 71 above, p. 102Google Scholar.

139 P. Stevenson, ‘The Impact of the World Trade Organisation Rules on Animal Welfare’, Compassion in World Farming, 21 Apr. 2015, p. 1, available at: https://www.ciwf.org.uk/research/animal-welfare/the-impact-of-the-world-trade-organisation-rules-on-animal-welfare.

140 Offor, I. & Walter, J., ‘GATT Article XX(a) Permits Otherwise Trade-Restrictive Animal Welfare Measures’ (2017) 12(4) Global Trade and Customs Journal, pp. 158–66Google Scholar.

141 For foreshadowing, see Cook & Bowles, n. 138 above, p. 228.

142 Howse, Langille & Sykes, n. 137 above, p. 113.

143 Letter from Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis to Reineke Hameleers, Director of Eurogroup for Animals, 8 Dec. 2015.

144 European Commission, ‘Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Impact of Animal Welfare International Activities on the Competitiveness of European Livestock Producers in a Globalized World’, COM(2018)42 final, 26 Jan. 2018, p. 4, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52018DC0042.

145 Commission Decision establishing the Commission Expert Group ‘Platform on Animal Welfare’ [2017] OJ C 31/61; meeting documents are available at: https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/welfare/eu-platform-animal-welfare/meetings_en.

146 Cabanne, n. 75 above.

147 Howse, Langille & Sykes, n. 137 above, pp. 114–5; Francione, n. 21 above, p. 150.

148 E.g., Fitzgerald, n. 71 above, p. 102.

149 E.g., Fitzgerald, P., International Issues in Animal Law: The Impact of International Environmental and Economic Law upon Animal Interests and Advocacy (Carolina Academic Press, 2012), p. 172Google Scholar; Grethe, n. 78 above, p. 318; and Stevenson, n. 139 above.

150 EC – Seal Products, n. 67 above, pp. 26–7.

151 Howse, Langille & Sykes, n. 137 above, p. 113.

152 Kelch, T.G., Globalization and Animal Law: Comparative Law, International Law and International Trade, 2nd edn (Kluwer Law International, 2017), p. 265Google Scholar; Lurie & Kalinina, n. 5 above.

153 Blattner, C., ‘An Assessment of Recent Trade Law Developments from an Animal Law Perspective: Trade Law as the Sheep in Wolf's Clothing’ (2016) 22(2) Animal Law, pp. 277–310, at 289, 299Google Scholar.

154 Sykes, n. 77 above, p. 57.

155 Ibid.

156 E.g., Eurogroup for Animals, n. 104 above.

157 For consequences, see Francione, G.L., Animals, Property and the Law (Temple University Press, 1995)Google Scholar.

158 The Harmonized System, n. 107 above.

159 Ibid.

160 E.g., Animal Welfare Act 2006 c.45 (United Kingdom), s. 4.

161 Bowman, M., Davies, P. & Redgwell, C. (eds), Lyster's International Wildlife Law, 2nd edn (Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 673–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

162 Ibid.

163 For support, though nothing has been enacted or seriously contemplated at the UN: see Gibson, M., ‘The Universal Declaration of Animal Welfare’ (2011) 16(2) Deakin Law Review, pp. 539–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

164 E.g., World Organization for Animal Health, n. 56 above, s. 7.

165 Information available at: http://www.mpil.de/en/pub/research/areas/public-international-law/global-animal-law.cfm.

166 Information available at: https://www.globalanimallaw.org.

167 ‘Symposium: Global Animal Law’ (2016) 5(1) Transnational Environmental LawGoogle Scholar; ‘Symposium on Global Animal Law’ (2017) 111 AJIL UnboundGoogle Scholar.

168 Lewis & Clark Law School, Center for Animal Law Studies, ‘Global Animal Law Conference III’, available at: https://law.lclark.edu/live/events/283980-global-animal-law-conference-iii.

169 Dillon, S., ‘A Farewell to Linkage: International Trade Law and Global Sustainability Indicators’ (2002) 55(1) Rutgers Law Review, pp. 87–154, at 94Google Scholar.

170 Sykes, n. 77 above.

171 Howse & Langille, n. 4 above, p. 372.

172 Dillon, n. 169 above, pp. 91–2.

173 Ibid., p. 97.