Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T20:24:22.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consumer preferences and the National Treatment Principle: emerging environmental regulations prompt a new look at an old problem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2011

EMILY BARRETT LYDGATE
EMILY BARRETT LYDGATE*
Affiliation:
Ph.D. Candidate, King's CollegeLondon
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Should consumers' preference for ‘green’ products help justify, from a WTO perspective, emerging regulations such as restrictions on trade in non-sustainable biofuels? Despite the role consumer preferences have played in WTO disputes, in association with the ‘like’ products concept, there has not been enough focused examination of their specific influence, particularly in disputes on ethical public policy issues, such as environmental or health regulations. To this end, this paper examines key GATT Article III disputes, pointing out that they included attempts both to measure, and also to interpret, consumer preferences. The latter approach becomes more tempting when consumer preferences are difficult to measure; import bans or restrictions associated with ethical public policy regulations can bring about such a situation. A hypothetical dispute about EC biofuels sustainability criteria demonstrates this problem. Options to make the concept of consumer preferences more coherent include limitations on how they can be invoked, and an increased commitment to capturing them through measurement.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 165 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © Emily Barrett Lydgate 2011

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

Berg, G. (1996), ‘An Economic Interpretation of “Like-Product”’, Journal of World Trade, 30(2): 195–209.Google Scholar
Bronckers, M. and McNelis, N. (2000), ‘Rethinking the ‘Like Product’ Definition in GATT 1994: Anti-Dumping and Environmental Protection', in Cottier, T. et al. (eds.), The World Trade Forum, Vol. 2, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 345–386.Google Scholar
Charnovitz, S. (2002), ‘The Law of Environmental “PPMs” in the WTO: Debunking the Myth of Illegality’, Yale Journal of International Law, 27 (Winter): 59–110.Google Scholar
Choi, W. (2003), ‘Like Products’ in International Trade Law: Towards a Consistent GATT/WTO Jurisprudence, series on International Economic Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, 23 April 2009.Google Scholar
GATT (1970), ‘Border Tax Adjustments’, Report of the Working Party, L/3464 (20 November 1970), 3.Google Scholar
GATT (1987), Japan–Prohibition of Alcoholic Beverages, Panel Report, L/6216–34S/83 (13 October 1987), available at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/gt47ds_e.htmGoogle Scholar
Horn, H. and Mavroidis, P. (2004), ‘Still Hazy after All These Years: The Interpretation of National Treatment in the GATT/WTO Case-law on Tax Discrimination’, European Journal of International Law, 15: 39–69.Google Scholar
Horn, H. and Weiler, J. (2003), ‘European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos Containing Products’, in Horn, H. (ed.), The American Law Institute Reporters' Studies on WTO Case Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27–52.Google Scholar
Howse, R. and Regan, D. (2000), ‘The Product/Process Distinction – an Illusory Basis for Disciplining “Unilateralism” in Trade Policy’, European Journal of International Law, 11(2): 249–289.Google Scholar
Howse, R. and Tuerk, E. (2001), ‘The WTO Impact on Internal Regulations – a Case Study of the Canada–EC Asbestos’, in Burca, G. De and Scott, J. (eds.), The EU and the WTO: Legal and Constitutional Issues, Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 284–321.Google Scholar
Swinback, A. (2009), ‘EU Support for Biofuels and Bioenergy, Enviromental Sustainability Criteria, and Trade Policy’, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development, Issue paper no. 17, June 2009.Google Scholar
Trebilcock, M. J. and Howse, R. (2005), The Regulation of International Trade, third edition, Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vranes, E. (2010), ‘Climate Labelling and the WTO: The 2010 EU Ecolabelling Programme as a Test Case Under WTO Law’, in Herrman, C. and Terhechte, J. P. (eds.), European Yearbook of International Economic Law, 9 March 2010, Springer.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO) (1998), International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), Environmental Health Criteria 203 – Chrysotile Asbestos (1998), para. 144.Google Scholar
WTO Panel Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS10/R; WT/DS11/R (11 July 1996), available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/find_dispu_cases_e.htmGoogle Scholar
WTO Appellate Body Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS8/AB/R; WT/DS10/AB/R; WT/DS11/AB/R (4 October 1996), available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/find_dispu_cases_e.htmGoogle Scholar
WTO Panel Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, WT/DS135/R (18 September 2000), available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/find_dispu_cases_e.htmGoogle Scholar
WTO Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, WT/DS135/AB/R (12 March 2001), available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/find_dispu_cases_e.htmGoogle Scholar