Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T03:01:52.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples (AB-2003-4): One Bad Apple? (DS245/AB/R): A Comment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2015

Damien J. Neven  and
Joseph H.H. Weiler
Damien J. Neven
Affiliation:
Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva
Joseph H.H. Weiler
Affiliation:
Jean Monnet Center for International Economic Law & Justice, New York University School of Law
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This chapter reviews the decision by the Appellate Body (AB) regarding measures affecting the importation of apples in Japan. Section 2 of the chapter presents some background facts. Section 3 considers the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) agreement and emphasizes the fact that it imposes a discipline on risk-reducing measures even in the absence of discrimination or protectionism. Section 4 discusses how the evaluation of risk-reducing measures can be undertaken in the context of the SPS agreement. Our discussion focuses on two issues: the scope of the mandate given to the adjudicators and the standard of review that they should apply. We emphasize the difficulty of the task faced by the adjudicators, namely to distinguish between determining the level of risk that a country will find optimal to support (which cannot be challenged) and determining whether risk-reducing measures are necessary to achieve the chosen level of risk. We further observe that the common methodology used by Panels, namely to evaluate the existence of risk in the absence of risk-reducing measures, has limited applicability.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 5 , Special Issue S1: WTO Case Law of 2003 , 2006 , pp. 280 - 310
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

References

Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, Ambiguity and the Savage Axioms, Quarterly Journal of Economics 75(5), 643–669.Google Scholar
Ghirardato, P., Maccheroni, F. and Marinacci, M. (2002). Ambiguity from the differential viewpoint, Working Paper No. 17/2002 ICER.Google Scholar
Gilboa, I. and Schmeidler, D. (1989). Max-min expected utility with non unique priors, Journal of Mathematical Economics 18, 141–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gollier, C. (2001). Should We Beware of the Precautionary Principle?, Economic Policy 33, 301 – 328.Google Scholar
Henry, M. (2002). Generalized entropy measures of ambiguity and their measurement, mimeo, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Henry, C. and Henry, M. (2003). Etat de la connaissance scientifique et mobilisation du principe de precaution, Revue Economique 54, 1277–1289.Google Scholar
Savage, L.J. (1956). The Foundation of Statistics Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory ofGames and Economic Behavior, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar