Has the WTO shaped the right balance between the smooth operation of international trade and sustainable development? Discuss in the light of the GATT panel decisions on the environment

Thèmes abordés

WTO, international trade, GATT, decisions on the environment, World Trade Organization, Committee on Trade and Environment

Résumé du document

"God is dead. WTO replaced him" . It's what we could read on the notice of a demonstrator in front of the WTO's headquarters on the occasion of the celebration of the fiftieth birthday of the GATT in May 1998 in Geneva.
Since the beginning of 2000s, the environment is in the center of the concerns. Indeed, if the globalization, by advocating the free exchange, contributes certainly to the increase of the wealth and thus to the welfare of populations in all the regions of the world, it has certain impact on the world natural resources.

Extraits

[...] Otherwise, this relationship could become a loose (WTO's reputation) loose (environment protection) relationship. In the purpose maintain a balance between trade and environment, the WTO created the CTE. Furthermore, it also set up the SPS Agreements. SPS Agreements permit members to take sanitary and phytosanitary measures necessary for the protection of human, animal or plant life or health. Members shall ensure that these measures are applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health and are based on scientific principles[5]. [...]

[...] In particular, Japan emphasized that the measure was entirely based on phytosanitary considerations and that the suggestion by the United States to the contrary was false. The Appellate Body has given reason to the United States because the japanese measure was maintained without evidence. In another case, EC Measures concerning meat and meat products (hormones)[7], the Panel dealt with a complaint (of the United States and Canada) against the European Communities relating to an EC prohibition of imports of meat and meat products derived from cattle to which either the natural hormones or the synthetic hormones had been administered for growth promotion purposes. [...]

[...] Today, WTO shaped a balance between these 2 notions, but it's probably not a right balance. Indeed, trade seems to be favoured at the expense of environment. Bibliography Primary sources Cases EC Measures concerning meat and meat products (hormones) WT/DS26/AB/R and WT/DS48/AB/R (1998) Japan Measures Affecting Agricultural Products WT/DS76/R (1998) United-States- Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products (1998) 77 Secondary sources Books Sampson and Gary World Trade Organization and Sustainable Development (United Nations University Press, 2005) Winston KM, Sustainability of international trade law: the legality of unilateral trade measures for environmental protection in the GATT/WTO (2012) Int J Green Economics Journal articles Arbour principe de précaution dans le contexte du commerce international: une intégration difficile” (2002) 43 Les Cahiers de droit 5,37 Bogardus GATT and the environment, irreconcilable differences?” (1996) DJLS 237 Carvalho de Azevêdo and de Macedo Ribeiro “L'avenir selon Georges Bernanos”, L'Économie politique (2007) Chatterjee Bhattacharya and Banerjee “Guised in Green: Uncloaking the Myth of World Trade Organization's Trade-Environment Harmony” (2009) American Journal of Economics and Business Administration Fletcher “Greening World Trade: reconciling GATT and multilateral environmental agreements within the existing world trade regime” (1996) Florida State University Journal of Transnational Law & Policy Command papers and Law Commission Reports United Nations, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future (1987) 16 Committee on Trade and Environment, Report of the Committee on Trade and Environment WT/CTE/20 (2013) World Trade Organization, Doha Ministerial Declaration (2001) Paragraphs 31- 33 Websites and blogs World Trade Organization, Accord SPS articles accessed 9 April 2014 Carvalho de Azevêdo Roberto and de Macedo Ribeiro Haroldo, “L'avenir selon Georges Bernanos” (2007) 3(35) L'Économie politique United Nations, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future [3]Committee on Trade and Environment, Report of the Committee on Trade and Environment WT/CTE/20 (2013) Sampson and P Gary, World Trade Organization and Sustainable Development (United Nations University Press, 2005) World Trade Organization, Accord SPS articles accessed 9 April 2014 World Trade Organization, Report of the panel Japan Measures Affecting Agricultural Products WT/DS76/R (27 October 1998) 10 World Trade Organization Appellate Body, EC Measures concerning meat and meat products (hormones) WT/DS26/AB/R and WT/DS48/AB/R (16 January 1998) John Bogardus, GATT and the environment, irreconcilable differences?” (1996) DJLS 237 Winston Ka-Ming Mak, Sustainability of international trade law: the legality of unilateral trade measures for environmental protection in the GATT/WTO (2012) Int J Green Economics Maurice Arbour, principe de précaution dans le contexte du commerce international: une intégration difficile” (2002) 43 Les Cahiers de droit 5,37 World Trade Organization Appellate Body, Report in United-States- Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, AB-1998- Charles R. [...]

[...] The Appellate Body has given reason to United State and Canada used EC were at odds with SPS Agreements because they missed evidence. Nevertheless, it would be advisable to specify that it has been put an end to this conflict only in 2012. Indeed, in March 2012, the European Union agreed to increase its imports of beef of high quality in exchange for the preservation of its embargo on the hormone beef. As we have seen earlier, it's complicated for a country to have evidences which allow applying SPS Agreements. [...]

[...] In one hand, GATT/ WTO prove its will to protect the environment by setting up on its own initiative certain measures (CTE and SPS Agreements). In other hand, its reaction in front of so called environmental measures of the member states seems more moderate. Trade and environment are extremely imperative to the concept development and it is a verity that one can't be sacrificed for the other since both are equally important for the common cause of social welfare. The WTO tries hard to shape the right balance between international trade and sustainable development. [...]