I'm still thinking about the difference between "technical regulation" and "standard" in the U.S. - Tuna dispute. Here's my latest thought. Once again, let me quote the relevant language. The TBT Agreement defines "technical regulation" and "standard" as follows
1. Technical regulation
Document which lays down product characteristics or their related processes and production methods, including the applicable administrative provisions, with which compliance is mandatory. It may also include or deal exclusively with terminology, symbols, packaging, marking or labelling requirements as they apply to a product, process or production method.
...
2. Standard
Document approved by a recognized body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for products or related processes and production methods, with which compliance is not mandatory. It may also include or deal exclusively with terminology, symbols, packaging, marking or labelling requirements as they apply to a product, process or production method.
One of the interesting things about these provisions is that they do not refer to "laws" or "statutes" or "regulations." Instead, they talk about "documents." Presumably this is because when the first version of this language was originally drafted, the focus was on things done outside the context of governmental measures. Having carried the language over to an international agreement that binds governments, the language now looks a bit odd. Nevertheless, it still kind of works. A statute or regulation involves words on paper, and is thus a "document." (Here's the obligatory definition of "document": "A written or printed paper that bears the original, official, or legal form of something and can be used to furnish decisive evidence or information.") So, when there is a statute or regulation that meets the other parts of the "technical regulation" definition, it seems uncontroversial to assume that it qualifies as a "document" as well.
If you look at the TBT Agreement's definition of "standard," though, things may be more complicated. This definition does not refer just to a "document." Instead, it refers to a "document approved by a recognized body." The TBT Agreement mentions a number of "bodies," including "central government bodies," which are defined as "central government, its ministries and departments or any body subject to the control of the central government in respect of the activity in question." In theory, then, statutes and regulations could also be "documents" that constitute a "standard."
Here's my question, though. Can statutes and regulations ever be documents that are "approved by" central government bodies? Perhaps you could say they are. In enacting a statute or promulgating a regulation, the government has, in a sense, "approved" them. On the other hand, that seems like a strange way of describing what a government does. Normally, approval is not given to one's own work, but rather to someone else's. Thus, it seems more natural to think of the document which is being approved as having come from somewhere else, that is, from a body other than the government entity writing the statute or regulation.
Maybe that's getting too formalistic about all of this, but there is the difference in language between "technical regulation" and "standard." It must serve some purpose. What does it mean?
