This is from the U.S. response to a Seal Products panel question:
4. (All third parties) Please explain the extent of the relevance of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the ILO Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries to the analysis of the parties' claims under Article XX of the GATT 1994 and Article 2.1 and/or Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.
4. The United States does not believe the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples or the ILO Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries have any relevance for the purposes of this dispute. The United States does not understand the EU to have put forth either document in support of its arguments under Article XX of the GATT 1994. With respect to the TBT Agreement, it appears the EU put forth the UN Declaration and ILO Convention to support its arguments with respect to Article 2.1, purportedly as evidence of what constitutes a “legitimate objective.” The United States notes, however, that the concept of “legitimate objective” is not one that appears in Article 2.1. To the extent that the Panel is called upon to consider the legitimacy of the objective under Article 2.2, the documents would seem to be unnecessary, as both Canada and Norway agree that the objective of protecting the interests of Inuit and other indigenous communities is legitimate. As such, the United States considers the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples or the ILO Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries irrelevant to this dispute.
And here's (part of) the EU response to that question:
Question 39 (All parties) Please explain what extent, if any, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the ILO Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries are relevant to the analysis of the parties' claims under Article XX of the GATT 1994 and Article 2.1 and/or Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.
128. The European Union considers that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the ILO Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries confirm the legitimacy of protecting the Inuit and indigenous communities' interest.76 Measures taken to protect the economic and social interests of those communities pursue a legitimate objective in the sense of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. In the same vein, regulatory distinctions based on the protection of those interests are also legitimate for the purpose of Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement.
129. The UN Declaration and the ILO Convention are relevant to the analysis in that they demonstrate:
• A widespread international consensus that protecting the livelihoods, social integrity and cultural identity (including a traditional way of life) of Inuit and indigenous peoples is a legitimate policy objective;
• A widespread international consensus that indigenous peoples are unlike other ethnic groups in that in their quality as indigenous peoples, as closely circumscribed by the definitions in the two instruments (and as reflected in the EU regulations), they require and deserve the special protection of the world community.
• That traditional practices undertaken by Inuit and indigenous peoples (e.g. seal hunting for subsistence purposes) can and should be viewed through a unique moral perspective vis-à-vis the same practices undertaken by others (e.g. seal hunting for purely commercial purposes).
...
I've never been one to push hard for more international law in WTO disputes, but is the U.S. approach too restrictive?
