From the Washington Post:
Russia has aimed its latest cross-Atlantic swing at the American food industry.
On Thursday, the country announced the suspension of billions of dollars in food imports from a number of countries — including Norway, Canada, Australia, the United States and the 28-nation European Union — in retaliation for sanctions imposed on it by those nations over the past few weeks. The measure, which targets meat, fish, fruit, vegetable and milk products, and will last a year, is expected to hit food supplies and drive up Russian food prices.
And here's the WSJ:
Russia's import ban on a list of Western foods may be peanuts on the scale of Europe's economy, but it is a blow for some producers—and a sign of deteriorating economic ties as Moscow and the West face off over Ukraine.
Russia gave details Thursday of its response to Western sanctions, banning the import of meat, fish, dairy products and some other agricultural goods from countries that have targeted Russia with their own economic boycotts.
Retaliation for Western sanctions imposed last week, which targeted Russia's banks, military and oil industry, was widely expected, European Union officials said.
(I don't have a link to the measure itself, but it's Decree No. 560 of August 6, 2014, if anyone wants to look).
There are plenty of WTO violations to look at here -- Russia might have been able to take action consistently with WTO rules, but they don't seem to have tried -- but let me focus on a systemic issue. The media describes the Russian measures as "retaliation" for Western sanctions, and that is no doubt the case. One question, then, is what DSU Article 23 has to say about such an action. The relevant portions state:
1. When Members seek the redress of a violation of obligations or other nullification or impairment of benefits under the covered agreements or an impediment to the attainment of any objective of the covered agreements, they shall have recourse to, and abide by, the rules and procedures of this Understanding.
2. In such cases, Members shall:
(a) not make a determination to the effect that a violation has occurred, that benefits have been nullified or impaired or that the attainment of any objective of the covered agreements has been impeded, except through recourse to dispute settlement in accordance with the rules and procedures of this Understanding, and shall make any such determination consistent with the findings contained in the panel or Appellate Body report adopted by the DSB or an arbitration award rendered under this Understanding;
Russia has talked about challenging the Western sanctions at the WTO, although I haven't see a WTO complaint yet. Thus, Russia has suggested that the sanctions violate WTO obligations, and the food import ban could be taken as a "redress" of that alleged violation. Does that mean the food import ban, as an improper attempt to respond to a WTO violation, constitutes a violation of Article 23?
