robhowse

As I recall Joost's excavation of the gems in EC-Biotech may not have included the panel's analysis of Art. III:4 of the GATT, National Treatment.  As I understand it, fleshing out the meaning of what the AB said about "treatment no less favorable'

There are many problematic things that the AB says in its ruling concerning the relationship of different international legal regimes and fora.  Some of those things have been discussed in the various posts on this case.  And I may address them as well in a future post.  But it seems

I'm going to be teaching the EC-Biotech interim report next week, and was wondering whether anyone out there had done an edit for classroom purposes?  If not  I guess my  work will be cut out for me in the next few days.  Obviously, the report as it stands,

WTO Director General Pascal Lamy is doing an on-line chat with the global public on February 21.  It's easy to be cyncial about such gestures--the "digital divide," the limits of the medium for serious deliberation, the self-selectivity of participants, etc., but let's hand it

Joel, our leader, has indicated that it is okay to use the blog for self-promotion (well, those weren't exactly his words) but anyhow  I thought I would mention that a new edition of my treatise with Michael Trebilcock, The Regulation of International Trade, was published in the fall,

It is of course unwise to say very much about the Biotech ruling without having the reasons.  In fact, it is probably even misleading to say that the EC "lost" or the US "won."   The reasons of the panel may overall be of more assistance to