As noted previously, the Institute for Transnational Arbitration has issued a call for papers for its First Annual Winter Forum: THE INSTITUTE FOR TRANSNATIONAL ARBITRATION 1st Annual Winter Forum Stanford Court Renaissance San Francisco Hotel San Francisco, California February 2-3, 2012 CALL FOR PAPERS In collaboration with the Academic

It's easy to get distracted with all of the interesting aspects of Clove Cigarettes and Tuna, but let's not forget that there is another non-discrimination case going on:  Philippines - Distilled Spirits.  This case deals with GATT Article III:2.  Here is the Philippines' notice

One interesting part of the recent Tuna-Dolphin panel report is the different views of the panelists on whether the U.S. dolphin-safe labelling measure is a "technical regulation" under the TBT Agreement.   The panel majority found that the the measure is a "technical regulation"

This is from some Congressional testimony by economist Phil Levy: In the absence of new agreements, there is a temptation to seek satisfaction through the aggressive use of venues such as the WTO dispute settlement mechanism -- litigation in lieu of negotiation. This poses a serious long-term threat to the

Here's the U.S. - Tuna panel's ultimate finding under TBT Agreement Article 2.2: 7.620 In light of our determinations above in relation to both objectives of the US dolphin-safe provisions, we find that these measures are more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil

The Cloves panel analysis of TBT Art. 2 is fascinating. Given the structure of TBT Art. 2.1-2.2, and the absence of an explicit GATT Art. XX exception in TBT, I have long wondered how to read TBT 2.1 (national treatment) with TBT 2.2 (necessity) (see