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

Not too surprisingly, Todd Tucker of Global Trade Watch is unhappy with the recent WTO panel ruling in the Clove Cigarettes case, where the panel found that a U.S. law which bans clove cigarettes while allowing menthol cigarettes violates the National Treatment obligation of the TBT Agreement.  In a

... is here:  http://www.worldtradelaw.net/na/ds398-10(na).pdf  Here's one aspect I'll be watching closely: III. APPEAL OF THE PANEL'S FINDING THAT CHINA DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO INVOKE ARTICLE XX OF THE GATT 1994 IN DEFENSE OF A CLAIM

From the FT: A Chinese tycoon plans to buy a vast tract of Icelandic land for a $100m tourism project which critics fear could give Beijing a strategic foothold in the North Atlantic. Huang Nubo, a real estate investor and former Chinese government official, has struck a provisional deal to