International Economic Law and Policy Blog (Page 447)

Sign in Subscribe

Tuna III?

I haven't seen much detail about this, but there are two reports of a new WTO complaint by Mexico against U.S. tuna restrictions: The Mexican government says it has formally requested World Trade Organization consultations on U.S. labeling restrictions that it says effectively exclude Mexican tuna

Why Do We Have SPS Agreement Article 5.1?

Every time I think about SPS Agreement Article 5.1, as we have been in relation to the Hormones II AB report, the following question occurs to me: Why is there an international trade rule requiring SPS measures to be based on a risk assessment? Put another way, what is

2008 Biennial ASIL IELIG Conference: The Politics of International Economic Law: The Next Four Years

2008 Biennial ASIL Interest Group Conference: The Politics of International Economic Law: The Next Four Years November 13, 2008 ~ November 15, 2008 George Washington University School of Law 2000 H Street, NW Washington DC 20052 USA Only ten days after the U.S. presidential election, and in the midst of

Adversarial discourse and the culture of science in Hormones II

I am struck by a difference in perspective between the panel and the appellate body with respect to the role of scientific expertise in advocacy. The panel seems to believe in the reliability and credibility of scientific expertise and thereby downplays the risk that science can be subverted to bolster

More Online Gambling Tensions

Another front opens up in the gambling dispute: A judge in Kentucky seized the Web addresses of more than 140 Internet-gambling sites last week, the latest example of how local governments can affect online businesses with physical operations beyond their jurisdictions. ... In the Kentucky case, Circuit Court Judge Thomas

Mavroidis on Hormones II

Petros asked me to post the following for him: I had one big concern when I read the panel report: the manner in which the panel understood Art. 23.2 DSU. For the rest I appreciated the manner that they went about precaution reversing (implicitly so) prior case law which

2 quick points on Hormones II

Two quick points in relation to the decision in Hormones II: I’ve always found it quite difficult to understand the distinction between scientific uncertainty and insufficiency of evidence in relation to Article 5.7. Does the AB do a better job of explaining it here (para. 677)? For the

Doha negotiation on Fisheries Subsidies

On 30 November 2007, Chairman of the WTO Negotiating Group on Rules issued Draft Consolidated Chair Texts of the AD and SCM Agreements (TN/RL/W/213), which contained Annex VIII to the SCM Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies. Annex VIII provides a wide range of prohibited fisheries subsidies that contribute

Nominating the Next WTO DG

On October 14, 2008, Ambassador Bruce Gosper, the chair of the WTO General Council, announced the procedures that would be used to select the Director-General after Pascal Lamy’s term expires. Many observers think that Lamy will agree to serve again, and I hope that proves right as Lamy

Hard Cases (Can) Make Good Law

Hot on the heels of Joost's insightful summary and assessment of the Hormones II AB Report, and before more detailed discussion of the particular issues soon ensues, I would like to put forward a general assessment of this Report. A deliberately general assessment of the Report, as a