Non-Discrimination Standards

There's so much to say about the non-discrimination issue right now that I'm not quite sure where to begin.  I've got four posts here today, and for DSC subscribers I also did one on the DSC blog for the Tuna case.  To start things

I thought this was a good question from the panel in the U.S. - Tuna Labeling (DS381) dispute: 111. To the United States: Please clarify the relevance of your arguments relating to the justification of the measure in terms of dolphin protection, such as the arguments related to the

Recall this post on the EU position in the Philippines - Distilled Spirits (DS396,403) case in relation to Article III:2, first sentence, where I characterized the EU argument on the discrimination aspect of this standard as follows:  "the discriminatory effect (or disparate impact or disproportionate disadvantage or

There are some good non-discrimination cases going on right now in WTO dispute settlement (including the Philippines - Spirits case mentioned here).  For DSC subscribers, here is a run-down we did of the U.S. position on GATT Article III:4 less favorable treatment issues in the U.S. -

Any time the Appellate Body says something about "purpose" (or "intent" or "aim" or "motive"), in whatever context, it's worth noting, because it may have broader implications.  This is from the Australia - Apples AB report, in the context of

This is from the EU first written submission in the Philippines - Distilled Spirits case (DS396 for the EC case, DS403 for the parallel U.S. complaint): 105. In the light of the above, it is useful to recall once again that the vast majority of imported products are subject

I love a good de facto discrimination case.  Whenever one starts up, I think, "this is the one that's going to clarify all the GATT non-discrimination standards."  That hasn't happened yet, but I keep hoping, and here's another case with potential: Brazil

One of the lingering questions for me after the U.S. - Gambling WTO dispute was how a pure internet gambling ban would be treated under WTO rules.  The measures at issue in U.S. - Gambling had some pretty clear discriminatory aspects.  What if the U.S. measures had

I've mentioned before (most recently, here) that I'm skeptical of applying a "best treatment" / "individual comparison" standard to non-discrimination in the IEL context (I'm more concerned with WTO rules than with investment treaties, but my views apply to the latter

I want to say a bit more about Nicolas Diebold's SIEL conference paper "Non-Discrimination and the Pillars of International Economic Law – Comparative Analysis and Building Coherency".  I've read it more closely now, and I like it even better than when I first skimmed through