Non-Discrimination Standards

Here's the third non-discrimination post of the day.  Looking over the U.S. responses to the Panel's questions in Philippines - Spirits (DS396/403), it was striking how little discussion of intent/effect issues there was, in comparison with Clove Cigarettes and Tuna, the subject of

For today's non-discrimination post number 2, here's something from the U.S. - Tuna II (DS381) panel's questions to the U.S.: 149. To the United States: You have referred to the treatment afforded to “imported products” under the measures in the context of

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