Sign in Subscribe

Topic

Non-Discrimination Standards

63 posts

Australia - Apples: Some Appellate Body Statements on "Purpose"

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 the

Non-Discrimination Standards: More on Discriminatory Effect and Individual Products

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 to

Another De Facto Discrimination Case

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:

Internet Gambling Bans and the Dormant Commerce Clause

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 simply banned

"Best Treatment," "Individual" Claims and the "Class of One"

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

More on Nicolas Diebold's Non-Discrimination Paper

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

Grand River Enterprises: Discussion of National Treatment at the Hearing

Following up on some previous posts about the NAFTA Chapter 11 Grand River Enterprises dispute, the hearing in the case, held in early February, offered some interesting discussion of the National Treatment issue. Let me first turn to Luke Peterson of the Investment Arbitration Reporter for some background: The individual

Merrill & Ring v. Canada: More About NAFTA Ch. 11 Non-Discrimination Standards

Continuing with my occasional (although becoming somewhat frequent) posts on NAFTA Chapter 11 non-discrimination standards, there is a new decision to talk about: Merrill & Ring v. Canada. The basic facts, from the Tribunal: 26. This case concerns a claim by the Investor in respect of the implementation of

GATT Article I:1 (MFN) and "Conditions" for Lower Tariffs

From a recent article in The Australian: China yesterday raised the prospect of tariffs and new policies to stem growing uncertainty in its steel industry, which faces iron ore price hikes of up to 90 per cent this year. China's Commerce Ministry said yesterday it was preparing a

Discrimination Arguments in the AbitibiBowater NAFTA Chapter 11 Claim

Taking a quick break from the big picture questions in the Great Trade Debate, I'm going to bring up a very narrow and technical trade issue: How to apply a non-discrimination standard in the NAFTA Chapter 11 context. As was widely reported last week, AbitibiBowater is going