scholarly journals Thailand–Cigarettes (Philippines): A More Serious Role for the ‘Less Favourable Treatment’ Standard of Article III:4

2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
WILLIAM J. DAVEY ◽  
KEITH E. MASKUS
Keyword(s):  
Market Analysis ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
External Cost ◽  
National Treatment ◽  
Appellate Body Report ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Treatment Standard ◽  
Treatment Principle ◽  
Policy Impacts

AbstractThis paper analyzes a number of economic and legal issues raised by the Appellate Body Report in the Thai–Cigarettes case. The paper suggests two improvements that could be made to Panel procedures; supports the Appellate Body's interpretation of Article XX(d) in the present case, which seems to discard an earlier mistaken approach to Article XX; and examines, in some detail, whether the Appellate Body's application of the ‘less favourable treatment’ component of GATT Article III:4 in this and other cases is consistent with its jurisprudence under GATT Article III:2 and TBT Article 2.1. From an economics perspective, the case is straightforward on its face. However, the Appellate Body's rigorous application of the ‘less favourable treatment’ principle might not survive a fuller market analysis in terms of policy impacts on conditions of competition. Further, while we agree with the rejection of Thailand's Article XX claim, we raise the question of whether a strict national-treatment rule may be an unwarranted constraint on policy where there is a clear trade-related external cost to address.

scholarly journals Sorting Out Mixed Messages under the WTO National Treatment Principle: A Proposed Approach

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 423-450
Author(s):  
EMILY LYDGATE
Keyword(s):  
Market Analysis ◽  
National Treatment ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Policy Objectives ◽  
Treatment Principle ◽  
Mixed Messages ◽  
Implicit And Explicit ◽  
Competitive Products

AbstractWhen establishing whether a disputed regulation is protectionist under the WTO National Treatment Principle, there are two key elements: its effect on the market for competitive products, and its intent or policy rationale. Yet the Appellate Body has formally rejected both elements, and in the surprising 2014 outcome of EC–Seal Products, under the key provision GATT Article III(4), the latter was simply denied. This obfuscation leads to implicit and explicit conflation of these elements. In some disputes, qualitative findings about the existence and nature of competitive relationships are presented using the language of quantitative market analysis. In others, compelling policy objectives shape the outcome of a supposedly market-based analysis. This article proposes an approach that synthesizes two strands of scholarship, advocating more rigorous use of market-based evidence and stronger analysis of policy rationale. Separating these elements will achieve the appropriate balance between them and lead to greater transparency in dispute outcomes.

scholarly journals Appellate Body Report, India – Additional and Extra-Additional Duties on Imports from the United States (WT/DS360/AB/R, adopted on 17 November 2008)

2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 239-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
PAOLA CONCONI ◽  
Jan Wouters
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
The United States ◽  
Central Point ◽  
National Treatment ◽  
Appellate Body Report ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Border Tax Adjustments ◽  
National Governments

AbstractThis paper critically reviews the main findings of the Appellate Body in the case India – Additional and Extra-Additional Duties on Imports from the United States (India–Additional Import Duties). This ruling sheds light on the interplay between two core provisions of the GATT, namely Article II GATT (Schedules of Concessions) and III GATT (National Treatment on Internal Taxation and Regulation). Linked to this demarcation, the question on the allocation of the burden of proof was a central point of contention in this dispute. The ruling also establishes the principle that WTO Members are allowed to use border tax adjustments, as long as the tax imposed on imports does not exceed the domestic tax. We argue that this principle can help to reconcile the objectives of the WTO with those of national governments.

scholarly journals El apoyo a las energías renovables a la luz del Sistema Mundial de Comercio. El rol de los Acuerdos de la Organización Mundial de Comercio en permitir el desarrollo de proyectos de energías renovables

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alamiro Andrés Alfaro Zepeda
Keyword(s):  
Renewable Energy ◽  
National Treatment ◽  
Trading System ◽  
The Core ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Energy Projects ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
World Trading System ◽  
Treatment Principle ◽  
General Exceptions

The development of renewable energy projects is crucial to address many issues, from climate change to social and environmental demands. However, policies encouraging theses project may face resistance among WTO members, being contested under WTO panels. Different WTO member’s policies have been impugned regarding the so-called local requirements. Recent developments in the Appellate Body reports have shown that green policies or the support of renewable energy is compatible with the WTO law, directly or even under the general exceptions of the Article XX of the GATT. Nonetheless, the inclusion of national content requirements to access subsidies or benefits for renewable energy project are not allowed. Indeed, such measures violate the national treatment principle, one of the core principles of the world trading system.

A Comment and Epilogue

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 418-422
Author(s):  
Rob Howse
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
National Treatment ◽  
Public Morality ◽  
Trade Off ◽  
Appellate Body Report ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Regulatory Purpose ◽  
Trade Measures

The Appellate Body report in EC-Seal Products is a landmark decision in several respects: for its recognition that animal welfare is a matter of public morality that may justify a trade ban in response to cruelty; for the AB's new–found clarity with respect to the irrelevance of regulatory purpose in the determination of “treatment no less favourable” under the National Treatment and MFN provisions of the GATT; for its suggestion that trade measures not defined by product–related distinctions but other criteria are not covered by the TBT Agreement; and for its partial acknowledgement that a Member may maintain a measure consistent with Article XX even if the measure represents a complex trade–off between a main purpose and other purposes that may limit the extent the main purpose can be furthered. But the decision arguably raises as many questions as it answers, and some have already complained about the rather sphinx–like quality of the judgment.

scholarly journals Remarks by Federico Ortino

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 66-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federico Ortino
Keyword(s):  
National Treatment ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Treatment Standard ◽  
Wto Appellate Body ◽  
The U.S

When it comes to trade law, it is true that there appear to be certain signs that we are moving back to non-discrimination and away from deeper forms of integration. However, this is possibly (and hopefully) only a limited and temporary shift. The strongest evidence of such a shift regards the apparent interpretation by the WTO Appellate Body (AB) of the key provisions in the TBT Agreement in such a way as to give prevalence to the national treatment standard in Article 2.1 over the necessity requirements in Article 2.2. For example, in US – Tuna II (Mexico) the AB found the U.S. dolphin-safe regulations under review inconsistent with Article 2.1, while also reversing the panel finding that the U.S. dolphin-safe regulations were inconsistent with Article 2.2. Such a result is surprising if one considers the general agreement among commentators that the disciplines embodied in the TBT Agreement (as well as in the SPS Agreement) went beyond the non-discrimination obligation of the GATT.

Competition, Not Regulation – or Regulated Competition?

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 405-417
Author(s):  
Alexia Herwig
Keyword(s):  
Imperfect Competition ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Perfect Competition ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Treatment Standard ◽  
Regulatory Purpose ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Regulated Competition ◽  
Domestic Products

GATT Article III:4 aims at equal treatment in respect of competitive opportunities of imports and competing domestic products by preventing protectionism. A key question is whether regulations with heavier burdens on imported products than on domestic products and a valid regulatory purpose are consistent with Article III:4. Inquiry into regulatory purpose under Article III:4 would allow by-passing Article XX whose list of regulatory objectives is a closed one and which puts the burden of proof on the defending WTO member. In EC-Seal Products, the Appellate Body has rejected any role for the regulatory purpose inquiry under Article III:4. This article shows why a purely empirical definition of likeness and less favourable treatment as disparate impact cannot logically lead to a finding of a violation of Article III:4. It then argues that regulatory purpose continues to play a role under Article III:4 because of the centrality of the notion of competition. It proposes to frame that competition as perfect competition. It shows that the adoption of perfect competition as the evaluative benchmark for all of Article III:4 makes better legal sense than starting from imperfect competition for the likeness analysis and perfect competition for the less favourable treatment standard, as is proposed in the literature. It also shows that even in case where imperfect competition is used as the sole benchmark for both parts of Article III:4, an assessment of how regulation interacts with competition continues to play some role.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document