WTO-case-DS-58

Shrimp/TurtleWTOcaseDS58UnitedStatesVs.India,Malaysia,Pakistan,andThailandBackground•NotYourTypicalDayAtSea•Environmentaleffects•LingeringProblem•TheEffectsTheissue…USConservationPolicy•TurtleExcluderDevices•Section609•SeaturtlesareaSharedglobalresource•60f7speciesarecoveredunderCITESConventionasthreatenedorendangeredUSShrimpMarket•Americansconsume900millionlbsofshrimpannually•Shrimpis#1freshandfrozenseafoodinUS•Theshrimpindustryaccountsfor$10bilinUSconsumerspending•2/3ofthisindustryderivesfromimportedshrimpUSshrimpembargo•1989USstartsnegotiationswithothercountriestostartseaturtleprotectionpolicies•Non-certifiedcountriesimportsofshrimparebanned•1996USNGOEarthIslandInstitutefilesclassactionsuitagainstDOS&DOCfornarrowinterpretation•USembargoedshrimpfromtradingpartnerstoprotectseaturtles•VaryingtimetablesforcompliancewithUSregulations•PreviousWTOexperiencewithproductionprocess(PPM)withTuna/DolphincaseShrimpTurtleWTOCase•Complainants•Malaysia•India•Pakistan•Thailand•GATTArticleXIandGATTArticleXX•Section609ofEndangeredSpeciesAct(ESA)CASETIMELINEOct8th1996:4nations(India,Malaysia,Pakistan&Thailand)jointlyhaveconsultationswiththeU.S.Nov19th1996:ConsultationsheldwithoutresolutionJan9th–Feb25th1997:India,Malaysia,Pakistan&ThailandrequestDSBtoestablishapaneltolookintotheUSembargoonimportationofshrimp&shrimpproducts.April15th1997:DSBestablishes3memberpanelJune17th–19th1997;Sept15th–16th1997:PanelmeetswithpartiesconcernedApril6th1998:Panelissuesfinalreport&rulingJuly13rd1998:USappealsagainstthepanel’srulingOct1998:AppellateBodygivesitsfinalreportArgumentsbyPlaintiffnations…•EmbargoofshrimpandshrimpproductswasagainsttheMFNprincipleofArt1.1GATT•BanimposedbytheUSwasinconsistentwithArtXIofGATT(ArtX1limitstheuseofimportprohibitionsorrestrictions)•BanimposedbytheUSwasincontraventionofArtXIII.Iasthebanrestrictedimportationoflikeproducts.ArgumentsbytheUS…•USmeasurescompliedwiththerelevantrequirementsofArticleXX.•Takenmeasurestoprotectseaturtles,anendangerednaturalresource•Complainantsdidn’tintroduceeffectiveshrimp/turtlepolicies•USisincompliancewiththe“WTOAgreement”PanelRuling:April6th1998•BanImposedbytheUSinconsistentwithGATTArticleXI(ArtXIlimitstheuseofimportprohibitionsorrestrictions)•UScouldnotjustifyitsmeasureunderGATTArtXX(ArtXXdealswithgeneralexceptionstotherules)•ThePanelreachedthefollowingConclusions:–TheimportbanonshrimpandshrimpproductsasappliedbytheUnitedStatesonthebasisofSection609ofPublicLaw101-162isnotconsistentwithArticleXISection1ofGATT1994,andcannotbejustifiedunderArticleXXofGATT1994.•ThePanelmadethisRecommendation:–UnitedStatesbringthismeasureintoconformitywithitsobligationsundertheWTOAgreement.•July28th1998:USappealsagainstthepanelruling.DS58PanelFindingsRegardingGATTArticleXX•TheU.S.measureatissueconstitutedunjustifiablediscriminationbetweencountrieswherethesameconditionsprevail–notwithinthescopeofmeasurespermittedunderthisArticle.•WidespreadimpactoftheadoptionofmeasuresforconditionalmarketaccessbasedonU.S.environmentalconservationpolicy–OtherWTOMemberslikewiseunilaterallyadoptingtheirowndifferentconditionalmarketaccessmeasureswouldunderminethemultilateraltradingsystem.OtherResultsoftheDS58Panel•ProceduralLegalInterpretationofDSUArticle13:Panelwouldnotconsidertheinformation(amicusbriefs)submittedbytheNGOs–ThePaneldidnotrequestthesesubmissions.–Article13laysoutthattheinitiativetoseekandtoselectthesourceofinformationrestswiththePanel.–However,anypartytothedispute(i.e.,aMemberoftheWTO)isallowedtoputforwardthebriefs,oranypartthereof,aspartofitsownsubmissions.U.S.AppealofDS58•DidPanelerrinnotconsideringinformationsubmittedbythirdpartyNGOs?•DidPanelerrinfindingthatthemeasureatissueconstitutedunjustifiablediscriminationbetweencountrieswherethesameconditionsprevailandthusisnotwithinthescopeofmeasurespermittedunderArticleXXoftheGATT1994?SummaryofActionsoftheDS58AppellateBody•ReversesthePanel'sfindingthatacceptingnon-requestedinformationfromnon-governmentalsourcesisincompatiblewiththeprovisionsoftheDSU.•ReversesthePanel'sfindingthattheUnitedStatesmeasureatissueisnotwithinthescopeofmeasurespermittedunderthechapeauofArticleXXoftheGATT1994.•ConcludesthattheUnitedStatesmeasure,whilequalifyingforprovisionaljustificationunderArticleXX(g),failstomeettherequirementsofthechapeauofArticleXX,and,therefore,isnotjustifiedunderArticleXXofGATT.FindingsoftheDS58AppellateBodyRegardingAMICUSBRIEFS•Panelerredinitslegalinterpretationthatacceptingnon-requestedinformationfromNGOsourcesisincompatiblewiththeprovisionsoftheDSU.–ThelegalinterpretationadoptedbythePanelofthewordseekinArticle13.1oftheDSUwastoostrictlytechnical.–Instead,informationcouldhavebeenrequestedornot.–However,whetherthePanelrequested/soughtinformationornot,itstillhasthediscretionaryauthorityeithertoacceptandconsiderortorejectinformationandadvicesubmittedtoit,inordertopreventadelugeofinformation.DS58AppellateBodyFindingsREGARDINGSCOPEOFARTICLEXX•AppraisalofSection609UnderArticleXXoftheGATT1994–PanelerredinitslegalinterpretationthattheU.S.measuresfelloutsideofthescopeofthe