Advertisement

The General Exceptions Provision

  • David Sifonios
Chapter
Part of the European Yearbook of International Economic Law book series (EUROYEAR, volume 3)

Abstract

If a trade measure adopted by a WTO Member conflicts with GATT commitments, such as the non-discrimination provisions or the quantitative restrictions prohibition, the regulating Member still has the possibility to invoke the general exceptions of Article XX to justify its measure. Under Article XX, the defending Member bears the burden of proof and must in particular show that the contested measure falls within one of the policy goals listed in the sub-paragraphs and complies with the means–ends relationship specified therein. Two of them are particularly relevant as far as environmental policies are concerned: Article XX(b), which applies to measures necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health, and Article XX(g), which concerns measures relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources.

Bibliography

  1. Afilalo, Ari/Foster, Sheila, “The World Trade Organization’s Anti-Discrimination Jurisprudence: Free Trade, National Sovereignty, and Environmental Health in the Balance”, 15 Georgetown International Environmental Law Review (2003) 633-676Google Scholar
  2. Appleton, Arthur E., Environmental Labelling Programs: Limitations pursuant to General International Law, the UNCED Instruments, and the WTO, PhD thesis, The Graduate Institute, Geneva 1997 [cit. Appleton (1997a)]Google Scholar
  3. Appleton, Arthur E., “GATT Article XX’s Chapeau: A Disguised ‘Necessary’ Test ?: The WTO Appellate Body’s Ruling in United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline”, 6(2) RECIEL (1997) 131-138 [cit. Appleton (1997b)]Google Scholar
  4. Appleton, Arthur E., “Shrimp/Turtle: Untangling the Nets”, 2(3) Journal of International Economic Law (1999) 477-496Google Scholar
  5. Barrett, Scott, Environment and Statecraft: The Strategy of Environmental Treaty-Making, Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York 2003Google Scholar
  6. Bartels, Lorand, “Article XX of GATT and the Problem of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction”, 36(2) Journal of World Trade (2002) 353-403Google Scholar
  7. Bartels, Lorand, “ The Chapeau of the General Exceptions in the WTO, GATT and GATS Agreements: a Reconstruction”, 109 American Journal of International Law (2015) 95-125Google Scholar
  8. Bhagwati, Jagdish, “Trade and the Environment: The False Conflict?” in Durwood Zaelke et al. (eds), Trade and the Environment: Law, Economics, and Policy, Vol. 1, Island Press, Washington D.C. 1993, 159-223Google Scholar
  9. Bhagwati, Jagdish, In Defense of Globalization, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2004Google Scholar
  10. Bierman, Frank, “The Rising Tide of Green Unilateralism in World Trade Law, Options for Reconciling the Emerging North-South Conflict”, 35(3) Journal of World Trade (2001) 421-448Google Scholar
  11. Birnie, Patricia/Boyle, Alan/Redgwell, Catherine, International Law and the Environment, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford 2009Google Scholar
  12. Bodansky, Daniel, “What’s So Bad about Unilateral Action to Protect the Environment?”, 11(2) European Journal of International Law (2000) 339-347Google Scholar
  13. Bodansky, Daniel, “Legitimacy”, in Daniel Bodansky et al. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2007, 704-723Google Scholar
  14. Boisson de Chazournes, Laurence, “Unilateralism and Environmental Protection: Issues of Perception and Reality of Issues”, 11(2) European Journal of International Law (2000) 315-338Google Scholar
  15. Bown, Chad P./Trachtman, Joel P., “Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreated Tyres: A Balancing Act”, 8(1) World Trade Review (2009) 85-135Google Scholar
  16. Chambers, Paul/Kohn, Robert, “Environmental Barriers to Trade: The Case of Endangered Sea Turtles”, 9(1) Review of International Economics (2001) 123-132Google Scholar
  17. Chang, Howard F., “An Economic Analysis of Trade Measures to Protect the Global Environment”, 83 Georgetown Law Journal (1995) 2131-2213Google Scholar
  18. Chang, Howard F., “Towards a Greener GATT: Environmental Trade Measures and the Shrimp-Turtle Case”, 74 Southern California Law Review (2000) 31-48Google Scholar
  19. Chang, Howard F., “Environmental Trade Measures, the Shrimp – Turtle Rulings and the Ordinary Meaning of the Text of the GATT”, 8 Chapman Law Review (2005) 25-51Google Scholar
  20. Charnovitz, Steve, “Environmental Trade Sanctions and the GATT: An analysis of the Pelly Amendment on Foreign Environmental Practices”, 9(3) American University Journal of International Law and Policy (1994) 751-807 [cit. Charnovitz (1994b)]Google Scholar
  21. Charnovitz, Steve, “Free Trade, Fair Trade, Green Trade: Defogging the Debate”, 27 Cornell International Law Journal (1994) 459-525 [cit. Charnovitz (1994c)]Google Scholar
  22. Charnovitz, Steve, “The Law of Environmental ‘PPMs’ in the WTO: Debunking the Myth of Illegality”, 27(1) Yale Journal of International Law (2002) 59-110Google Scholar
  23. Charnovitz, Steve, “The WTO’s Environmental Progress”, 10(3) Journal of International Economic Law (2007) 685-706Google Scholar
  24. Chi, Manjiao, “‘Exhaustible Natural Resource’ in WTO Law: GATT Article XX(g) Disputes and Their Implications”, 48(5) Journal of World Trade (2014) 939-966Google Scholar
  25. Condon, Bradly J., Environmental Sovereignty and the WTO: Trade Sanctions and International Law, Transnational Publishers, Ardsley 2006Google Scholar
  26. Condon, Bradly J., “Climate Change and Unresolved Issues in WTO Law”, 12(4) Journal of International Economic Law (2009) 895-926Google Scholar
  27. Conrad, Christiane R., Processes and Production Methods (PPMs) in WTO law: Interfacing Trade and Social Goals, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2011Google Scholar
  28. Cooreman, Barbara, Global Environmental Protection Through Trade: A Systematic Approach to Extraterritoriality, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham 2017Google Scholar
  29. Conconi, Paola/Voon, Tania, “EC – Seal Products: The Tension between Public Morals and International Trade Agreements” 15(2) World Trade Review (2016) 211-234Google Scholar
  30. Cosbey, Aaron, Border Carbon Adjustment, Trade and Climate Change Seminar, June 18-20 June 2008, Copenhagen, Denmark (https://www.iisd.org/pdf/2008/cph_trade_climate_border_carbon.pdf)
  31. Desmedt, Axel, “Proportionnality in WTO Law”, 4(3) Journal of International Economic Law (2001) 441-480Google Scholar
  32. Dunoff, Jeffrey L., “Reconciling International Trade with Preservation of the Global Commons: Can We Prosper and Protect?”, 49 Washington & Lee Law Review (1992) 1407-1454Google Scholar
  33. Dupuy, Pierre-Marie, “The Place and Role of Unilateralism in Contemporary International Law”, 11(1) European Journal of International Law (2000) 19-29Google Scholar
  34. Esty, Daniel, Greening the GATT: Trade, Environment and the Future, Institute for International Economics, Washington DC 1994Google Scholar
  35. Farber, Daniel A., “Stretching the Margins: The Geographic Nexus in Environmental Law”, 48 Stanford Law Review (1996) 1247-1278Google Scholar
  36. Freeman, A. Myrick III, The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods, 2nd ed., Resources for the Future, Washington D.C. 2003Google Scholar
  37. Gaines, Sanford, “The WTO’s Reading of GATT Article XX Chapeau: A Disguised Restriction on Environmental Measures”, 22 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law (2001), 739-862Google Scholar
  38. Gaines, Sanford, “Processes and Production Methods: How to Produce Sound Policy for Environmental PPM-Based Trade Measures?”, 27 Columbia Journal of Environmental Law (2002) 383-432Google Scholar
  39. Guzman, Andew T./Pauwelyn, Joost, International Trade Law, 3rd ed., Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, New York 2016Google Scholar
  40. Hakimi, Monica, “Unfriendly Unilateralism”, 55(1) Harvard International Law Journal (2014) 105-150Google Scholar
  41. Hertel, Michael, “Climate-Change-Related Trade Measures and Article XX: Defining Discrimination in Light of the Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities”, 45(3) Journal of World Trade (2011) 653-678Google Scholar
  42. Herwig, Alexia, “Too Much Zeal on Seals? Animal Welfare, Public Morals, and Consumer Ethics at the Bar of the WTO” 15(1) World Trade Review (2016) 109-137Google Scholar
  43. Hilf, Meinhard, “Power, Rules and Principles – Which Orientation for WTO/GATT Law”, 4(1) Journal of International Economic Law (2001) 111-130Google Scholar
  44. Honkonen, Tuula, The Common but Differentiated Responsibility Principle in Multilateral Environmental Agreements: Regulatory and Policy Aspects, Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn 2009Google Scholar
  45. Horn, Henrik/Mavroidis, Petros C., “The Permissible Reach of National Environmental Policies”, 42(6) Journal of World Trade (2008) 1107-1178Google Scholar
  46. Howse, Robert, “The Appellate Body Rulings in the Shrimp/Turtle Case: A New Legal Baseline for the Trade and Environment Debate”, 27 Columbia Journal of Environmental Law (2002) 491-521Google Scholar
  47. Howse, Robert/Regan, Donald, “The Product/Process Distinction – An Illusory Basis for Disciplining ‘Unilateralism’ in Trade Policy”, 11(2) European Journal of International Law (2000) 249-289Google Scholar
  48. Howse, Robert/Tuerk, Elisabeth, “The WTO Impact on Internal Regulations – A Case Study of the Canada – EC Asbestos Dispute”, in Grainne De Burca and Joanne Scott (eds), The EU and the WTO: Legal and Constitutional Issues, Hart Publishing, Oxford 2001Google Scholar
  49. Hufbauer, Gary Clyde/Charnovitz, Steve/Kim, Jisun, Global Warming and the World Trading System, Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington D.C. 2009Google Scholar
  50. Jansen, Bernhard, “The Limits of Unilateralism from a European Perspective”, 11(2) European Journal of International Law (2000) 309-313Google Scholar
  51. Lester, Simon, World Trade Law : Text, Materials and Commentary, 2nd ed., Hart Publishing, Oxford 2012Google Scholar
  52. Levy, Philip/Regan, Donald, “EC – Seal Products: Seals and Sensibilities (TBT Aspects of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports)”, 14(2) World Trade Review (2015) 337-379Google Scholar
  53. Luff, David, Le droit de l’organisation mondiale du commerce: analyse critique, Bruylant/L.G.D.J., Bruxelles/Paris 2004Google Scholar
  54. Machado Filho, Haroldo, The Principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and the Climate Change Regime, PhD Thesis, Geneva 2008Google Scholar
  55. Marceau, Gabrielle, “WTO Dispute Settlement and Human Rights”, 13(4) European Journal of International Law (2002) 753-814Google Scholar
  56. Mavroidis, Petros C., The Regulation of International Trade, Volume 1: GATT, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA/London 2016 (cit. Mavroidis [2016a])Google Scholar
  57. Mavroidis, Petros C., Trade in Goods: The GATT and the Other Agreements Regulating Trade in Goods, Oxford University Press, 2008 (cit. Mavroidis [2008b])Google Scholar
  58. Mavroidis, Petros C./Bermann, George A./Wu, Mark, The Law of the World Trade Organization (WTO), West, St-Paul 2010Google Scholar
  59. McGinnis, John O./Movsesian, Mark L., “The World Trade Constitution”, 45 Harvard Law Review (2000) 511-605Google Scholar
  60. Nadakavukaren Schefer, Krista, Social Regulation in the WTO: Trade Policy and International Legal Development, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton 2010Google Scholar
  61. Neumann, Jan/Tuerk, Elisabeth, “Necessity Revisited: Proportionality in World Trade Organization Law After Korea – Beef, EC – Asbestos and EC – Sardines”, 37(1) Journal of World Trade (2003) 199-233Google Scholar
  62. Nielsen, Laura, The WTO, Animals and PPMs, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston 2007Google Scholar
  63. O’Brien, Julia, “The Equity of Levelling the Playing Field in the Climate Change Context”, 43(5) Journal of World Trade (2009) 1093-1114Google Scholar
  64. Pauwelyn, Joost, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How WTO Law Relates to Other Rules of International Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2003 [cit. Pauwelyn (2003a)]Google Scholar
  65. Pauwelyn, Joost, “How to Win a World Trade Organization Dispute Based on Non-World Trade Organization Law? Questions of Jurisdiction and Merits”, 37(6) Journal of World Trade (2003) 997-1030 [cit. Pauwelyn (2003b)]Google Scholar
  66. Pauwelyn, Joost, “Recent Books on Trade an Environment: GATT Phantoms Still Haunt the WTO”, 15(3) European Journal of International Law (2004) 575-592Google Scholar
  67. Pauwelyn, Joost, U.S. Federal Climate Policy and Competitiveness Concerns: The Limits and Options of International Trade Law, Working Paper, Nicolas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University, 2007Google Scholar
  68. Perrez, Franz Xaver, Cooperative Sovereignty: From Independence to Interdependence in the Structure of International Environmental Law, Kluwer Law International, The Hague 2000Google Scholar
  69. Prost, Mario, D’abord les moyens, les besoins viendront après: commerce et environnement dans la jurisprudence du GATT et de l’OMC, Bruylant, Bruxelles 2005Google Scholar
  70. Puth, Sebastian, WTO und Umwelt: Die Produkt-Prozess Doktrin, Ducker & Humblot, Berlin 2004Google Scholar
  71. Qin, Julia, “Accomodating Divergent Policy Objectives under WTO Law: Reflecting on EC – Seal ProductsAJIL Unbound 2015Google Scholar
  72. Regan, Donald, “Measures with Multiple Purposes: Puzzles from EC – Seal ProductsAJIL Unbound (2015)Google Scholar
  73. Regan, Donald, “The Meaning of ‘Necessary’ in GATT Article XX and GATS Article XIV: The Myth of Cost-Benefit Balancing, 6(3) World Trade Review (2007) 347-369Google Scholar
  74. Sands, Philippe, “‘Unilateralism’, Values and International Law”, 11(2) European Journal of International Law (2000) 291-302Google Scholar
  75. Sands, Philippe, Principles of International Environmental Law, 3rd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2012Google Scholar
  76. Schoenbaum, Thomas J., “International Trade and Protection of the Environment: The Continuing Search for Reconciliation”, 91(2) American Journal of International Law (1997) 268-313Google Scholar
  77. Schoenbaum, Thomas J., “The Decision in the Shrimp – Turtle Case”, 9(1) Yearbook of International Environmental Law (1998), 36-39Google Scholar
  78. Stern, Brigitte, “United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products. Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Malaysia”, in Brigitte Stern and Ruiz Fabri (eds), La jurisprudence de l’OMC/The Case Law of the WTO, 1998-2, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston 2006, 106-151Google Scholar
  79. Stern, Nicholas, The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007Google Scholar
  80. Sykes, Alan, “The Least Restrictive Means”, 70(1) University of Chicago Law Review (2003), 403-419Google Scholar
  81. Trachtman, Joel, “The Domain of Dispute Resolution”, 40(2) Harvard International Law Journal (1999) 333-377Google Scholar
  82. Trebilcock, Michael/Howse, Robert/Eliason, Antonia, The Regulation of International Trade, 4th ed., Routledge, London, New York, 2013 [cit. Trebilcock/Howse (2013)]Google Scholar
  83. Voon, Tania, “Exploring the Meaning of Trade-Restrictiveness in the WTO”, 14(3) World Trade Review (2015) 451-477Google Scholar
  84. Vranes, Erich, Trade and the Environment: Fundamental Issues in International Law, WTO Law and Legal Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2009Google Scholar
  85. Wiers, Jochem-Jurrian Derk, Trade and Environment in the EC and the WTO: A Legal Analysis, Europa Law Publishing, Groningen 2002Google Scholar
  86. Young, Margaret, “Trade Measures to Address Environmental Concerns in Faraway Places: Jurisdictional Issues” 23(3) RECIEL (2014) 302-317Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Sifonios
    • 1
  1. 1.University of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations