Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism pp 69–82Cite as

WTO as a Self-Limited Regime: The Case of Article XX of GATT

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

A self-limited regime consists in a set of agreements with some governing principles and rules that do not exclude out of hand other rules of public international law. The World Trade Organization (WTO) panels and Appellate Body have insistently demonstrated the openness of the WTO to public international law. However, this openness is limited and by no means governs the WTO’s specific nature. WTO cannot work efficaciously as a closed regime, but the pursuit of further agreements to be applied is limited by a bias toward trade that runs through decisions of the WTO Dispute Settlement System. Of course, the interpretation of Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) is a sort of “filter” by which outside treaties are invoked but tensions with WTO logic are not acknowledged. As a result, consolidating suitable safeguards for plant, animal, and human life and natural resources becomes almost impossible within the WTO.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Commentary to Article 55 (lex specialis) of the European Commission’s (EC) draft articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts.

  2. 2.

    Case concerning the US Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (US v.Iran) “Hostages case,” ICJ Reports 1980, p. 41.

  3. 3.

    Koskenniemi (2006), para. 110.

  4. 4.

    Op. cit., para. 111.

  5. 5.

    WTO DS 290.

  6. 6.

    EC-Trademarks, Panel Report, para. 7.210.

  7. 7.

    In the first place, an interpreter inquires whether the measure figures among exceptions stipulated in Article XX; he then examines if it is necessary to meet the goal previously listed and, finally, verifies the fulfillment of the chapeau requirements, namely, the lack of arbitrary or unjustified discrimination amidst countries where the same conditions prevail or imposition of disguised restrictions to international trade.

  8. 8.

    This approach was first taken in a case called US-Tuna-Dolphin II.

  9. 9.

    WTO DS 371.

  10. 10.

    WTO DS 186.

  11. 11.

    GATT Panel Report, Thailand—Cigarettes, para. 75.

  12. 12.

    Paltrowitz (2001).

  13. 13.

    WTO DS 332.

  14. 14.

    WTO DS 246.

  15. 15.

    WTO DS 135.

  16. 16.

    WTO DS 276.

  17. 17.

    WTO DS 161.

  18. 18.

    WTO DS 58.

  19. 19.

    WTO DS 246.

  20. 20.

    Schoenbaum (1997).

  21. 21.

    US—Poultry (China), Panel Report, para. 7.481.

  22. 22.

    WTO DS 406.

  23. 23.

    WTO DS 431.

  24. 24.

    do Amaral Júnior et al. (2009), p. 209.

  25. 25.

    Condon (2002).

  26. 26.

    WTO DS 2.

  27. 27.

    US—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, AB Report, paras. 127–131.

  28. 28.

    Schoenbaum (1997).

  29. 29.

    China—Auto Parts, Panel Report, paras. 7.293–7.296.

  30. 30.

    Mexico—Taxes on Soft Drinks, AB Report, para. 69.

  31. 31.

    EC—Trademarks and Geographical Indications (US), Panel Report, para. 7.462.

  32. 32.

    Colombia—Ports of Entry, Panel Report, paras. 7.482–7.620.

  33. 33.

    US—Gambling, Panel Report, para. 6.465; US—Gambling, AB Report, para. 299.

  34. 34.

    US—Gambling, Panel Report, para. 6.461.

  35. 35.

    China—Publications and Audiovisual Products, Panel Report, para. 7.759.

  36. 36.

    China—Publications and Audiovisual Products, Panel Report, paras. 7.751–7.793.

  37. 37.

    China—Publications and Audiovisual Products, Panel Report, para. 7.817.

  38. 38.

    China—Publications and Audiovisual Products, Panel Report, para. 7.819.

  39. 39.

    China—Publications and Audiovisual Products, AB Report, paras. 243–249.

  40. 40.

    US–Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, AB Report, para. 161.

  41. 41.

    Gaines (2001).

  42. 42.

    In do Amaral Júnior (2010).

  43. 43.

    WTO DS 401.

  44. 44.

    Korea—Measures Affecting Government Procurement, Panel Report, para. 7.96.

References

  • Condon B (2002) Multilateral environmental agreements and the WTO: is the sky really falling. Tulsa J Comp Int Law 9(2):547

    Google Scholar 

  • do Amaral Júnior A (2010) Comércio Internacional e a Proteção do Meio Ambiente. Atlas, São Paulo

    Google Scholar 

  • do Amaral Júnior A et al (2009) O Artigo XX do GATT, meio ambiente e direitos humanos. São Paulo, Aduaneiras

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaines S (2001) The WTO’s reading of the GATT Article XX chapeau: a disguised restriction on environmental measures. J Int Econ Law 22(4):778. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=301404. Accessed on 16 Feb 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • http://www.icj-cij.org/en

  • http://www.wto.org

  • Koskenniemi M (13 April 2006) Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law. United Nations Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission (ILC). A/CN.4/L.682

    Google Scholar 

  • Paltrowitz JH (2001) A “greening” of the World Trade Organization? A case comment on the Asbestos report. Brooklyn J Int Law 26(4):1789–1838

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenbaum TJ (1997) International trade and protection of the environment: the continuing search for reconciliation. Am J Int Law 91(2):268–313. https://doi.org/10.2307/2954212. Published by: Cambridge University Press

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of São Paulo Law School, International and Compared Law, São Paulo, Brazil

    Alberto do Amaral Júnior

  2. Fundação Getulio Vargas, São Paulo, Brazil

    Cynthia Kramer

Authors
  1. Alberto do Amaral Júnior
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cynthia Kramer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. International and Compared Law, University of São Paulo Law School, São Paulo, Brazil

    Alberto do Amaral Júnior

  2. University of São Paulo Law School, São Paulo, Brazil

    Luciana Maria de Oliveira Sá Pires

  3. International Relations Institute, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Cristiane Lucena Carneiro

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Amaral Júnior, A.d., Kramer, C. (2019). WTO as a Self-Limited Regime: The Case of Article XX of GATT. In: do Amaral Júnior, A., de Oliveira Sá Pires, L.M., Lucena Carneiro, C. (eds) The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03263-0_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03263-0_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03262-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03263-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation