Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

WTO Case Law on TBT and SPS: It Is Time to Review Some Concepts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism

  • 1291 Accesses

Abstract

Import tariffs are at the lowest level in history. Consequently, nontariff measures to trade are on the rise, and many of them have been pointed out as “protectionist measures in disguise” for promoting nontrade interests such as human, animal, or plant life and/or health and the environment, which makes them a very effective tool for creating regulatory barriers to trade. First, we will address the basic concepts enshrined in the WTO agreements on TBT and SPS that have been examined by the Panel and the Appellate Body on the MFN and national treatment principles. Second, we will review the WTO case law on the test of necessity, process and production methods (PPMs), and the concept of when measures are obstacles to international trade. Finally, we will address the work of the WTO committees on TBT and SPS agreements, which have become an important forum to discuss such measures between Members, having relevant conciliatory activity, which impacts the number of disputes in the WTO.

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

Access this chapter

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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Griffin (2000).

  2. 2.

    Marceau and Trachtman (2014), p. 355.

  3. 3.

    Marceau and Trachtman (2014), pp. 352–356. ‘During the Uruguay Round negotiations the concept of a single undertaking was widely used. It refers to two different concepts: the ‘single political undertaking’, referred to the method of negotiations (‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’, which was not inconsistent with the possibility of early implementation (early harvest)); and the ‘single legal undertaking’ which refers to the notion that the results of the negotiations would form a ‘single package’ to be implemented as one single treaty’. Both concepts are reflected in the Part I:B (ii) of the Uruguay Round Declaration: ‘The launching, the conduct and the implementation of the outcome of the negotiations shall be treated as parts of a single undertaking. However, agreements reached at an early stage may be implemented on a provisional or a definitive basis by agreement prior to the formal conclusion of the negotiations. Early agreements shall be taken into account in assessing the overall balance of the negotiations’.

  4. 4.

    Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes (‘US – Clove Cigarettes’), WT/DS406/AB/R (4 Apr. 2012), paras. 94–95.

  5. 5.

    Marceau and Trachtman (2014), p. 415.

  6. 6.

    TBT Agreement, Preamble, Article 1.6, Annex 1.1, 1.2, 1.3.

  7. 7.

    The WTO Agreements Series, Technical Barriers to Trade (2014b), p. 15.

  8. 8.

    The WTO Agreements Series, Technical Barriers to Trade (2014b), p. 15.

  9. 9.

    Article 1 and Annex A—1.

  10. 10.

    Article 1.4.

  11. 11.

    WTO, Technical Information on Technical barriers to trade (2014a).

  12. 12.

    WTO, Understanding the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (1998).

  13. 13.

    WTO, Understanding the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (1998).

  14. 14.

    Horn et al. (2013), p. 3.

  15. 15.

    Horn et al. (2013), p. 19.

  16. 16.

    The WTO Agreements Series, Technical Barriers to Trade (2014b), p. 12.

  17. 17.

    The WTO Agreements Series, Technical Barriers to Trade (2014b), p. 12.

  18. 18.

    Panel Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products (‘EC – Biotech’), WT/DS291/R, WT/DS292/R, WT/DS293/R (29 Sep. 2006).

  19. 19.

    Panel Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products (‘EC – Biotech’), WT/DS291/R, WT/DS292/R, WT/DS293/R (29 Sep. 2006), para. 7.165–7.166.

  20. 20.

    VCLT, Article 31.1.

  21. 21.

    Marceau and Trachtman (2014), p. 364.

  22. 22.

    Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes (‘US – Clove Cigarettes’), WT/DS406/AB/R (4 Apr. 2012), para. 179–182.

  23. 23.

    Working Party Report, Border Tax Adjustments, adopted 2 Dec. 1970, BISD 18S/97.

  24. 24.

    Posner (1974).

  25. 25.

    United States – Measures concerning the importation, marketing and sale of tuna and tuna products. WT/DS381/AB/R.

  26. 26.

    United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) requirements, WT/DS384/AB/R, WT/DS386/AB/R

  27. 27.

    See Appellate Body Report, Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, 26.

  28. 28.

    Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef, WT/DS161/AB/R and WT/DS169/AB/R, 137.

  29. 29.

    Australia – Salmon (Article 21.5 DSU), WT/DS18/RW, adopted 20 Mar. 2000, para. 7.112.

  30. 30.

    Marceau and Trachtman (2014), p. 368.

  31. 31.

    Marceau and Trachtman (2014), p. 378.

  32. 32.

    Appellate Body Report, EC Asbestos, WT/DS135/AB/R; Korea – Beef, supra; Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres, WT/DS332/AB/R (3 Dec. 2007) (‘Brazil – Tyres’).

  33. 33.

    Marceau and Trachtman (2014), p. 368.

  34. 34.

    Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef, WT/DS161/AB/R and WT/DS169/AB/R, para. 163.

  35. 35.

    Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres, WT/DS332/AB/R (3 Dec. 2007) (‘Brazil – Tyres’), para. 210.

  36. 36.

    Howse and Mavroidis (2000), p. 324.

  37. 37.

    Appellate Body Report, US – COOL Requirements, WT/DS384/AB/R, para. 171.

  38. 38.

    Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes (‘US – Clove Cigarettes’), WT/DS406/AB/R (4 Apr. 2012), para. 179–182.

  39. 39.

    Appellate Body Report, Australia – Salmon, WT/DS18/AB/R, supra, para. 194.

  40. 40.

    Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, para. 214–215.

  41. 41.

    Marceau and Trachtman (2014), p. 399.

  42. 42.

    Marceau and Trachtman (2014), p. 410.

  43. 43.

    Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes (‘US – Clove Cigarettes’), WT/DS406/AB/R (4 Apr. 2012), para. 179–182.

  44. 44.

    Marceau and Trachtman (2014), p. 414.

  45. 45.

    US – Tuna II, Panel Report, para. 7.379–7.623.

  46. 46.

    US – Tuna II, AB Report, WT/DS381/AB/R, 2012, para. 333.

  47. 47.

    Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, para. 214.

  48. 48.

    Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, para. 215.

  49. 49.

    Appellate Body Report, Australia – Salmon, WT/DS18/AB/R, para. 155.

  50. 50.

    Griffin (2000).

  51. 51.

    The WTO Agreements Series, Technical Barriers to Trade (2014b), p. 24.

  52. 52.

    The WTO Agreements Series, Technical Barriers to Trade (2014b), p. 24.

  53. 53.

    National Institute of Metrology, Quality and Technology (INMETRO) was created by law in December, 1973, to support t Brazilian enterprises, to increase their productivity and the quality of goods and services.

  54. 54.

    INMETRO (2014).

  55. 55.

    While INMETRO is the TBT focal point, MAPA (Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento) is the SPS focal point, in Brazil.

  56. 56.

    World Trade Organization, The WTO Agreement Series – Technical Barriers to Trade (2014b).

  57. 57.

    Since its first meeting, Members have used the TBT Committee as a forum to discuss issues related to specific measures (technical regulations, standards or conformity assessment procedures) maintained by other Members. These are referred to as “specific trade concerns” and relate variously to proposed measures notified to the TBT Committee in accordance with the notification requirements in the Agreement, or to measures currently in force. Committee meetings, or informal discussions between Members held in the margins of such meetings, afford Members opportunity to review trade concerns in a bilateral or multilateral setting and to seek further clarification. In: WTO, G/TBT/GEN/74/Rev.9, 17 October 2011, Note by the Secretariat.

  58. 58.

    Horn et al. (2013), p. 960.

  59. 59.

    WTO Doc. G/TBT/1/Rev.10, 43.

  60. 60.

    Horn et al. (2013), p. 29.

  61. 61.

    Ibid., supra., at 2.

  62. 62.

    REACH is the European Union Regulation that governs the safe use of chemicals (EC 1907/2006). It entered into force on 1 June 2007 and deals with the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical substances (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_intro.htm). REACH was first raised in the TBT Committee in March 2003, after the first UE notification.

  63. 63.

    Horn et al. (2013), p. 8.

  64. 64.

    Horn et al. (2013), pp. 9–10.

  65. 65.

    Horn et al. (2013), pp. 19–20.

  66. 66.

    Horn et al. (2013), pp. 8–20.

References

  • Griffin R (2000) History of the development of the SPS Agreement. In: FAO Documents, Multilateral Trade negotiations on Agriculture – a resource manual, Rome, 2000. http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x7354e/x7354e01.htm. Accessed 16 June 2014

  • Horn H, Petros C, Mavroidis C, Wijkstrom EN (2013) In the shadow of the DSU: addressing specific trade concerns in the WTO SPS and TBT Committees. Research Institute of Industrial Economics, IFN working paper, n. 960, 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Howse R, Mavroidis P (2000) Europe’s evolving regulatory strategy for GMO – the issue of consistency with WTO law: of Kine and Brine. Fordham Int Law J 24:317, 324

    Google Scholar 

  • Marceau G, Trachtman JP (2014) A map of the World Trade Organization law of domestic regulation of goods: the technical barriers to trade agreement, the sanitary and phytosanitary measures agreement, and the general agreement on tariffs and trade. J World Trade 48(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner RA (1974) Theories of economic regulation. Center for Economic Analysis of Human Behavior and Social Institutions. National Bureau of Economic Research Inc, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • World Trade Organization (1998) Understanding the WTO agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures. http://wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/spsund_e.htm. Accessed 18 June 2014

  • World Trade Organization (2014a) Technical information on technical barriers to trade. http://wto.org/english/tratop_e/tbt_e/tbt_info_e.htm. Accessed 18 June 2014

  • World Trade Organization (2014b) The WTO Agreements Series, Technical Barriers to Trade

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. São Paulo School of Economics of Fundação Getulio Vargas (EESP-FGV), São Paulo, Brazil

    Vera Thorstensen

  2. Center for Global Trade and Investments Studies (CGTI), São Paulo, Brazil

    Vera Thorstensen

  3. WTO Chair, São Paulo, Brazil

    Vera Thorstensen

  4. International Economic Law and the Environment, Catholic University of Santos, São Paulo, Brazil

    Andreia Costa Vieira

  5. DEIMA Group, São Paulo, Brazil

    Andreia Costa Vieira

  6. ACV International Law Institute, São Paulo, Brazil

    Andreia Costa Vieira

Authors
  1. Vera Thorstensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andreia Costa Vieira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreia Costa Vieira .

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

Thorstensen, V., Costa Vieira, A. (2019). WTO Case Law on TBT and SPS: It Is Time to Review Some Concepts. 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_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03263-0_8

  • 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