Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T06:11:40.913Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What is a “Technical Regulation” in the TBT Agreement?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ming Du
Ming Du*
Affiliation:
Lancaster University – School of Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One important issue arising from EC–Seal Products is what constitutes a technical regulation in the TBT Agreement. This article argues that the Appellate Body's analytical approach to this issue has led to an arbitrary conclusion in EC–Seal Products. The article further examines to what extent PPMs, especially Non–product–related PPMs, are covered by the TBT Agreement. The article concludes that an important question to be answered is what special characteristics of a technical regulation distinguish it from other regulations and make it subject to more detailed obligations in the TBT Agreement.

Type
Symposium on the EU–Seal Products Case
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 396 - 404
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 United States – Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes (US – Clove Cigarettes), Report of the Appellate Body, WTO Doc. WT/DS406/AB/R, 24 April 2012, at para 91.

2 Ibid, para 100.

3 European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos–Containing Products , Report of the Appellate Body, WTO Doc. WT/DS135/AB/R, 5 April 2001, at para 77.

4 Ibid,at para 80. For a detailed analysis of how the TBT Agreement is different from and additional to the GATT 1994, see Ming Du, “Domestic Regulatory Autonomy under the TBT Agreement: From Non–discrimination to Harmonization”, 6 Chinese Journal of International Law (2007), pp. 269 et sqq., at p. 278.

5 Barcelo III, John J., “Product Standards to Protect the Local Environment- the GATT and the Uruguay Round Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement”, 27 Cornell International Law Journal (1995), pp. 755 et sqq., at p. 761;Google Scholar Esty, Daniel C., Greening the GATT: Trade, Environment, and the Future (Washington DC: Institute for International Economics, 1994), at p. 45.Google Scholar

6 Article 2.2 provides: ‘Members shall ensure that technical regulations are not prepared, adopted or applied with a view to or with the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade. For this purpose, technical regulations shall not be more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective, taking account of the risks non–fulfillment would create’.

7 Neumann, Jan and Turk, Elisabeth, “Necessity Revisited: Proportionality in World Trade Organization Law after Korea – Beef, EC – Asbestos and EC – Sardines ”, 37 Journal of World Trade (2003), pp. 199 et sqq., at p. 217.Google Scholar

8 EC–Asbestos, supra note 3, paras 66-70. It should be noted that in EC– Asbestos, the phrase ‘their related processes and production methods (PPMs)’ were not at issue. To what extent PPMs are covered in the definition of technical regulation is discussed in part III.

9 Emily S. Fuller, Alan Yanovich, Sally S. Laing and Stephen S. Kho, “Refining What Qualifies as WTO Technical Regulation”, 30 July 2014, available on the internet at <http://www.law360.com/articles/561813/refining-what-qualifies-as-wto-technical-regulation> (last accessed on 5 May 2015).

10 Pauwelyn, Joost, “Non-Traditional Patterns of Global Regulation: Is the WTO ‘Missing the Boat’?“ in Christian Joerges and Ernst–Ulrich Petersmann (eds), Constitutionalism, Multilevel Trade Governance and Social Regulation (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2006), pp. 199 et sqq., at p. 210.Google Scholar

11 EC–Asbestos , supra note 3, at para 67.

12 Ibid, at para 69.

13 Ibid, at para 71.

14 Ibid, at para 72.

15 Vranes, Erich, Trade and the Environment: Fundamental Issues in International Law, WTO Law, and Legal Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), at p. 291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 EC–Asbestos, supra note 3, at para 64.

17 Ibid, at para 75.

18 European Communities–Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products (EC–Seal Products), Report of the Appellate Body, WTO Doc. WT/DS400/AB/R, 18 June 2014, at para 5.25.

19 Robert Howse, “WTO Seals: What is it really that makes the AB think that TBT doesn't apply?”, 25 May 2014, available on the internet at <http://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/2014/05/wto-sealswhat-is-it-really-that-makes-the-ab-think-that-tbt-doesnt-apply.html> (last accessed on 5 May 2015) .

20 EC–Seals, supra note 18, at para 5.19.

21 Ibid, at para 5.25.

22 EC–Asbestos, supra note 3, at para 73.

23 EC–Seals, supra note 18, at paras 5.43-5.45.

24 Levy, Philip I. and Regan, Donald H., “EC – Seal Products: Seals and Sensibilities (TBT Aspects of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports)”, 14 World Trade Review (2015), pp. 337 et sqq., at p. 355CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 EC–Seals, supra note 18, at para 5.35.

26 Ibid, at para 5.58.

27 Ibid, at para 5.41.

28 Ibid, at para 5.41.

29 Ibid, at para 5.42.

30 Ibid, at para 5.254.

31 Howse, Rob, Langille, Joanna and Sykes, Katie, “Sealing the Deal: The WTO's Appellate Body Report in EC- Seal Products”, 18 (12) American Society of International Law Insights (June 4, 2014).Google Scholar

32 EC–Seals, supra note 18, at para 5.60.

33 Ibid, at para 5.67.

34 Ibid,at para 5.12.

35 Ibid, at para 5.69.

36 Vranes, Trade and the Environment, supra note 15, at p. 342.

37 Herwig, Alexia, “Too much Zeal on Seals? Animal Welfare, Public Morals and Consumer Ethics at the Bar of the WTO”, forthcoming in World Trade Review, at p. 7.Google Scholar

38 WTO Secretariat, Trade and Environment at the WTO (Geneva, 2004), at p. 17; OECD Secretariat, “Processes and Production Methods (PPMs): Conceptual Framework and Considerations on Use of PPM- Based Trade Measures” (1997) OECD/GD (97) 137, at p. 11; Conrad, Christiane R., Processes and Production Methods (PPMs) in WTO Law: Interfacing Trade and Social Goals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), at p. 381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 WTO Secretariat, “Negotiating History of the Coverage of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade with regard to Labeling Requirements, Voluntary Standards, and Processes and Production Methods Unrelated to Product Characteristics”, WTO Doc. WT/CTE/W/10, 29 August, 1995, at para 146.

40 Ibid, at para 150.

41 McDonald, Jan, “Domestic Regulation, International Standards, and Technical Barriers to Trade”, 4 World Trade Review (2005), pp. 249 et sqq., at p. 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42 Partiti, Enrico, “The Appellate Body Report in US- Tuna II and Its Impact on Eco–Labelling and Standardization”, 40 Legal Issues of Economic Integration (2013), pp. 73 et sqq., at p. 79.Google Scholar

43 Vranes, Trade and the Environment, supra note 15, at p. 342.

44 Bartenhagen, Erik P., “The Intersection of Trade and the Environment: An Examination of the Impact of the TBT Agreement on Ecolabeling Programs”, 17 Virginia Environmental Law Journal (1997), pp. 51 et sqq., at P. 74.Google Scholar

45 WTO, “Labelling and Requirements of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT): Framework for Informal Structured Discussions, Communication from Canada”, WTO Doc. WT/CTE/W/229, 23 June 2003, at para 6.

46 TBT Committee & CTE Committee, “Eco- Labelling Programmes”, WTO Doc. WT/CTE/W/23, 19 March 1996, at p. 17.

47 WTO, “Note by the Secretariat, Decisions and Recommendations Adopted by the WTO Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade Since 1 January 1995”, WTO Doc. G/TBT/1/Rev.10, 9 June 2011, at p. 22.

48 TBT Committee, “First Triennial Review of the Operation and Implementation of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade”, WTO Doc. G/TBT/5, 19 November 1997, at para12.

49 TBT Committee, “Second Triennial Review of the Operation and Implementation of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade”, WTO Doc. G/TBT/9, 13 November 2000, at para. 48.

50 Conrad, Processes and Production Methods, supra note 38, at p. 386.

51 EC-Asbestos, supra note 3, at para 67.

52 EC- Trade Marks and Geographical Indications, Report of the Panel, WTO Doc. WTO/DS290/R, 20 April 2005, at para 7.451.

53 United States – Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Product (US–Tuna II), Report of the Panel , WTO Doc. WT/DS381//R, 13 June 2012 as modified by the Appellate Body Report, at para 7.78.

54 United States – Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Product (US–Tuna II), Report of the Appellate Body, WTO Doc. WT/DS381/AB/R, 13 June 2012, at para 199. Trujillo, Elizabeth, “The WTO Appellate Body Knocks down U.S. ‘Dolphin – Safe’ Tuna Labels but Leaves a Crack for PPMs”, 16 American Society of International Law Insights (July 26, 2012).Google Scholar

55 EC–Seals, supra note 18, at para 5.60.