Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T12:20:07.673Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Treatment No Less Favorable’ and the Future of National Treatment Obligation in GATT Article III:4 after EC–Seal Products

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2015

MING DU
MING DU*
Affiliation:
Lancaster University Law School
*
*Reader in Law. Email: Michael.mingdu@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The national treatment (NT) obligation embodied in Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 has been long marked by legal indeterminacy. Recently, the WTO Appellate Body has shed some fresh light on how the NT obligation should be interpreted in EC–Seal Products. The Appellate Body's report on EC–Seal Products and other recent developments in WTO case law have fundamentally reshaped our collective understanding of the NT obligation. The purpose of this article is to take stock of what we have known about the NT obligation in GATT Article III:4 after EC–Seal Products, as well as identifying some lingering uncertainties. This paper argues that the boundary of the NT obligation in GATT Article III:4 will be largely determined by how the Appellate Body deals with three big issues identified in this article in future disputes.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 139 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © Ming Du 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 Broude, Tomer and Levy, Philip I., ‘Do you Mind if I do not Smoke? Products, Purpose and Indeterminacy in US – Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes ’, 13 (2) World Trade Review 357 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 368; Diebold, Nicolas F., ‘Standards of Non-Discrimination in International Economic Law’, 60 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 831 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 832‒833; Lester, Simon, ‘Finding the Boundaries of International Economic Law’, 17 (1) Journal of International Economic Law 3 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 9.

2 DiMascio, Nicolas and Pauwelyn, Joost, ‘Nondiscrimination in Trade and Investment Treaties: Worlds apart or Two Sides of the Same Coin’, 102 American Journal of International Law 48 (2008)Google Scholar, at 58‒59.

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

4 WTO Appellate Body Report, Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the Importation and Internal Sale of Cigarettes (Dominican Republic–Import and Sale of Cigarettes), WT/DS302/AB/R, adopted 19 May 2005.

5 WTO Appellate Body Report, Thailand – Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the Philippines (Thailand–Cigarettes), WT/DS371/AB/R, adopted 15 July 2011.

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

7 Immediately after the Appellate Body Report on EC–Seal Products was released in May 2014, there was a lively discussion of the Appellate Body's interpretation of the national treatment obligation in the dispute at International Economic Law and Policy Blog. See Robert Howse, ‘The WTO Appellate Body Ruling in Seals: National Treatment Article III:4’, http://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/2014/05/the-wto-appellate-body-ruling-in-seals-national-treatment-article-iii4.html (23 May 2014); Simon Lester, ‘Let's Put the AB's New Article III:4 Test to a Test’, http://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/2014/05/lets-put-the-abs-new-article-iii4-test-to-the-test.html (25 May 2014).

8 WTO Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products (EC‒Asbestos), WT/DS135/AB/R, adopted 5 April 2001, para. 93.

9 See, for example, Gene M. Grossman, Henrik Horn, and Petros C. Mavroidis, ‘Legal and Economic Principles of World Trade Law: National Treatment’, IFN Working Paper No. 917 (2012).

10 WTO Appellate Body Report, Philippines – Taxes on Distilled Spirits (Philippines–Distilled Spirits), WT/DS396/AB/R, adopted 20 January 2012.

11 See generally Choi, Won-Mog, ‘Like Products’ in International Trade Law: Towards a Consistent GATT/WTO Jurisprudence (Oxford University Press, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Broude and Levy, supra n. 1, 378‒381; Damien Neven and Joel P. Trachtman, Philippines – Taxes on Distilled Spirits: Like Products and Market Definition, 12 (2) World Trade Review 297 (2013), 297‒326; Lydgate, Emily Barrett, ‘Consumer Preferences and the National Treatment Principle: Emerging Environmental Regulations Prompt a New Look at an Old Problem’, 10 (2) World Trade Review 165 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Iacovides, Marios C., ‘Minority Consumers, Marginalized Economics: Whose Tastes and Habits should the WTO Panels and the Appellate Body Consider when Assessing “Likeness”?’ 48 (2) Journal of World Trade 323 (2014)Google Scholar.

12 Pauwelyn, Joost, ‘The Unbearable Lightness of Likeness’ in Panizzon, Marion, Pohl, Nicole, and Sauve, Pierre (eds.), GATS and the Regulation of International Trade in Services (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)Google Scholar, at 366‒367; Ehring, Lothar, ‘De Facto Discrimination in World Trade Law: National and Most-Favored-Nation Treatment- or Equal Treatment?’ 36 (5) Journal of World Trade 921 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 944.

13 GATT Panel Report, United States Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, L/6439, adopted 7 November 1989, BISD 36S/345, para. 5.11.

14 WTO Panel Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef, WT/DS161/R, WT/DS169/R, adopted 10 January 2001, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS161/AB/R, para. 627.

15 WTO Appellate Body Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef, WT/DS161/AB/R, adopted 10 January 2001, paras. 137‒144.

16 Ibid., para. 137.

17 Appellate Body Report, Thailand–Cigarettes, supra n. 5, para. 130.

18 Ibid., para. 133.

19 Ibid., para. 130 and 134.

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid., para. 133.

22 Ibid., paras. 139‒140.

23 Ibid., para. 134.

24 Appellate Body Report, EC–Seal Products, supra n. 3, para. 5.105.

25 Ehring, supra n. 12, at 924.

26 Appellate Body Report, US–Clove Cigarettes, supra n. 6, para. 185.

27 Ibid., para. 191.

28 Ibid., paras. 193 and 194.

29 Ibid., paras. 197–198.

30 Ibid., para. 200.

31 Du, Michael Ming, ‘The Rise of National Regulatory Autonomy in the GATT/WTO Regime’, 14 (3) Journal of International Economic Law 639 (2011), 655–664 Google Scholar.

32 Panel Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, Complaint by Ecuador, WT/DS27/R/ECU, adopted 25 September 1997, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS27/AB/R, para. 7.249.

33 Appellate Body Report, EC–Bananas III, WT/DS27/AB/R, adopted 25 September 1997, para. 216.

34 Michael J. Trebilcock and Shiva K. Giri, ‘The National Treatment Principle in International Trade Law’ (2003) American Law & Economics Association Annual Meetings Papers, at 36, http://econpapers.repec.org.paper/bepalecam/1007.htm.

35 Appellate Body Report, EC–Asbestos, supra n. 8, para. 93.

36 Ibid., para. 100.

37 Regan, Donald H., ‘Regulatory Purpose and “Like Products” in Article III:4 of the GATT’ in Bermann, George A. and Mavroidis, Petros C. (eds.), Trade and Human Health and Safety (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)Google Scholar, at 214.

38 Horn, Henrik and Weiler, Joseph H. H., ‘ European Communities – Measuring Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products ’, 3 (1) World Trade Review 129 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 147; Porges, Amelia and Trachman, Joel P., ‘Robert Hudec and Domestic Regulation: The Resurrection of Aim and Effects’, 37 (4) Journal of World Trade 783 (2003)Google Scholar, at 796–797.

39 Appellate Body Report, Thailand–Cigarettes, supra n. 5, para. 128.

40 Appellate Body Report, EC–Seal Products, supra n. 3, paras. 5.106–5.110.

41 Appellate Body Report, Dominican Republic–Cigarettes, supra n. 4, para. 96.

42 WTO Panel Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, WT/DS291/R, adopted 21 November 2006, para. 7.2514.

43 Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products, WT/DS381/AB/R, adopted 13 June 2012, para. 224.

44 Appellate Body Report, Dominican Republic–Cigarettes, supra n. 4, para.]. 96.

45 Ibid., footnote 372.

46 Zhou, Weihuan, ‘ US–Clove Cigarettes and US–Tuna II (Mexico): Implications for the Role of Regulatory Purpose under Article III:4 of the GATT’, 15 (4) Journal of International Economic Law 1075 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 1115.

47 Appellate Body Report, US–Clove Cigarettes, supra n. 6, footnote 372.

48 Appellate Body Report, Thailand–Cigarettes, supra n. 5, para. 134. See Section 3 below for further analysis on the genuine relationship test in the ‘treatment no less favorable’ analysis.

49 Appellate Body Report, EC–Seal Products, supra n. 3, para. 5.100.

50 Marceau, Gabrielle, ‘The New TBT Jurisprudence in US–Clove Cigarettes, US–Tuna II, and US–COOL ’, 8 (1) Asian Journal of WTO and International Health Law and Policy 1 (2014), 1–39 Google Scholar; Mavroidis, Petros C., ‘Driftin' Too Far from Shore – Why the Test for Compliance with the TBT Agreement Developed by the WTO Appellate Body is Wrong, and what should the AB have Done Instead’, 12 (3) World Trade Review 509 (2013), 509–531 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 Ibid.

52 Flett, James, ‘WTO Space for National Regulation: Requiem for a Diagonal Vector Test’, 16 (1) Journal of International Economic Law 37 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 64 and 73; Crowley, Meredith A. and Howse, Robert, ‘ Tuna–Dolphin II: A Legal and Economic Analysis of the Appellate Body Report’, 13 (2) World Trade Review 321 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Verhoosel, Gaetan, National Treatment and WTO Dispute Settlement: Adjudicating the Boundaries of Regulatory Autonomy (Hart Publishing, 2002)Google Scholar.

53 Appellate Body Report, US–Clove Cigarettes, supra n. 6, para. 100.

54 Ibid., paras. 92–96.

55 Appellate Body Report, EC–Seal Products, supra n. 3, at 5.115.

56 Appellate Body Report, US–Clove Cigarettes, supra n. 6, para. 182.

57 Ibid. Neither are these concepts part of the text of Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement. The Appellate Body used a contextual approach to tease out the meaning of ‘treatment no less favorable’ in Article 2.1 in US–Clove Cigarettes. However, no Article XX-like exception clause in the TBT Agreement weighs heavily in the Appellate Body's reasoning to introduce these concepts to Article 2.1. The TBT case law also demonstrated that the second step of ‘treatment no less favorable’ in Article 2.1 is almost identical to the chapeau test of Article XX.

58 Howse, Robert and Regan, Donald H., ‘The Product-Process Distinction: An Illusory Basis for Disciplining Unilateralism in Trade Policy’, 11(2) European Journal of International Law 249 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 266.

59 Picciotto, Sol, ‘The WTO's Appellate Body: Legal Formalism as a Legitimation of Global Governance’, 18 (3) Governance 477 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 478.

60 Zhou, Weihuan, ‘The Role of Regulatory Purpose under Article III:2 and 4 – Toward Consistency between Negotiating History and WTO Jurisprudence’, 11 (1) World Trade Review 81 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 100–102.

61 Ibid., at 106.

62 Du, supra n. 31, at 656–664.

63 Partiti, Enrico, ‘The Appellate Body Report in US–Tuna II and Its Impact on Eco-Labelling and Standardization’, 40 (1) Legal Issues of Economic Integration 73 (2013)Google Scholar, at 79.

64 WTO Appellate Body Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages (Japan–Alcoholic Beverages II), WT/DS8/AB/R, adopted 1 November 1996, at 24.

65 WTO Appellate Body Report, Chile – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages (Chile–Alcoholic Beverages), WT/DS87/AB/R, adopted 12 January 2000, paras. 71–72.

66 Appellate Body Report, Japan–Alcoholic Beverages II (n. 66), at 18–9;

67 Roessler, Frieder, ‘Beyond the Ostensible: A Tribute to Professor Robert Hudec's Insights on the Determination of the Likeness of Products under the National Treatment Provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade’, 37 (4) Journal of World Trade 771 (2003)Google Scholar, at 777.

68 See Ehring, supra n. 12, at 955.

69 Appellate Body Report, EC–Seal Products, supra n. 3, at 5.118.

70 Grossman, Horn and Mavroidis, supra n. 9, at 129.

71 Appellate Body Report, EC–Seal Products, supra n. 3, paras. 5.128–5.129.

72 Robert Howse, supra n. 7.

73 Appellate Body Report, EC–Seal Products, supra n. 3, at 5.127.

74 Joost Pauwelyn, ‘The Public Morals Exception after Seals – How to Keep it under Check?’ http://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/2014/05/the-public-morals-exception-after-seals-how-to-keep-it-in-check.html (27 May 2014).

75 Horn, Henrik and Weiler, J. H. H., ‘ EC–Asbestos ’ in Horn, Henrik and Mavroidis, Petros C. (eds.), The WTO Case Law of 2001 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)Google Scholar, at 31.

76 Steinberg, Richard H., ‘Judicial Lawmaking at the WTO: Discursive, Constitutional, and Political Constraints’, 98 American Journal of International Law 247 (2004), 257–267 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77 Norpoth, Johannes, ‘Mysteries of the TBT Agreement Resolved? Lessons to Learn from Climate Policies and Developing Country Exporters from Recent TBT Disputes’, 47(3) Journal of World Trade (2013) 575 Google Scholar, at 594; Meltzer, Joshua, ‘The WTO Ruling on US Country of Origin Labeling (“COOL”)’, 16 (23) ASIL Insight (2012)Google Scholar.

78 Carlone, Jonathan, ‘An Added Exception to the TBT Agreement after Clove, Tuna II and Cool’, 37 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 103 (2014)Google Scholar, at 136.

79 Joost Pauwelyn, ‘Cool…but what is Left now for TBT Art. 2.2?’, http://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/2012/07/cool-but-what-is-left-now-of-tbt-art-22.html (03 July 2012).

80 Flett, supra n. 53, at 63; McGrady, Benn, Trade and Public Health: The WTO, Tobacco, Alcohol, and Diet (Cambridge University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 167; Zhou, supra n. 47, at 1120.

81 Howse, Rob, Langille, Joanna, and Sykes, Katie, ‘Sealing the Deal: the WTO Appellate Body's Report in EC–Seal Products ’, 18 (12) ASIL Insights, June 2014 Google Scholar.

82 Ibid.

83 Appellate Body Report, Thailand–Cigarettes, supra n. 5, para. 134.

84 Appellate Body Report, EC–Seal Products, supra n. 3, para. 5.105.

85 Appellate Body Report, Dominican Republic–Cigarettes, supra n. 4, para. 98.

86 Appellate Body Report, EC‒Seal Products, supra n. 3, para. 5.336.

87 Lydgate, supra n. 11, at 185.

88 I thank one anonymous reviewer for pointing out this point.

89 R v. White [1910] 2 KB 124.

90 Howse, supra n. 7.

91 Appellate Body Report, Dominican Republic–Cigarettes, supra n. 4, para. 97.

92 Ibid., para. 71.

93 Ibid.

94 Appellate Body Report, Thailand–Cigarettes, supra n. 4, para. 130 and 134.

95 Appellate Body Report, Japan–Alcoholic Beverages II, supra n. 66, at 28–29; Appellate Body Report, Philippines–Distilled Spirits, supra n. 10, para. 190.

96 Ibid., 18–9; Panel Report, Argentina–Measures Affecting the Export of Bovine Hides and Import of Finished Leather, WT/DS155/R, adopted 16 February 2001, paras. 11.132–138. Horn, Henrik and Mavroidis, Petros C., ‘Still Hazy after All These Years: The Interpretation of National Treatment in the GATT/WTO Case Law on Tax Discrimination’, 15 European Journal of International Law 39 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 48.

97 Appellate Body Report, Japan–Alcoholic Beverages II, supra n. 66, at 24.

98 Ibid., at 27–28.

99 Ibid., at 29.

100 Appellate Body Report, Chile–Alcoholic Beverages, supra n. 67, para. 71.

101 Ibid., para. 72.

102 Regan, Donald, ‘Further Thoughts on the Role of Regulatory Purpose under Article III of the GATT’, 37 (4) Journal of World Trade 737 (2003)Google Scholar, at 740.

103 Appellate Body Report, Thailand–Cigarettes, supra n. 4, para. 130 and 134.

104 Hudec, Robert E., ‘GATT/WTO Constraints on National Regulation: Requiem for an “Aim and Effects” Test’, 32 International Lawyer 619 (1998)Google Scholar, at 634–635.

105 Howse, Langille, and Sykes, supra n. 83.

106 Vranes, Erich, Trade and the Environment: Fundamental Issues in International Law, WTO Law and Legal Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2009), 200–215 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

107 Appellate Body Report, EC–Asbestos, supra n. 8, para. 99.

108 Howse, Robert and Turk, Elisabeth, ‘The WTO Impact on Internal Regulations: A Case Study of the Canada–EC Asbestos Dispute’ in Bermann, George A. and Mavroidis, Petros C. (eds.), Trade and Human Health and Safety (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)Google Scholar, at 89.

109 Erich Vranes, ‘Climate Labelling and the WTO: The 2010 EU Eco-labelling Program as a Test Case under WTO Law’, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1444518 (9 March 2010), at 14.

110 Appellate Body Report, EC–Asbestos, supra n. 8, paras. 114 and 122.

111 Appellate Body Report, US–Clove Cigarettes, supra n. 6, para. 120.

112 Ibid.

113 Van den Bossche, Peter and Zdouc, Werner, The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization (3rd edn, Cambridge University Press, 2013)Google Scholar, at 393.

114 Du, Ming, ‘Autonomy in Setting Appropriate Level of Protection under the WTO Law: Rhetoric or Reality?’, 13 (4) Journal of International Economic Law 1077 (2010)Google Scholar, at 1100–1101.

115 Lydgate, supra n. 11, at 178.

116 Panel Report, US–Tuna II, WT/DS381/R, adopted 13 June 2012, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS/381/R, para. 7.352.

117 Partiti, supra n. 64, at 81.

118 Panel Report, US–Tuna II, supra n. 117, paras, 7.249–7.250.

119 GATT Panel Report, Japan–Customs Duties, Taxes and Labelling Practices on Imported Wines and Alcoholic Beverages, adopted on 10 November 1987, L/6216–34S/83, para. 5.7.

120 Panel Report, Japan–Alcoholic Beverages II, WT/DS/8/R, adopted 1 November 1996, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS8/AB/R, para. 6.28; Panel Report, Canada–Periodicals, WT/DS/31/R, adopted 30 July 1997, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS31/AB/R, para. 5.22.

121 Lydgate, supra n. 11, at 185.

122 Ibid., at 186.

123 Mavroidis, Petros C., Trade in Goods (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2012)Google Scholar, at 233.