Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T10:40:02.838Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

US – Shrimp: United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products: Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Malaysia*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2015

Robert Howse  and
Damien J. Neven
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This study discusses the ruling of the Appellate Body (AB) in the recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Malaysia in the context of the US import prohibition of certain shrimp and shrimp products from a legal and economic perspective. The first part of the chapter (section 2) discusses the background of the case, and, in particular, presents the main issues at stake in the Panel and AB decisions in the original case as well as their main findings. Section 3 discusses the key elements of the compliance panel and its subsequent appeal and identifies a few issues that are discussed in further detail. In section 4, in the context of a simple model, we first consider the consequences of making imports contingent on the adoption of environmental measures in exporting countries. We find that the attractiveness of such measures depends heavily on the characteristics of abatement technology and the range of policies available in the exporting countries. Finally, section 5 briefly discusses the trade-off between flexibility in the imposition of environmental standards and the enforcement of dispute settlements’ rulings.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 2 , Special Issue S1: WTO Case Law of 2001 , 2003 , pp. 41 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2003

References

Anderson, K. (2002), Peculiarities of retaliation in WTO dispute settlement, World Trade Review, 1(2), July.Google Scholar
Bhagwati, J. (2001).Google Scholar
Chang, H. (1997), Carrots, sticks and international externalities, International Review of Law and Economics, 17, 309–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howse, R. (2002), The Appellate body rulings in the Shrimp/turtle case: a new legal baseline for the trade and environment debate, Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 27(2), 491–521.Google Scholar
Howse, R. and Regan, D (2000). The Product/Process Distinction - An Illusory Basis for Disciplining “Unilateralism” in Trade Policy, European Journal of International Law, 11(1), 249–283.Google Scholar
Ludema, R. and Wooton, I. (1994), Cross-border externalities and trade liberalization: the strategic control of pollution, The Canadian Journal ofEconomics, 27(4), 950–966.Google Scholar
OECD (1999), Trade measures in multilateral environmental agreements, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
Revesz, R. (2000), Federalism and regulation: extrapolating from the analysis of environmental regulation in the United States, Journal of International Economic Law, 219–233.Google Scholar