|
After the creation of WTO, the Dispute Settlement Body was challenged by Shrimp-Turtle case, which was remarkably similar to the tuna-dolphin cases in most aspects such as the import ban imposed under unilateral regulation, the inappropriate harvesting method and the killing valued species, but one important difference was that the sea turtles, unlike dolphins, have long been recognized internationally as an endangered species under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna. The complainants pointed the Tuna-Dolphin cases as precedents that supported a ruling against US. The AB issued its decision on October 12, 1998. It ruled once again against US measure at issue but grant a victory to the environmental interests. It held that trade restrictions based on production process methods could be used for purpose of environmental protection. This doctrine overturned the Tuan-Dolphin principle. Further, it suggested that trade barriers could be applied to protect natural resources including species outside a territory of state. Furthermore, it ruled that the WTO panels could consider the briefs voluntarily submitted by interested groups. However, the AB pointed out that the reasons why the US lost the case were because the US had not done enough to pursue bilateral or multilateral approaches to conservation with the opponents before it applied its own unilateral sanctions. Although some critics did not feel satisfied, US government immediately informed the WTO that it would comply with the AB ruling. I believe US government has seized new environment-oriented principles, as the former US trade representative Charlene Barshefsky stated that the decision ‘does not suggest that we weaken our environmental laws in any respect, and we do not intend to do so’.
Even if I focused on several selected cases, the evolution of the GATT/WTO decisions is obvious to me that WTO jurisprudence has shifted from oriented free trade to trade-environment compatibility. At least the room has been opened to welcome application of international environmental laws and MEAs, the conditional unilateral measures, the participation of interested groups, the protection of any living or non-living resource, and environment-friendly process of production. This progress has no doubt constructed considerable merit for making decisions in the future cases.
4. Can the WTO regime work independently?
I present a hypotheses that the WTO regime is good enough to dealing the trade-environment conflict, provided that the WTO can settle the disputes legitimately without any other reference and without being subject to any political pressure. In other words, if the democracy and the legitimacy arise from the WTO regime independently, it is fair to say that the WTO is adequately able to reconcile the trade-environment conflicts.
|
