|
There two issues is noteworthy, first one is what can influence an MEA.
“One is the need for a clear understanding of the meaning and coverage of the term ‘environment’ in this context. The other is what constitutes a genuine ‘multilateral’ consensus in an MEA.” This is important since a broad enough consensus is likely to produce a well-balanced multilateral agreement and a robust outcome. Although there may be no simple formula that can be applied to every case, preliminary discussions on this point have indicated that negotiation of and participation in an MEA should be open on equitable terms to all countries, and that the participation of interested countries should be numerous and broad in geographical terms and in terms of countries at varying levels of development. It has been suggested that consideration might also be given to adequate representation of consumer and producer nations of the products covered by an MEA among an MEA’s signatories, or ensuring, as in commodity arrangements, that the bulk of international trade was represented by signatories.
Another one is what extent a trade measure should be specified in an MEA whether it is to be cleared under this approach. It has been pointed out that few MEAs to date include mandatory obligations for the use of specific trade measures. Even those that do, for example by directing signatories to use quantitative restrictions or import or export licensing schemes, still permit a wide range of individual discretion.
C. Tuna-Dolphin Case
In eastern tropical areas of the Pacific Ocean, schools of yellow fin tuna often swim beneath schools of dolphins. When tuna is harvested with purse seine nets, dolphins are trapped in the nets. They often die unless they are released.
The US Marine Mammal Protection Act sets dolphin protection standards for the domestic American fishing fleet and for countries whose fishing boats catch yellow fin tuna in that part of the Pacific Ocean. If a country exporting tuna to the United States cannot prove to US authorities that it meets the dolphin protection standards set out in US law, the US government must embargo all imports of the fish from that country. In this dispute, Mexico was the exporting country concerned. Its exports of tuna to the US were banned. Mexico complained in 1991 under the GATT dispute settlement procedure.
The embargo also applies to “intermediary” countries handling the tuna en route from Mexico to the United States. Often the tuna is processed and canned in a one of these countries. In this dispute, the “intermediary” countries facing the embargo were Costa Rica, Italy, Japan and Spain, and earlier France, the Netherlands Antilles, and the United Kingdom. Others, including Canada, Colombia, the Republic of Korea, and members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, were also named as “intermediaries”.
|
