Advertisement

Conclusions: A Critical Analysis of the PPM Measures’ Legal Regime De Lege Lata and De Lege Ferenda

  • David Sifonios
Chapter
Part of the European Yearbook of International Economic Law book series (EUROYEAR, volume 3)

Abstract

The product-process distinction, in the form it was expressed mainly in the US – Tuna GATT Panel reports, has been largely undermined by different evolutions of case law. It might thus be asked what is left of this doctrine in the current Appellate Body’s practice. The product-process distinction was mainly based on the following assumptions:
  1. (i)

    PPM measures are not covered by Article III but are subject to Articles II (tariffs) and XI (prohibition of quantitative restrictions) ;

     
  2. (ii)

    In any event, differences in PPMs cannot render two products unlike and thus cannot be justified under Article III ;

     
  3. (iii)

    Unincorporated PPM measures are extraterritorial in nature and thus cannot in principle be justified by Article XX ;

     
  4. (iv)

    PPM measures that unilaterally prescribe the adoption of a particular conduct abroad threaten the multilateral trading system and are thus unjustifiable ;

     
  5. (v)

    When it comes to technical barriers to trade, the TBT Agreement only applies to incorporated PPMs and does not cover unincorporated PPMs.

     

Bibliography

  1. Bierman, Frank, “The Rising Tide of Green Unilateralism in World Trade Law, Options for Reconciling the Emerging North-South Conflict”, 35(3) Journal of World Trade (2001) 421-448Google Scholar
  2. Chang, Howard F., “Environmental Trade Measures, the Shrimp – Turtle Rulings and the Ordinary Meaning of the Text of the GATT”, 8 Chapman Law Review (2005) 25-51Google Scholar
  3. Charnovitz, Steve, “The Law of Environmental ‘PPMs’ in the WTO: Debunking the Myth of Illegality”, 27(1) Yale Journal of International Law (2002) 59-110Google Scholar
  4. Conrad, Christiane R., Processes and Production Methods (PPMs) in WTO law: Interfacing Trade and Social Goals, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2011Google Scholar
  5. Cosbey, Aaron/Mavroidis, Petros C., “Heavy Fuel: Trade and Environment in the GATT/WTO Case Law”, 23(3) RECIEL (2014) 288-301Google Scholar
  6. Distefano, Giovanni/Mavroidis, Petros C., “L’interprétation systémique: le liant de l’ordre international”, in Mélanges en l’honneur de Pierre Wessner, Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel 2011, 743-759Google Scholar
  7. Horn, Henrik/Mavroidis, Petros C., “Still Hazy after all these Years: The Interpretation of National Treatment in the GATT/WTO Case-Law on Tax Discrimination”, 15(1) European Journal of International Law (2004) 39-69Google Scholar
  8. Horn, Henrik/Mavroidis, Petros C., “The Permissible Reach of National Environmental Policies”, 42(6) Journal of World Trade (2008) 1107-1178Google Scholar
  9. Howse, Robert/Regan, Donald, “The Product/Process Distinction – An Illusory Basis for Disciplining ‘Unilateralism’ in Trade Policy”, 11(2) European Journal of International Law (2000) 249-289Google Scholar
  10. Hudec, Robert E., “The Product-Process Distinction in GATT/WTO Jurisprudence”, in Marco Bronckers and Reinhard Quick (eds), New Directions in International Economic Law: Essays in Honour of John H. Jackson, Kluwer Law International, The Hague 2000, 187-217Google Scholar
  11. Jackson, John, “Comments on Shrimp/Turtle and the Product/Process Distinction”, 11(2) European Journal of International Law (2000) 303-307Google Scholar
  12. Marceau, Gabrielle/Trachtman, Joel P., “The Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade: A Map of the World Trade Organization Law of Domestic Regulation of Goods”, 36(5) Journal of World Trade (2002) 811-881Google Scholar
  13. Matsushita, Mitsuo/Schoenbaum, Thomas J./Mavroidis, Petros C./Michael Hahn, The World Trade Organization : Law, Practice, and Policy, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford 2015Google Scholar
  14. Mavroidis, Petros C., “No Outsourcing of Law? WTO Law as Practiced by WTO Courts”, 102 American Journal of International Law (2008) 421-474 (cit. Mavroidis [2008a])Google Scholar
  15. Mavroidis, Petros C., Trade in Goods: The GATT and the Other Agreements Regulating Trade in Goods, Oxford University Press, 2008 (cit. Mavroidis [2008b])Google Scholar
  16. Pauwelyn, Joost, “The Unbearable Lightness of Likeness”, in Marion Panizzon, Nicole Pohl and Pierre Sauvé (eds), GATS and the Regulation of International Trade in Services, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2008, 358-369Google Scholar
  17. Shaw, Malcolm Nathan, International Law, 7th ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2014Google Scholar
  18. Sinclair, Sir Ian, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 2nd ed., Manchester University Press, 1984Google Scholar
  19. Vranes, Erich, Trade and the Environment: Fundamental Issues in International Law, WTO Law and Legal Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2009Google Scholar
  20. Weiler, Joseph H. H., “The Rule of Lawyers and the Ethos of Diplomats: Reflections on the Internal and External Legitimacy of the WTO Dispute Settlement”, 35(2) Journal of World Trade (2001) 191-207Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Sifonios
    • 1
  1. 1.University of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations