Advertisement

WTO Influence on EU Law: Too Close for Comfort?

  • Pieter Jan Kuijper
  • Frank Hoffmeister
Chapter

Abstract

This contribution analyses the influence of WTO primary and secondary law on the primary and secondary law of the European Union. Moreover, the influence of WTO panel and Appellate Body reports on EU secondary law and administrative decisions is evaluated. As a principal example the article takes the interaction between WTO and EU anti-dumping law. However, also other selected examples of the influence of WTO law on EU law are subjected to scrutiny. It turns out that WTO primary and secondary law have had a considerable influence on EU primary and secondary law and their interpretation. This is true in particular where the scope and the technical aspects of classical trade policy are concerned, ranging from the scope of the EU’s trade policy powers to the details of EU anti-dumping law. However, in respect of the EU’s internal regulatory policies, the WTO has had much less influence and the EU has been less law-abiding.

Keywords

World Trade Organization European Economic Community Uruguay Round World Trade Organization Member World Trade Organization Agreement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abbott F (2005) The WTO medicines decision: world pharmaceutical trade and public health. Am J Int Law 99:317–358Google Scholar
  2. Bungenberg M (2010) Going global? The EU common commercial policy after Lisbon. Eur Yearb Int Econ Law 1:123–151Google Scholar
  3. de Búrca G, Scott J (eds) (2001) The EU and the WTO, legal and constitutional issues. Hart, Oxford & PortlandGoogle Scholar
  4. Ehlermann CD (2002) Six years on the bench of the ‘World Trade Court’: some personal experiences as member of the appellate body of the World Trade Organization. J World Trade 36(4):605–639Google Scholar
  5. European Commission (2010) Free movement of goods, guide to the application of treaty provisions governing the free movement of goods. Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  6. Feichtner I (2010) The waiver power of the WTO—opening the WTO for political debate on the reconciliation of competing interests. Eur J Int Law 20(3):615–645Google Scholar
  7. Gaines S, Egelund Olsen B, Engsig Sørensen K (eds) (2012, forthcoming) Liberalising trade in the EU and the WTO: comparative perspectives. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Hoffmeister F (2010) Curse or blessing? Mixed agreements in recent practice. In: Hillion C, Koutrakos P (eds) Mixed agreements revisited. Hart, Oxford and Portland, pp 253–267Google Scholar
  9. Hoffmeister F (2011) The European Union’s common commercial policy a year after Lisbon—sea change or business as usual? In Koutrakos P (ed) The European Union’s external relations a year after Lisbon. CLEER working papers 2011, vol 3, pp 83–95Google Scholar
  10. Hoffmeister F (2013, forthcoming) Institutional aspects of global trade governance. In: Van Vooren B, Blockmans S, Wouters J (eds) The EU’s role in global governance: the legal dimension. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Holmes P (2001) The EU and the WTO: some constitutional comparisons. In: de Búrca G, Scott J (eds) The EU and the WTO, legal and constitutional issues. Hart, Oxford & Portland, pp 59–80Google Scholar
  12. Kuijper PJ (1996) Booze and fast cars: tax discrimination under GATT and the EC. In: Legal issues of European integration: special issue in honour of prof. Richard Lauwaars, pp 129–144Google Scholar
  13. Kuijper PJ (2009) WTO Institutional aspects. In: Bethlehem D et al. (eds) The Oxford handbook of international trade law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 79–128Google Scholar
  14. Kuijper PJ (2012) The court of justice and the appellate body: between constitutionalism and dispute settlement. In: Gaines S, Egelund Olsen B, Engsig Sørensen K (eds) Liberalising trade in the EU and the WTO: comparative perspectives. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Lavranos N (2004) Decisions of international organizations in the European and domestic legal orders of selected EU member states. Europa Law Publishing, GroningenGoogle Scholar
  16. Mavroidis PC (2003) Trade disputes concerning health policy. In: Petersmann EU, Pollack MA (eds) Transatlantic economic disputes. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 233–245Google Scholar
  17. Slotboom MM (2005) Do different treaty purposes matter for treaty interpretation? A comparison of WTO and EC law. Cameron May Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Tsymbrivska O (2010) WTO DSB decisions in the EC legal order: approach of the community courts. Leg Issues Econ Integr 37:185–202Google Scholar
  19. Williams R (2006) Promoting sustainable development in developing countries: a discriminating approach of the EC? Some inferences from the WTO dispute on the EC’s conditions for the granting of special tariff preference arrangements to combat drug production and trafficking. In: Pallemaerts M (ed) EU and WTO law: how tight is the legal straitjacket for environmental regulation. VUB Brussels University Press, Brussels, pp 209–274Google Scholar
  20. Wirth DA (2006) The transatlantic GMO dispute against the European communities—some preliminary thoughts. In: Pallemaerts M (ed) EU and WTO law: how tight is the legal straitjacket for environmental regulation. VUB Brussels University Press, Brussels, pp 175–208Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press and the author(s) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Law, University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Cabinet of EU Trade Commissioner De GuchtEuropean CommissionBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations