Animal Welfare and the Wto: The Legality and Implications of Live Export Restrictions under International Trade Law

2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 279-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Radhika Chaudhri
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Export Trade ◽  
The Public ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Export Restrictions ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Live Export

In Australia, controversial incidents regarding the treatment of live animals exported from Australia spark regular debate on whether the live export trade should be banned or more tightly regulated. Government responses to public outcry often take the form of restrictions on the trade of the animals concerned, but the legality of unilateral measures of this kind is yet to be directly considered by the World Trade Organization's Appellate Body. This article examines the legality of imposing restrictions on live export under the international trade law regime set up by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (‘GATT’),1 and in particular, whether such measures could be justified under Article XX. In exploring this question, special attention is given to the Australian government's new regulatory framework, as introduced by the Export Control (Animals) Amendment Order 2012 (No 1), which imposes an exporter supply chain assurance obligation on Australian suppliers. In addition, in light of the continued calls from animal welfare groups to ban the trade entirely, the legality of a complete moratorium on live exports will also be considered. Although the exceptions in Articles XX(b) and XX(g) of the GATT appear to be relevant to live exports, ultimately any regulation might be best supported under the ‘public morals’ exception in Article XX(a). However, care will need to be taken in the design of any restriction to avoid breaching the strict chapeau requirements of Article XX.

scholarly journals Globalization and the Animal Turn: How International Trade Law Contributes to Global Norms of Animal Protection

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katie Sykes
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
World Trade ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Animal Conservation ◽  
Animal Protection ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
The World ◽  
Global Norms

AbstractMany animal and environmental activists think of international trade law as a block to the achievement of their goals and perceive the World Trade Organization (WTO) as a threat to animals. Yet, the first legal decision of an international tribunal to devote careful, sustained attention to animal welfare issues comes from the WTO, in the EC – Seal Products decision. This article argues that international trade law is currently an important, although under-acknowledged, locus for the development of global norms concerning the protection of animals, and that animal conservation and animal welfare can be seen as aspects of a single overarching principle of animal protection. International trade law contributes to animal protection in two ways. Firstly, WTO jurisprudence has recognized animal protection as a legitimate basis for invoking exceptions to trade rules (as in EC – Seal Products). Secondly, international trade negotiations enhance cooperation on the implementation and enforcement of existing conservation obligations (as in the new Trans-Pacific Partnership’s Environment Chapter).

Part II Substantive Aspects, Ch.22 National Treasures at the Intersection between Cultural Heritage and International Trade Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Voon Tania
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Illicit Trade ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
National Treasures ◽  
Wto Appellate Body ◽  
Definition Of

This chapter analyses the extent to which international trade law accommodates the export and import control measures that States commonly adopt in order to prevent illicit trade in cultural property in accordance with the 1970 UNESCO Convention. It examines the exception for ‘national treasures’ found in World Trade Organization (WTO) law and other international economic agreements. The definition of cultural property in the relevant UNESCO treaty is not necessarily identical to the meaning of national treasures in WTO law. Moreover, the WTO Appellate Body has shown reluctance to apply non-WTO law in determining WTO disputes, so a conflict between UNESCO and WTO provisions or domestic regulations might not necessarily be resolved as expected. This conclusion provides one example of the limitations of the current Appellate Body approach to international law and suggests, with respect to cultural property, that closer alliance in treaty drafting may be required to enhance coherence.

scholarly journals Animals and the Impact of Trade Law and Policy: A Global Animal Law Question

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-262
Author(s):  
Iyan Offor
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Trade ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Promising Alternative ◽  
Animal Law ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThere is a critical research gap regarding the trade and animal welfare interface: we do not know, empirically, what the impact of trade on animal welfare is. This gap exists, in part, as a result of the paternalism of international trade law and the underdevelopment of global animal law. This article addresses, firstly, the collision of dichotomous trade and animal welfare priorities in legal and political systems. It then explores attempts at reconciliation by the World Trade Organization and the European Union. This involves an investigation of the impact of trade on animal welfare. This impact is categorized into four component parts: (i) open markets, (ii) low animal-welfare havens, (iii) a chilling effect, and (iv) lack of labelling. Case studies from the European Union are examined. Thirdly, the article critiques trade law and policy as ill-suited primary drivers of global governance for animals. Global animal law is identified as a promising alternative, although its early development has been unduly affected by international trade law.

Short Supply Conditions and the Law of International Trade: Economic Lessons from the Pandemic

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 (4) ◽  
pp. 647-656
Author(s):  
Alan O. Sykes
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
International Trade ◽  
Public Health Response ◽  
Short Supply ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
Safeguard Measures ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Export Restrictions ◽  
Temporary Response ◽  
Plausible Answer

AbstractThe COVID-19 pandemic has been accompanied by shortages and potential shortages of products critical to the public health response. Many nations have responded with export restrictions on these products, restrictions that are permitted under international trade law as a temporary response to short supply conditions generally and to public health emergencies in particular. This Essay argues that such export restrictions are economically counterproductive from a global efficiency perspective, and that governments acting unilaterally will nevertheless employ them due to international externalities that propagate through the “terms of trade.” This observation raises a puzzle as to why international law should facilitate rather than curtail them. The most plausible answer is that legal authority for such measures is a politically necessary “escape clause” in trade agreements, akin to safeguard measures.

scholarly journals ISO AND CODEX STANDARDS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW: WHAT GETS SAID IS NOT WHAT'S HEARD

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 895-932 ◽  
Author(s):  
Filippo Fontanelli
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Regulatory Regime ◽  
Technical Barriers To Trade ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Restrictive Measures

AbstractThis article challenges the rhetoric of hardening, according to which international standards become binding through WTO endorsement. The analysis of the system of presumptions set up in the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement and Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Agreement reveals that international standards are actually used as a ‘ceiling’ rather than a ‘floor’ benchmark of protection, contrary to their original spirit. They represent a codified and agreed yardstick for least trade-restrictive measures, a minimum compromise between the regulatory regime and the trade litigation machinery. It follows that their nature—at least within the WTO system—is irreversibly distorted; they are treated as facts rather than as safety or quality devices.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document