13th Biennial Meeting - Penn State Law

TEXAS INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL
VOL. 42:371i
C. M aritim e D elim itation ................................................................................. 404
D . C o n clusio n ................................................................................................... 404
V. BALANCING IN US CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: THE INTERSTATE
C O M M ERCE C LA U SE ........................................................................................... 404
V I. BALANCING IN THE W TO .................................................................................. 408
A. Objective Justifications: Public Policy Exceptions in the GA TT ............ 408
1. Introduction .......................................................................................... 408
2. G eneral D esign ..................................................................................... 409
i. N ecessary to ................................................
410
ii. R elatin g to ...................................................................................... 4 12
3. Application of the Measure: The Chapeau ....................................... 413
3. Conclusion: How the Tests in Article XX GATT Operate ............. 415
B. Positive Obligations for Domestic Regulation .......................................... 416
1. SPS A greem ent ..................................................................................... 416
2. T B T A greem ent ................................................................................... 421
3. Conclusion: How the Tests in the SPS and TBT Agreements
O p erate .......................................................
423
V II. C O N CLU SIO N ....................................................................................................... 424
I. INTRODUCTION
Proportionality, necessity and balancing are discussed in the context of the
World Trade Organization (WTO). We find these tests at prominent places in the
GATS and the GATT, as well as in the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) and the Agreement on Technical
Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement). The meaning of these tests and their
interrelationship is not always clear. There is considerable controversy among
participants at the diplomatic, policy, treaty-making, or the dispute settlement level,
who put different meanings into the different tests and concepts. The discussion
among scholars is often influenced by a projection of national meanings and
discourses in the WTO and GATS context.
The liberalisation of trade in goods and services requires that the meaning of
and the relationship between these tests are clarified. In this article we set out a
comparative approach for doing so at a general WTO level, but this approach is
particularly relevant in the context of the GATS and the liberalisation of trade in
services.
In the WTO, as in any other legal and political system, value choices are
reflected in the legal order. The fundamental question in this respect is which
institution should be competent to make those choices and how this should be done.'
It may be that this is a task for the legislator, the courts, or for both.
1. See generally Joel Trachtman, Trade and... Problems, Cost-Benefit Analysis and Subsidiarity, 9
EUR. J. INT'L L. 32 (1998).
HeinOnline -- 42 Tex. Int'l L.J. 372 2006-2007