[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/83834.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Necessary? A Comparison of Legal and Economic Assessments GATT Dispute Settlements under: Article XX(b), TBT 2.2 and SPS 5.6

Author

Listed:
  • Ronen, Eyal
  • Dawar, Kamala
Abstract
This paper identifies the legal and economic assessments applied to resolve WTO disputes requiring an assessment of the contribution of the measure to the objective pursued, along with identifying any reasonably available alternatives. It focuses on disputes encompassing an interpretation of GATT Article XX (b), Sanitary and PhytoSanitary Agreement (SPS) Article 5.6 and the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement Article 2.2. This narrow focus is because the WTO DSB has opined that there are no significant differences between the tests developed under Art. XX(b) of the GATT 1994 and Art. 5.6 of the SPS Agreement, nor that any aspect of the Art. XX(b) jurisprudence relating to the interpretation of the term "necessary" would be inapplicable to Art. 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. This provides an opportunity to compare the legal and economic assessments applied in disputes falling under these provisions. This paper identifies no significant differences between the legal tests relating to the interpretation of the term "necessary". A WTO Panel is under no obligation to quantify the measure's contribution to the objective pursued and 'a risk may be evaluated either in quantitative or qualitative terms'. However, the same cannot be said for the economic assessments determining whether the necessity of the contribution of the contested measure. After setting out the legal tests, the paper identifies those economic assessments undertaken to resolve disputes involving these three different GATT/WTO provisions. The paper finds that quantitative economic models are rarely employed in WTO dispute cases. The lack of coherent guidelines for assessing the economic dimensions of a dispute in a transparent and robust manner potentially undermines the effectiveness and the reputation of WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) recommendations.

Suggested Citation

  • Ronen, Eyal & Dawar, Kamala, 2016. "How Necessary? A Comparison of Legal and Economic Assessments GATT Dispute Settlements under: Article XX(b), TBT 2.2 and SPS 5.6," MPRA Paper 83834, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:83834
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/83834/1/MPRA_paper_83834.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hiau LooiKee & Alessandro Nicita & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2009. "Estimating Trade Restrictiveness Indices," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(534), pages 172-199, January.
    2. Chengyan Yue & John C. Beghin, 2017. "Tariff Equivalent And Forgone Trade Effects Of Prohibitive Technical Barriers To Trade," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 8, pages 139-150, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Petros C. Mavroidis & Kamal Saggi, 2018. "What is not so Cool about US–COOL Regulations? A critical analysis of the Appellate Body’s ruling on US–COOL," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Kamal Saggi (ed.), Economic Analysis of the Rules and Regulations of the World Trade Organization, chapter 19, pages 433-454, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Charlier, Christophe & Guillou, Sarah, 2014. "Distortion effects of export quota policy: an analysis of the China-Raw Materials dispute," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 320-338.
    5. Disdier, Anne-Celia & Fontagne, Lionel & Mimouni, Mondher, 2008. "AJAE Appendix: The Impact of Regulations on Agricultural Trade: Evidence from the SPS and TBT Agreements," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(2), pages 1-7.
    6. Pouliot, Sebastien & Sumner, Daniel A., 2014. "Differential impacts of country of origin labeling: COOL econometric evidence from cattle markets," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 107-116.
    7. Bown,Chad P. & Pauwelyn,Joost (ed.), 2010. "The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521119979, September.
    8. CA Thomas, 2011. "Of Facts and Phantoms: Economics, Epistemic Legitimacy, and WTO Dispute Settlement," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 295-328, June.
    9. Lionel Fontagné & Mondher Mimouni & Jean-Michel Pasteels, 2005. "Estimating the Impact of Environmental SPS and TBT on International Trade," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-00270511, HAL.
    10. Andriamananjara, Soamiely & Dean, Judith M. & Feinberg, Robert & Ferrantino, Michael J. & Ludema, Rodney & Tsigas, Marinos, 2004. "The Effects of Non-Tariff Measures on Prices, Trade, and Welfare: CGE Implementation of Policy-Based Price Comparisons," Conference papers 331219, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    11. Romano, Eduardo & Thornsbury, Suzanne, 2007. "Economic Evaluation of SPS Regulations: Where Can Progress be Made?," Staff Paper Series 36946, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    12. Mohammad Mahdi Ghodsi & Jan J. Michałek, 2014. "Technical Barriers to Trade Notifications and Dispute Settlement of the WTO," Working Papers 2014-22, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    13. Michael J. Ferrantino, 2006. "Quantifying the Trade and Economic Effects of Non-Tariff Measures," OECD Trade Policy Papers 28, OECD Publishing.
    14. Julien Gourdon & Alessandro Nicita, 2013. "A Preliminary Analysis On Newly Collected Data On Non-Tariff Measures," UNCTAD Blue Series Papers 53, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    15. Linda Calvin & Barry Krissoff & William Foster, 2008. "Measuring the Costs and Trade Effects of Phytosanitary Protocols: A U.S.–Japanese Apple Example," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 30(1), pages 120-135.
    16. Regan, Donald H., 2007. "The meaning of ‘necessary’ in GATT Article XX and GATS Article XIV: the myth of cost–benefit balancing," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(3), pages 347-369, November.
    17. Yue, Chengyan & Beghin, John C., 2009. "“AJAE Appendix: The Tariff Equivalent and Forgone Trade Effects of Prohibitive Technical Barriers to Trade”," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(4), pages 1-5, January.
    18. Chad P. Bown, 2004. "On the Economic Success of GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(3), pages 811-823, August.
    19. Keiichiro Honda, 2012. "Tariff equivalent of Japanese sanitary and phytosanitary: Econometric estimation of protocol for U.S.-Japanese apple trade," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(2), pages 1226-1237.
    20. Twine, Edgar & Rude, James, 2012. "Effects of Market and Policy Shocks on the Canadian and U.S. Cattle and Beef Industries," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 123565, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    21. Xiaohua Bao & Larry D. Qiu, 2010. "Do Technical Barriers to Trade Promote or Restrict Trade? Evidence from China," Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 253-278.
    22. Calvin, Linda & Krissoff, Barry, 1998. "Technical Barriers To Trade: A Case Study Of Phytosanitary Barriers And U.S. - Japanese Apple Trade," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(2), pages 1-16, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ghodsi, Mahdi, 2020. "How do technical barriers to trade affect foreign direct investment? Tariff jumping versus regulation haven hypotheses," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 269-278.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bossoma Doriane N’DOUA, 2022. "The Impact of Technical Barriers to Trade and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures on Trade in the Forest-Wood-Paper Sector," Bordeaux Economics Working Papers 2022-01, Bordeaux School of Economics (BSE).
    2. Bossoma Doriane N'Doua, 2022. "The Impact of Technical Barriers to Trade and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures on Trade in the Forest-Wood-Paper Sector," Working Papers hal-03573168, HAL.
    3. John C. Beghin & Miet Maertens & Johan Swinnen, 2017. "Nontariff Measures and Standards in Trade and Global Value Chains," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 2, pages 13-38, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Chengyan Yue & John C. Beghin, 2017. "Tariff Equivalent And Forgone Trade Effects Of Prohibitive Technical Barriers To Trade," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 8, pages 139-150, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Marco Fugazza, 2013. "The Economics Behind Non-Tariff Measures: Theoretical Insights And Empirical Evidence," UNCTAD Blue Series Papers 57, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    6. Annalisa Zezza & Federica Demaria & Maria Rosaria Pupo d'Andrea & Jo Swinnen & Giulia Meloni & Senne Vandevelde & Alessandro Olper & Daniele Curzi & Valentina Raimondi & Sophie Drogue, 2018. "Research for AGRI Committee - Agricultural trade: assessing reciprocity of standards," Working Papers hal-02787948, HAL.
    7. Eyal RONEN, 2017. "Quantifying the trade effects of NTMs: A review of the empirical literature," Journal of Economics and Political Economy, KSP Journals, vol. 4(3), pages 263-274, September.
    8. Bo Xiong & John Beghin, 2017. "Disentangling Demand-Enhancing And Trade-Cost Effects Of Maximum Residue Regulations," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 6, pages 105-108, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Mahdi Ghodsi & Robert Stehrer, 2022. "Trade policy and global value chains: tariffs versus non-tariff measures," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 158(3), pages 887-916, August.
    10. John C. Beghin & Miet Maertens & Johan Swinnen, 2017. "Nontariff Measures and Standards in Trade and Global Value Chains," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 2, pages 13-38 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. Olivier Cadot & Julien Gourdon, 2012. "Assessing the price-raising effect of non-tariff measures in Africa," Working Papers 2012-16, CEPII research center.
    12. Olivier Cadot & Julien Gourdon, 2016. "Non-tariff measures, preferential trade agreements, and prices: new evidence," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 152(2), pages 227-249, May.
    13. Disdier, Anne-Celia & Fontagne, Lionel & Mimouni, Mondher, 2008. "AJAE Appendix: The Impact of Regulations on Agricultural Trade: Evidence from the SPS and TBT Agreements," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(2), pages 1-7.
    14. Grant, Jason & Arita, Shawn, 2017. "Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Measures: Assessment, Measurement, and Impact," Commissioned Papers 259417, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    15. Sampath Jayasinghe & John C. Beghin & Giancarlo Moschini, 2017. "Determinants Of World Demand For U.S. Corn Seeds: The Role Of Trade Costs," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 17, pages 309-320, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. World Bank, 2015. "Kazakhstan Trade Report," World Bank Publications - Reports 22046, The World Bank Group.
    17. Maria Cipollina & Federica Demaria, 2020. "The Trade Effect of the EU’s Preference Margins and Non-Tariff Barriers," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, September.
    18. Gordhan K. Saini, 2009. "Non-tariff measures and Indian textiles and clothing exports," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2009-002, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    19. Ferraz, Lucas Pedreira do Couto & Ribeiro, Marcel & Monasterio, Pedro, 2017. "On the Effects of Non-Tariff Measures on Brazilian Exports," Revista Brasileira de Economia - RBE, EPGE Brazilian School of Economics and Finance - FGV EPGE (Brazil), vol. 71(3), September.
    20. Maria Cipollina & Luca Salvatici, 2008. "Measuring Protection: Mission Impossible?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 577-616, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Dispute Settlement; SPS; Technical Barriers to Trade; WTO;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • F18 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade and Environment
    • F53 - International Economics - - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy - - - International Agreements and Observance; International Organizations
    • K33 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - International Law
    • Q17 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agriculture in International Trade

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:83834. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.