Regulatory jurisdiction and the WTO

Journal of International Economic Law

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 631-651

  Trachtman, Joel P ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548419290     PISSN: 13693034     EISSN: 14643758     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jiel/jgm025     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law 401 (1987) [hereinafter, Restatement Third], distinguishing prescriptive jurisdiction, on The one hand, from judicial or enforcement jurisdiction. Prescriptive jurisdiction is the state's power 'to make its law applicable to the activities, relations, or status of persons, or the interests of persons in things, whether by legislation, by executive act or order, by administrative rule or regulation, or by determination of a court' For an economic analysis of prescriptive jurisdiction, see Joel P. Trachtman, 'Economic Analysis of Prescriptive Jurisdiction and Choice of Law', 42 Virginia Journal of Internation Law (2001) 1.
2. According to sections 402-403 of the Restatement Third, and according to a number of states and scholars, there are substantial limits on a state's right to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction.
3. For an early work examining trade law in regulatory jurisdiction terms, see Joel P. Trachtman, 'Trade in Financial Services under GATS, NAFTA and the EC: A Regulatory Jurisdiction Analysis', 34 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law (1995) 37.
4. See Trachtman, above n 1.
5. Appellate Body Report, United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, DSR 1998:VII, 2755.
6. For discussions of the product/process distinction, see Robert E. Hudec, The Product-Process Doctrine in GATT/WTO Jurisprudence, in Marco Bronckers and Reinhard Quick (eds), New Directions in International Economic Law: Essays in Honour of John H. Jackson (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000);
7. Robert Howse and Donald Regan, 'The Product/Process Distinction-An Illusory Basis for Disciplining "Unilateralism' in Trade Policy', 11 European Journal of International Law (2000) 249,
8. and the cogent response to the Howse and Regan article from John Jackson at 11 European Journal of International Law (2000) 303.
9. For a useful discussion in the human rights context, see Lorand Bartels, 'Article XX of GATT and the Problem of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: The Case of Trade Measures for the Protection of Human Rights', 36 Journal of Word Trade (2002) 353.
10. Appellate Body Report, US - Shrimp, WT/DS58/AB/R, at paras 156-160.
11. Appellate Body Report, United States - Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services, WT/DS285/AB/R, adopted 20 April 2005.
12. Joel Trachtman, 'International Decisions-United States: Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Betting and Gambling Services. WT/DS285/AB/R', 99 American Journal of International Law (2005) 861.
13. OAS Inter-American Juridical Committee Opinion Examining the U.S. Helms-Burton Act, 35 ILM (1996) 1322. The Committee found that the Helms-Burton Art violated international law for a number of reasons, including by extending US jurisdiction 'extraterritorially,' by improperly assigning domestic courts to deal with state-to-state claims, by espousing claims of persons who were not nationals at the time of injury, and by attributing liability to third-state nationals for claims against a foreign state.
14. See John A. Spanogle, 'Can Helms-Burton be Challenged Under WTO?', 27 Stetson Law Review (1998) 1313, 1318-28.
15. See 22 U.S.C. Sections 6082(a)(1), 6085(a).
16. Paul Blustein and Anne Swardson, U.S. Vows to Boycott WTO Panel, Wash. Post, 21 February 1997, at A12.
17. See John H. Jackson and Andreas F. Lowenfeld, Helms-Burton, the U.S., & the WTO, ASIL Insight (March 1997), available at http://www.asil.org/ insights/insight7.htm.
18. See also GATT Panel Report, U.S-Trade Measures Affecting Nicaragua, GATT Doc. L/6053, 13 October 1986 (not adopted).
19. On the distinction between 'rules' and 'standards', see Joel P. Trachtman, "The Domain of WTO Dispute Resolution', 40 Harvard International Law Journal (1999) 333.
20. The measure of harmonization necessary as a predicate for mutual recognition in the EC is known as 'essential harmonization,' meaning that the essence or the core of the regulatory purpose is harmonized.
21. Appellate Body Report, US - Shrimp (Article 21.5), WT/DS58/AB/R, at para 144 (emphasis in original).
22. See document G/SPS/19. This document was clarified in 2004, in G/SPS/19/Rev.2.
23. It adds That in doing so, members should take into account the Guidelines to Further the Practical Implementation of Article 5.5 adopted by the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures at its meeting of 21-22 June 2000 (document G/SPS/15, dated 18 July 2000).
24. TBT Triennial Review, para 23, G/TBT/9.
25. Appellate Body Report, US - Shrimp, WT/DS58/AB/R, at para 165;
26. and Appellate Body Report, US-Shrimp (Article 21.5), WT/DS58/AB/RW, at paras 135-152.
27. See Lorand Bartels, 'The Legality of the EC Mutual Recognition Clause under WTO Law', 8 Journal of Internation Economic Law (2005) 691.
28. For a more complete exposition, see Trachtman, above n 1.
29. Trachtman, above n 1.
30. See Eugene D. Cross, 'Pre-Emption of Member State Law in the European Economic Community: A Framework for Analysis', 29 Common Market Law Review (1992) 447.
31. See Joel P. Trachtman, 'Trade and . . . Problems, Cost-Benefit Analysis and Subsidiarity', 9 European Journal of International Law (1998) 32.
32. In the Hormones decision, the Appellate Body rejected the panel's finding that 'based on' and 'conform to' have the same meaning. Report of the Appellate Body: EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, para 165, adopted 16 January 1998.
33. Appellate Body Report, European Communities - Trade Description of Sardines (EC-Sardines), (WT/DS231/AB/R), adopted 26 September 2002.
34. Ibid at para 241 quoting European Communities Appellant's Submission, para 150.
35. Ibid at para 243.
36. Ibid at para 248.
37. See Appellate Body Report, US-Shrimp (Article 21.5 DSU), at para 124.