Back to court after Shrimp–Turtle: India's challenge to labor and environmental linkages in the EC generalized system of preferences

The Impact of International Law on International Cooperation: Theoretical Perspectives

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 261-298

  Howse, Robert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84927030069     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511494147.011     Document Type: Chapter

References (34)

1. United States, Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, October 12, 1998;
2. United States, Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Malaysia, WT/DS58/AB/RW, October 22, 2001;
3. Howse, H. “The Appellate Body Rulings in the Shrimp/Turtle Case: A New Legal Baseline for the Trade and Environment Debate” (2002) 27(2) Columbia J. Environmental L. 491.
4. EuropeanCommunities, Conditions forGranting of Tariff Preferences to India, Request for the Establishment of a Panel by India, WT/DS246/4, December 9, 2002.
5. “India’sWTOChallenge to Drug EnforcementConditions in the EuropeanCommunity’sGeneralized System of Preferences: A Little Known Case with Major Repercussions for ‘Political’ Conditionality in US Trade Policy” (2003) 4(2) Chicago J.Int’l L. 385
6. Handbook on the Scheme of the European Community, UNCTAD/ITCD/TSB/MISC.25/Rev.2, December 2002.
7. S. Dufour, Accords commerciaux et droits des travailleurs (Les Editions Revue de Droit/Universite de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Que, 1998), pp. 42–86.
8. K. A. Elliot, Preferences for Workers? Worker’s Rights and the US Generalized System of Preferences (Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC, May 2000).
9. S. Laird and R. Safadi, The WTO and Development (October 2001), p. 7:
10. F. Roeesler, “The Institutional Balance between the Judicial and the Political Organs of the WTO” in M. Brockers and R. Quick (eds.), New Directions in International Economic Law: Essays in Honour of John H. Jackson (Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 2000), pp. 325–46.
11. “The Least Dangerous Branch? The Extent and Limits of the Judicial Power in WTO Appellate Body Jurisprudence” in Cottier and Mavroidis (eds.), The Role of the Judge in the WTO (University of Michigan Press, 2003).
12. J. H. Jackson, The World Trading System: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations (2nd ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA/London, 1999), p. 164.
13. WTOMinisterial Conference, Implementation-related Issues and Concerns, Decision of November14, 2001.
14. World Trade Organization, Report on Market Access: Developments since the Uruguay Round, Implications, Opportunities and Challenges, in Particular for theDeveloping Countries and the LeastDeveloped Among Them, in the Context of Globalization and Liberalization, E/1998/55, May 22, 1998.
15. European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos – Containing Products, Report of theAppellate Body, WT/DS135/AB/R(March 12, 2001).
16. “The Structure of South-South Trade Preferences in the 1988 GSTP Agreement: Learning to SayMFMFN” in JohnWhalley (ed.), DevelopingCountries and the GlobalTrading System, vol. 1, Thematic Studies from a Ford Foundation Supported Project (Macmillan, London, 1989), pp. 210–37.
17. OECD, Trade, Employment and Labour Standards: A Study of CoreWorkers’ Rights and International Trade (OECD, Paris, 1996).
18. Peter Morici with Evan Schultz, Labor Standards in the Global Trading System (Economic Strategy Institute, Washington, DC, 2001).
19. United States, Sections 301–310 of the Trade Act of 1974, Report of the Panel, WT/DS152/R, February 24, 2000, paras 772–794.
20. United States, Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998, Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS176/AB/R, January 2, 2002, para. 281.
21. J. Pauwelyn, “The Nature of WTO Obligations,” Jean Monnet Working Paper (2002).
22. C. T. Feddersen, Der ordre public in derWTO: Auslegung und Bedeutung des Art. XX lit. A GATT im Rahmen der WTO-Streitbeilegung Duncker und Humblot, Berlin, 2002.
23. R. Howse, “TheWorld Trade Organization and the Protection ofWorker’s Rights” (1999) 3(1) J. Small and Emerging Business 131;
24. S. Charnovitz, “The Moral Exception in Trade Policy” (1998) 38 Virginia J. Int’l L. 689;
25. G. Marceau, “WTO Dispute Settlement and Human Rights” (2002) 13(4) European J. Int’l L. 753;
26. Werner Meng, paper presented to the World Trade Forum, Berne, Switzerland, 2001.
27. Feddersen, F. Der ordre public, p. 301.
28. L. Bartels, “ArticleXXofGATTand the Problem of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction:The Case ofTradeMeasures for the Protection ofHumanRights” (2002) 36(2) J. World Trade 353.
29. Military and Paramilitary Activities (Nicaragua v. United States). [1986] ICJ Reports 14, 125–26.
30. Morici, M. Labor Standards, p. 76.
31. Korea, Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Frozen and Chilled Beef, Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS161/AB/R, December 11, 2000, paras 162–63.
32. World Health Organization, Health for All-Policy (World Health Declaration, May 1989).
33. F. J. Garcia, “Trading Away the Human Rights Principle” (1999) 25(1) Brooklyn J. Int’l L. 51,79–80.
34. C. Ozden and E. Reinhardt, “The Perversity of Preferences: GSP and Developing Country Trade Policies 1976–2000,” April 9, 2002, available on the World Bank website, www.worldbank.org/wbi/B-SPAN/sub perversity.htm.