Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T16:14:51.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The EU ban on the import of seal products and the WTO regulations: neglected human rights of the Arctic indigenous peoples?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2012

Kamrul Hossain
Kamrul Hossain*
Affiliation:
Northern Institute for Environmental and Minority Law Arctic Centre, PO Box 122, University of Lapland, FIN-96101 Rovaniemi, Finland (Kamrul.hossain@ulapland.fi)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The EU ban on the import and commercialising of seals and seal products in the EU market, has attracted intense attention in recent years. As seal products mostly originate from outside the EU, it is argued that the EU action has been discriminatory and hence contrary to the WTO regulations. Canada and Norway have been critical of the EU regulation and have initiated dispute settlement procedures within the WTO since most of the products that enter into the internal market are mainly from these countries. The ban also provoked anger within the Inuit and other indigenous communities, mainly from Canada and Greenland. Although the EU regulation provides an exception for Inuit and indigenous hunts and the subsequent commercialisation of resulting products into the internal market, the exception suffers from clarity and lacks proper implementation procedures. The regulation is predicted to lead to the ultimate disappearance of the seal market in the EU, which directly affects the Inuit and other indigenous peoples engaged in sealing activities. They may lose their means of subsistence. While analysing the critical issues concerning the EU and the WTO regulations and its exceptions, the article focuses on the human rights perspective of the Arctic indigenous peoples affected by the EU ban.

Type
Research Article
Information
Polar Record , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 154 - 166
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AANDC (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada). undated. The government of Canada's approach to Implementation of the inherent right and the negotiation of aboriginal self-government. URL: http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100031843 (accessed 7 November 2011)Google Scholar
ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment). 2005. Scientific report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anaya, J. 2000. Indigenous peoples in international law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aslaksen, I., Dallmann, W., Holen, D. L., Høydahl, E., Kruse, J., Poppel, B., Stapleton, M., and Inga Turi., E. 2008. Interdependency of subsistence and market economies in the Arctic. In: Glomsrød, S., and Aslaksen, I. (editors). The economy of the north. Oslo: Statistics Norway: 75–98.Google Scholar
Aziz, A. (editor). 2010. European court decision reinstates EU seal ban. Bridges Trade BioRes 10 (20): 10. (Biweekly news, events and resources at the intersection of trade and environment. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development). URL: http://ictsd.org/downloads/biores/biores10–20.pdf (accessed 2 February 2012).Google Scholar
CERD (Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination). 1997. General recommendation XXIII of the Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), (51st session, 1997). Geneva: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UN Doc. A/52/18).Google Scholar
Cheyne, I. 2007. Gateways to the precautionary principle in WTO law. Journal of Environmental Law 19 (2): 155–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). 1973. United Nations: Washington 993 UNTS 243 (3 March 1973, entry into force 1 July 1975).Google Scholar
CoE (Council of Europe). 2006. Recommendation 1776 on seal hunting. Strasbourg: Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. URL: http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta06/EREC1776.htm (accessed 9 July 2011).Google Scholar
Dussias, A. M. 2010. Spirit food and sovereignty: pathways for protecting indigenous peoples’ subsistence rights. Cleveland State Law Review 58: 273–347.Google Scholar
EC (European Community). 2001. Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products. Official Journal L 194, 18 July 2001. URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:194:0026:0034:EN:PDF (accessed 6 February 2012).Google Scholar
EC (European Community). 2008. The proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning trade in seal products (SEC(2008) 2290) (SEC(2008) 2291), 23 July 2008. COM(2008) 469 final. Brussels. URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52008PC0469:EN:NOT (accessed 11 July 2011).Google Scholar
EC (European Community). 2009. Regulation (EC) No. 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, L 286/36, 16 September 2009. Official Journall L 286/3. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/trade_seals_products.pdf (accessed 6 April 2010).Google Scholar
EComm (European Commission, DG Agriculture). 2009. Summary record of the European Commission. DG for Agriculture and Rural Development, 4 May 2009. Brussels. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/minco/manco/cmo/93.pdf (accessed 11 July 2011).Google Scholar
EComm (European Commission). 2010. Commission regulation no. 737/2010 of 10 August 2010 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on trade in seal products. Official Journal L 216/1, 17.08.2010.Google Scholar
EComm (European Commission). 2012. European union strategy for the protection and welfare of animals 2012–2015. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee, European Commission, COM (2012) 6 final. 19 January 2012. Brussels: European Commission. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/actionplan/docs/aw_strategy_19012012_en.pdf (accessed 26 January 2012).Google Scholar
EComm (European Commission). undated. The EU and the Arctic region. Maritime policy actions. Brussels: European Commission DG Mare. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/arctic_population_en.html (accessed 10 July 2011.Google Scholar
ECJ ([European] Court of Justice). 2004. Press release no 99/04. Judgments of the Court of Justice in cases C-210/03 and C-434/02 of 14 December 2004. Luxembourg: European Court of Justice. URL: http://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp04/aff/cp040099en.pdf#search=%22european%20court%20of%20justice%20judgment%20of%20%20the%20court%20case%20c-210%2F03%20luxembourg%22 (accessed 11 July 2011).Google Scholar
EEC (European Economic Community). 1983. The council directive 83/129/EEC of 28 March 1983 concerning the importation into member states of skins of certain seal pups and products derived therefrom, Official Journal L 91, 9.4.1983. URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31983L0129:EN:HTML (accessed 10 July 2011).Google Scholar
EEC (European Economic Community). 1985. The council directive 85/444/EEC of 27 September 1985 amending council directive 83/129/EEC concerning the importation into member states of skins of certain seal pups and products derived therefrom. Official Journal L 259, 01.01.1985 P. 0070–0070. URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31985L0444:EN:HTML (acces-sed 2 February 2012).Google Scholar
EEC (European Economic Community). 1989. The council directive 89/370/EEC. Official Journal L 163, 14/06/1989 P. 0037–0037. URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31989L0370:EN:HTML (accessed 2 February 2012).Google Scholar
EEC (European Economic Community). 1991. The council regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 of 4 November 1991. Official Journal L 308, 09/11/1991 P. 0001 – 0004. URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31991R3254:EN:HTML (accessed 2 February 2012).Google Scholar
EEC (European Economic Community). 1992. The council directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Official Journal L 206, 22 July 1992. URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0043:EN:NOT (accessed 2 February 2012).Google Scholar
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). 2007. Animal welfare aspects of the killing and skinning of seals. Scientific opinion of the panel on animal health and welfare (Question No. EFSA-Q-2007–118). The EFSA Journal 610: 1–122. URL: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/610.pdf (accessed 25 January 2012).Google Scholar
Ehring, L. 2001. De facto discrimination in WTO law: national and most-favored-nation treatment – or equal treatment? New York: New York University School of Law (Jean Monnet working paper). URL: http://centers.law.nyu.edu/jeanmonnet/papers/01/013201.html (accessed 9 November 2011): 1–46.Google Scholar
EU (European Union). 1957–2002. Treaty on European Community (TEC) (consolidated version as of 2002). Official Journal C 325. (24 December 2002).Google Scholar
EU (European Union). 2010. Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union (TEU 1992–2007) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU 1957–2007) (as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon). Official Journal C 83 (30 March 2010).Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, P. L. 2011. ‘Morality’ may not be enough to justify the EU seal products ban: animal welfare meets international trade law. International Journal of Wildlife Law and Policy 14: 85–136.Google Scholar
GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services). 1994. 1869 UNTS 183.Google Scholar
GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). 1947–1994. 1867 UNTS. 187.Google Scholar
Hamilton-Smith, M. 2010. Competing interests: Canada and Inuit oppose EU ban on seal products. The BU Campus (Bishop's University). URL: http://thebucampus.ca/2010/01/competing-interests-canada-and-inuit-oppose-eu-ban-on-seal-products/ (accessed 15 April 2011).Google Scholar
Hossain, K. 2009. The human rights committee on traditional cultural rights: the case of the Arctic indigenous people. In: Veintie, T., and Virtanen, P.K. (editors). Global and local encounters norms, identities and representations in formation. (Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Renvall Institute, Publication 25): 29–42.Google Scholar
HRC (Human Rights Committee). 1984. Chief of the Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada (communication 167/1984). New York: United Nations U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/45/40) at 1 (1990). URL: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/session45/167-1984.htm (accessed 07 February 2012).Google Scholar
HRC (Human Rights Committee). 1985. Ivan Kitok v. Sweden (Communication No. 197/1985). New York: United Nations CCPR/C/33/D/197/1985 (1988). URL: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/197-1985.html (accessed 7 February 2012).Google Scholar
HRC (Human Rights Committee). 1992. I. Länsman et al. v. Finland (Communication No. 511/1992). New York: United Nations UN Doc. CCPR/C/52/D/511/1992 (1994): 74–85. URL: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/html/vws511.htm (accessed 7 February 2012).Google Scholar
HRC (Human Rights Committee). 1993. Apirana Mahuika et al. v. New Zealand (Communication No. 547/1993). New York: United Nations U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/70/D/547/1993 (2000). URL:http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/547-1993.html (accessed 7 February 2012).Google Scholar
HRC (Human Rights Committee). 1994. The general comment No. 23 of article 27 of the ICCPR. 1994. Geneva: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. URL: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/fb7fb12c2fb8bb21c12563ed004df111?Opendocument (accessed 2 February 2012).Google Scholar
HRC (Human Rights Committee). 1995. J. Länsman et al. v. Finland (Communication No. 671/1995). New York: United Nations UN Doc. CCPR/C/58/D/671/1995 (1996). URL: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/html/VWS67158.htm (accessed 7 February 2012).Google Scholar
HRC (Human Rights Committee). 1999a. Concluding observations: Canada. New York: United Nations UN doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.105 (1999). URL: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N99/099/27/PDF/N9909927.pdf?OpenElement (accessed 7 February 2012).Google Scholar
HRC (Human Rights Committee). 1999b. Concluding observations: Mexico. Geneva: United Nations UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.109 (1999). URL: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G99/432/06/PDF/G9943206.pdf?OpenElementGoogle Scholar
HRC (Human Rights Committee). 1999c. Concluding observations: Norway. Geneva: United Nations UN Doc. CCPR/c/79/Add.112 (1999). URL: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b0180.html (accessed 7 February 2012).Google Scholar
HRC (Human Rights Committee). 2000a. Concluding observations: Denmark. Geneva: United Nations UN Doc. CCPR/CO/70/DNK (2000). URL: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G00/458/41/PDF/G0045841.pdf?OpenElement (accessed 7 February 2012).Google Scholar
HRC (Human Rights Committee). 2000b. Concluding observations: Australia. Geneva: United Nations UN Doc. CCPR/CO/69/AUS (2000). URL: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/%28Symbol%29/A.55.40,paras.498–528.En?OpenDocument (accessed 7 February 2012).Google Scholar
HRC (Human Rights Committee). 2002. Concluding observations: Sweden. New York: United Nations UN Doc. CCPR/CO/74/SWE (2002). URL: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G02/413/72/PDF/G0241372.pdf?OpenElementGoogle Scholar
ICTSD (International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development). 2009a. Canada, Norway launch WTO complaint over EU seal ban. Bridges Trade BioRes 9 (20): 3. Biweekly news, events and resources at the intersection of trade and environment. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development. URL: http://ictsd.org/downloads/biores/biores9-20.pdf (accessed 2 February 2012).Google Scholar
ICTSD (International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development). 2009b. Norway threatens WTO suit if EU bans seal imports. Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest 13 (14): 4. URL: http://ictsd.org/downloads/bridgesweekly/bridgesweekly13-14.pdf (accessed 13 April 2011).Google Scholar
ICTSD (International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development). 2010. European Court decision reinstates EU seal ban. 10 Bridges Trade BioRes 20:10 (8 November 2010). URL: http://ictsd.org/downloads/biores/biores10-20.pdf (accessed 7 February 2012).Google Scholar
ITK (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami). 2010. Inuit sue European Union (EU) to overturn seal product import ban defending Inuit rights and upholding the rule of law. Press release. Ottawa: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami URL: http://www.itk.ca/media-centre/media-releases/inuit-sue-european-union-eu-overturn-seal-product-import-ban-defending-i (accessed 18 April 2011).Google Scholar
ITK/ICC Canada (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Inuit Circumpolar Council Canada). 2009. Statement from the Inuit of Canada to EU Parliament concerning proposed EU-wide seal ban. Ottawa. URL: http://www.itk.ca/media-centre/statements/itkicc-canada-statement-inuit-canada-eu-parliament-concerning-proposed-eu-wi (accessed 20 April 2011).Google Scholar
Joseph, S. 2009. Human rights and the WTO: issues for the Pacific. Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 40: 351–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khalilian, S. 2009. The WTO and environmental provisions: three categories of trade and environmental linkage. Kiel: Kiel Institute for the World Economy (Keil Working Papers 1485).Google Scholar
Knox, J.H. 2004. The judicial resolution of conflicts between trade and the environment. Harvard Environmental Law Review 28: 1–78.Google Scholar
Koivurova, T., Kokko, K., Duyck, S., Sellheim, N., and Stepien, A.. 2011. The present and future competence of the European Union in the Arctic. Polar Record. DOI: 10.1017/S0032247411000295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lester, S. 2010. The WTO seal products dispute: a preview of the key legal issues. ASIL Insights Issue 14 (2): 1–6. URL: http://www.asil.org/files/insight100113pdf.pdf (accessed 11 April 2011).Google Scholar
Lynge, F. 1995. Indigenous peoples between human rights and environmental protection – an Arctic perspective. Nordic Journal of International Law 64: 489–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIver, J. 2004. The Arctic. In: Watters, L. (editor). Indigenous peoples, the environment and law. Durham NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
NAMMCO (North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission). 2009. Statement issued at the 18th annual meeting of the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission, Tromso: The North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission, 10 September 2009. URL: http://www.nammco.no/webcronize/images/Nammco/935.pdf (accessed 4 April 2011).Google Scholar
Nielsen, L. 2007. The WTO, animals and PPMs. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers (Series on International Law and Development).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norway Mission to the EU. 2009. Norway critical to the EU's proposed ban on trade in seal products. Press Release. URL: http://www.eu-norway.org/news/Norway_EU_seal/ (accessed 13 April 2011).Google Scholar
Read, R. 2004. Like products, health and environmental exceptions: the interpretation of PPMs in recent WTO trade dispute cases. The Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 5 (2): 123–145.Google Scholar
RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). undated. Seals and trade rules: can they live together? England and Wales. URL: http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=1232712338227&mode=prd (accessed 8 April 2010).Google Scholar
Scheinin, M. 2000. The right to enjoy a distinct culture: indigenous and competing uses of land. In: Orlin, S.T., and Scheinin, M. (editors). The jurisprudence of human rights law: a comparative interpretive approach. Turku: Åbo Akademi University: 159–222.Google Scholar
Stevenson, P. 2002. The World Trade Organisation rules: a legal analysis of their adverse impact on animal welfare. Animal Law 8:107–141.Google Scholar
Thiermann, A.B., and Babcock, S.. 2005. Animal welfare and international trade. Scientific and Technical Review of the Office International des Epizooties 24 (2): 747–755.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
TRIPS (Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights). 1994. 1869 UNTS 299. 33 ILM 1197 (1994).Google Scholar
Ulfstein, G. 2004. Indigenous peoples’ right to land. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 8: 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UN (United Nations). 1966a. International covenant on civil and political rights (ICCPR). 19 December 1966. 999 UNTS 171. 171 and 1057 UNTS 407/(1980) (ATS 23/6 ILM 368 (1967)).Google Scholar
UN (United Nations). 1966b. International covenant on the social, economic and cultural rights (ICESCR). 19 December 1966. 993 UNTS 3 (CanTS 1976 No. 46, 6 ILM 360).Google Scholar
UN (United Nations). 1976. The optional protocol to the international covenant on civil and political rights. 1976. GA res. 2200A (XXI), 21 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 59, UN Doc. A/6316 (1966). 999 UNTS 302. URL: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_opt.htm (accessed 23 April 2010).Google Scholar
UN (United Nations). 1992. The Rio declaration on environment and development. Rio De Janeiro. Online: http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163 (accessed 26 April 2010).Google Scholar
UN (United Nations General Assembly). 2007. The United Nations declaration on the rights of the indigenous peoples. New York: UN General Assembly Declaration, 13 September 2007. URL: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html (accessed 15 September 2011).Google Scholar
Usher, P.J., Duhaime, G., and Searles, E.. 2003. The household as an economic unit in Arctic aboriginal communities, and its measurement by means of a comprehensive survey. Social Indicators Research 61: 175–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WTO (World Trade Organization). 1994a. Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (15 April 1994) 1867 UNTS 3.Google Scholar
WTO (World Trade Organization). 1994b. Agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary Measures. 15 April 1994. 1867 UNTS 493.Google Scholar
WTO (World Trade Organization). 1994c. Agreement on technical barriers to trade. 15 April 1994. 1186 UNTS 276.Google Scholar
WTO (World Trade Organization). 1994d. WTO trade and environmental ministerial decision, 14 April 1994. GATT Doc. MTN.TNC/MIN (94)/Rev.1, (1994). 33 International Legal Materials 1267.Google Scholar
WTO (World Trade Organization). 2001a. Report of the appellate body, European Community – Measures affecting asbestos and asbestos-containing products. WT/DS135/AB/R (12 March 2001). Geneva: WTO. URL: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/135abr_e.pdf (accessed 25 January 2012).Google Scholar
WTO (World Trade Organization). 2001b. Report of the appellate body, United States-Import prohibition of certain shrimp and shrimp products – Recourse to article 21.5 of the DSU by Malaysia. WT/DS58/AB/RW (22 October 2001). Geneva: WTO. URL: http://docsonline.wto.org/DDFDocuments/t/WT//DS/58ABRW.doc (accessed 25 January 2012)Google Scholar
WTO (World Trade Organization). 2009a. Report of the dispute settlement panel, China-Measures affecting trading rights and distribution services for certain publications and audiovisual entertainment products. WT/DS/363R (12 August 2009). Geneva: WTO. URL: http://docsonline.wto.org/DDFDocuments/t/WT/DS/363R-00.doc (accessed 25 January 2012).Google Scholar
WTO (World Trade Organization). 2009b. Report of the dispute settlement panel. China-Measures affecting trading rights and distribution services for certain publications and audiovisual entertainment products. WT/DS/363/AB/R (21 December 2009). Geneva: WTO.URL: http://docsonline.wto.org/DDFDocuments/t/WT/DS/363ABR.doc (accessed 25 January 2012)Google Scholar
WTO (World Trade Organization). undated.a. Agriculture negotiations: background phase I: animal welfare and food quality. Geneva. URL: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/negs_bkgrnd12_animalw_e.htm (accessed 25 January 2012).Google Scholar
WTO (World Trade Organization). undated.b. Dispute settlement: dispute DS400. European Communities — measures prohibiting the importation and marketing of seal products. Geneva.: WTOURL: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds400_e.htm (accessed 7 July 2011).Google Scholar
WTO (World Trade Organization). undated.c. Dispute settlement system training module: chapter 6. The process — stages in a typical WTO dispute settlement case. Geneva: WTO. URL: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/disp_settlement_cbt_e/c6s3p1_e.htm (accessed 10 July 2011).Google Scholar
WTO (World Trade Organization). undated.d. European Communities – Measures prohibiting the importation and marketing of seal products. Geneva: WTO. URL: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds401_e.htm (accessed 22 November 2011).Google Scholar