Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-cxxrm Total loading time: 0.382 Render date: 2021-12-04T14:59:11.600Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

11 - Back to court after ShrimpTurtle: India's challenge to labor and environmental linkages in the EC generalized system of preferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2009

Robert Howse
Affiliation:
Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School
Eyal Benvenisti
Affiliation:
Tel-Aviv University
Moshe Hirsch
Affiliation:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The Appellate Body rulings in the Shrimp–Turtle case created a new baseline for the trade and environment debate at the WTO. The Appellate Body held that Article XX GATT can be invoked to justify measures that condition market access on policies adopted by the exporting country, contrary to the approach taken by the unadopted GATT-era Tuna–Dolphin panels. Further, the Appellate Body explicitly noted that this holding applied not only to the environmental provision at issue in the case (Article XX(g)), but to most of the paragraphs of Article XX, including, significantly, XX(a) (inter alia), the “protection of public morals”(para. 121) – a rubric often claimed to encompass fundamental labor rights.

Before Shrimp–Turtle, it was conventional wisdom that trade measures targeted at other countries' environmental (or for that matter, labor) policies could not be accommodated within the Article XX framework. But, equally, it was conventional wisdom that since preferences to developing countries granted under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) were voluntary and non-binding, they could be withdrawn or circumscribed on the basis of matters such as labor rights compliance, without running afoul of WTO law. In general, GSP preferences have been exempted from the Most Favored Nation (MFN) requirement in Article I of the GATT, first by a waiver, and then by a Tokyo Round Decision, called the “Enabling Clause.”

Type
Chapter
Information
The Impact of International Law on International Cooperation
Theoretical Perspectives
, pp. 261 - 298
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2004

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.)

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Send book to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Send book to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×