nventional international trade theory today.

4 Phillip Evans & James Walsh, The EIU Guide to the New GATT 128 (1994)

5 Aug.22 2000, Hua Sheng Bao, also see http://www.chinaonline.com/topstories/000831/1/C00082202.asp

6 North American Free Trade Agreement

7 WTO Agreement, Marrakesh, 15 April 1994, see http://www.wto.org

8 Article XX of GATT:
Subject to the requirement that such measure are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on international trade, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by any contracting party of measures:

(b) necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health;

(g) relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources if such measures are made effective in conjunction with restrictions on domestic production or consumption;

9 Panel Report: United States--Restrictions on Imports of Tuna, Aug 16, 1991 30 I.L.M. 1598 (1992)

10 Janect McDonald, Trade and the Environment: Greening the GATT: Harmonizing Free Trade and Environmental Protection in the New World Order, 23. ENVTL.L. 402,438 (1992)

11 WTO, Panel Report: United States--Standard for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, Jan 29, 1996, 35 I.L.M 274 (1996)

12 WTO, Appellate Body Report: United States--Standard for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, Jan 29, 1996, 35 I.L.M 603 (1996)

13 WTO Panel Report: United States--Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products 37 I.LM 832 (1998)

14 WTO, Appellate Body Report: United States--Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products 38 I.L.M 118 (1998)

15 In response to the ruling the U.S. has proposed to alter the way it implements the Act but it has not changed the Act itself.

16 see supra note 14 para 185

17 For example, in the shrimp case, the U.S. would have had to engage in bilateral or multilateral negotiation with shrimp harvesting countries. Only if these had proven to be unsuccessful could the U.S. have introduced unilateral measures. These unilateral measures would have needed to be designed such that differing conditions in different countries are taken into account, that all countries are granted the same “phase-in” periods, that the U.S. undertakes the same effort in transferring sea turtle safe-harvesting technology to all relevant parties, and that the certification process is transparent and allows affected countries to be heard and to appeal against non-certification. see supra note 14 para 163-180

18 see http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/environment.pdf

19 Embracing Greenery, Economist, Oct.9, 1999, at 89-90

20 see Steve Charnovitz: World Trade and the Environment: A Review of the New WTO Report, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, Winter, 2000

21 Craig A.A.Dixon: Environmental survey of WTO dispute panel resolution panel decision since 1995:”Trade at all costs?”, William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, Winter 2000

22 See Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Environmental labelling in OECD Countries 43 (1991)

上一页  [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]