Tbt Agreement Article 2

Article 22(8) of the Memorandum of Understanding („The pension of concessions or other obligations shall be temporary and shall be applied only until the measure found to be inconsistent with a covered agreement has been repealed or the Member which is required to implement recommendations or decisions offers a solution for the cancellation or deterioration of services or a mutually satisfactory solution is found.“). Although the TBT Convention has not yet been the subject of an in-depth analysis by the Appellate Body, the Appellate Body`s decisions in these two labelling disputes provide an overview of the obligations under this Agreement. These cases can provide advice to Congress and law enforcement agencies in formulating technical regulations, including labeling programs. Legislators and public authorities must assess whether a regulatory system is detrimental to foreign trade and, if so, they must ensure that the programme is appropriately adapted so that it is applied impartially. Shortly after the Second World War, developed countries sought to conclude a multilateral international agreement aimed at removing barriers to international trade. In 1947, these countries concluded the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947 (GATT 1947) to reduce tariffs and implement rules to prevent discrimination in international trade.18 With this agreement, the international community sought to liberalize trade markets and ensure greater trade in goods across international borders. However, in the decades following the creation of GATT in 1947, countries sought to further open world markets by removing non-tariff barriers. Before analysing how the WTO Appellate Body has assessed certain labelling requirements under Article 2(1) of the TBT Agreement, it should be noted that, unlike other WTO Agreements, the TBT Agreement does not provide explicit exceptions to these obligations. For example, Article XX of the GATT provides that Members may take measures that would otherwise be contrary to GATT obligations if such measures are adopted to protect human health or the environment, to conserve natural resources or to „protect public morals“. 45 The measure is GATT-compliant if it falls within one of these exceptions, unless it is a disguised trade restriction or is implemented arbitrarily.46 Whether a Member has duly invoked one of the exceptions is subject to review by a WTO dispute settlement panel. In addition, under Article XXI of the GATT, a Member may maintain an otherwise inadmissible measure if it has adopted it to protect national security.47 The TBT Agreement does not contain any explicit exception to this effect.48 This feature has led some commentators to question whether the obligations of the TBT Agreement should be applied more strictly than other WTO Agreements.49 As noted below, the Appellate Body appears to have included at least some of these exceptions in the text of the TBT Agreement50 The TBT serves to ensure that technical regulations, standards, testing and certification procedures do not create unnecessary barriers to trade. The agreement prohibits technical requirements created to restrict trade, as opposed to technical requirements created for legitimate purposes such as consumer or environmental protection. [1] Indeed, its purpose is to avoid unnecessary barriers to international trade and to give all WTO Members the recognition of protecting legitimate interests in accordance with their own regulatory autonomy, while promoting the application of international standards.

The list of legitimate interests which may justify a restriction of trade is not exhaustive and includes environmental protection, human and animal health and safety. 1 This Agreement covers all industrial and agricultural products. with the exception of services, sanitary and phytosanitary measures (within the meaning of the Convention on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures) and the „Specifications established by the public authorities for the production or consumption needs of the public authorities“ (Art. 1.4). [2] 3. Citizens of the parties to the dispute may not act in a panel of technical experts without the joint consent of the parties to the dispute, unless the panel considers that the need for specialized scientific expertise cannot be met by other means. Officials of the parties to the dispute may not act in a group of technical experts. Members of technical expert panels serve in their individual capacity and not as representatives of the government or an organization. Governments or organizations cannot therefore give them instructions on matters submitted to a group of technical experts.

WTO website, Disputes by Agreement, www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_agreements_index_e.htm?id=A22# (last visited 22 September 2015) (which shows that most of the disputes raised under the TBT Agreement concerned Article 2, the provision on technical regulations). the compliance panels and the Appellate Body reviewing these changes. The Article 2(1) criterion used above remained the same. If the technical regulation has negative effects, the WTO review panel determines whether the technical regulation is based on a „legitimate regulatory distinction“. 134 The mere adverse effect is not sufficient to establish a breach of Article 2.1, that is to say, if the Member transposing the Regulation can demonstrate that the Regulation is based on a legitimate regulatory distinction applied in a `balanced` manner, then the technical regulation is valid. In particular, this part of the test is not easily apparent from the wording of Article 2(1), as there is no explicit exception to the legitimate regulatory distinctions set out in Article.135 However, the Appellate Body has found that a measure merely because it harms certain products does not mean that those products are treated less favourably. Under the Dispute Settlement Understanding (WTO DSU), Members may challenge another Member`s trade regime as a violation of a WTO Agreement. Dispute Settlement Agreement, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 2, 1869 U.N.T.S. 401 (1994) (`the DSU`). The first step in the dispute resolution process requires one member to consult with the other member to see if an amicable solution to the problem can be found. Memorandum of Understanding art.

4. If no mutually acceptable solution is agreed, a Member may ask a WTO Dispute Settlement Body to decide whether the challenged measure violates a WTO obligation. Memorandum of Understanding art. 6. For more information on dispute settlement procedure, see CRS report RS20088, Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization (WTO): an overview, by [author`s name cleaned], [author`s name cleaned] and [author`s name cleaned]. Article 2 of the TBT Agreement contains various requirements that WTO Members must comply with when adopting technical regulations. .

Kommentare sind hier leider nicht gestattet