About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

10 Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 915 (1997-1998)
Limiting the Jurisdiction of Dispute Settlement Panels: The WTO Appellate Body Beef Hormone Decision

handle is hein.journals/gintenlr10 and id is 923 raw text is: Limiting the Jurisdiction of Dispute Settlement Panels: The WTO Appellate Body Beef Hormone Decision LAYLA HUGHES* In January 1998, environmentalists breathed a sigh of relief as the World Trade Organization (WTO) modified several findings of the nearly disastrous lower Panel opinion on the EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products. If upheld, the Panel Reports would have significantly encroached upon the right of nations to determine their own health policies. Yet clear dangers remain in allowing a WTO panel to hear complaints about national regulatory measures, and general conflicts between the international trade and environment regimes will continue to grow. The problem with the WTO's jurisdiction over such disputes is primarily attributable to the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosani- tary Measures (SPS Agreement), which governs Members' ability to adopt food safety standards. The SPS Agreement creates a substantive obligation for Members to base these health measures on scientific evidence. This requirement lacks a foundation in either domestic or international environmental law and fails to encompass the multiplicity of considerations necessary for an appropriate analysis of health and environmental measures. The WTO's resolution of the Beef Hormones dispute also illuminates the need for a dispute resolution body that is well versed in both international trade and environmental laws. While the goals of trade liberalization and environmental protection are not inherently incompatible and are often mutually reinforcing, the WTO's lack of environmental expertise, when combined with its attempt to govern environmental measures, places these goals at odds. The WTO's assertion of jurisdiction over disputes for which it lacks competence also leads to the settlement of disputes by panels that can identify neither the guiding and interpretive principles in the trade and environmental regimes that are compat- ible, nor those principles in international law that must be further developed in order to promote the achievement of both goals. This note explores the problem of the reach of the WTO's jurisdiction over environmental disputes, as exemplified by the Beef Hormones dispute. Part I of this note presents the background of the dispute between the European * J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, 1998; B.A., International Relations and Environmental Studies, American University, 1995. The author would like to thank Professors Edith Brown Weiss and Frieder Roessler for their guidance and support in writing this note.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most