Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T19:25:54.265Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples (AB-2003-4): One Bad Apple? (DS245/AB/R): A Comment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2010

Damien J. Neven
Affiliation:
Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva
Joseph H. H. Weiler
Affiliation:
Jean Monnet Center for International Economic Law & Justice, New York University School of Law
Henrik Horn
Affiliation:
Stockholms Universitet
Petros C. Mavroidis
Affiliation:
Université de Neuchâtel, Switzerland
Get access

Summary

Introduction

This chapter reviews the decision by the Appellate Body (AB) regarding measures affecting the importation of apples in Japan. Section 2 of the chapter presents some background facts. Section 3 considers the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) agreement and emphasizes the fact that it imposes a discipline on risk-reducing measures even in the absence of discrimination or protectionism. Section 4 discusses how the evaluation of risk-reducing measures can be undertaken in the context of the SPS agreement. Our discussion focuses on two issues: the scope of the mandate given to the adjudicators and the standard of review that they should apply. We emphasize the difficulty of the task faced by the adjudicators, namely to distinguish between determining the level of risk that a country will find optimal to support (which cannot be challenged) and determining whether risk-reducing measures are necessary to achieve the chosen level of risk. We further observe that the common methodology used by Panels, namely to evaluate the existence of risk in the absence of risk-reducing measures, has limited applicability. We also discuss how this approach can be abused, leading the adjudicators to slip from an evaluation of whether the measures are necessary to achieve a given level of risk to an implicit challenge of the level of risk itself (which should remain the preserve of the Members). Regarding the standard of review, we argue that a lower standard should be applied to measures that do not threaten fundamental principles like nondiscrimination.

Type
Chapter
Information
The WTO Case Law of 2003
The American Law Institute Reporters' Studies
, pp. 280 - 310
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

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

Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, Ambiguity and the Savage Axioms, Quarterly Journal of Economics 75(5), 643–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghirardato, P., Maccheroni, F. and Marinacci, M. (2002). Ambiguity from the differential viewpoint, Working Paper No. 17/2002 ICER.
Gilboa, I. and Schmeidler, D. (1989). Max-min expected utility with non unique priors, Journal of Mathematical Economics 18, 141–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gollier, C. (2001). Should We Beware of the Precautionary Principle?, Economic Policy 33, 301–328.Google Scholar
Henry, M. (2002). Generalized entropy measures of ambiguity and their measurement, mimeo, Columbia University.
Henry, C. and Henry, M. (2003). Etat de la connaissance scientifique et mobilisation du principe de precaution, Revue Economique 54, 1277–1289.Google Scholar
Savage, L.J. (1956). The Foundation of StatisticsWiley, New York.Google Scholar
Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save 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 saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save 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 saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×