Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword
- A Note on the American Law Institute
- American Law Institute Reporters
- 1 Introduction
- 2 European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India (AB-2000-13, WT/DS141/AB/R:DSR 2003: III, 965): Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by India
- 3 United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan (AB-2003-5, WT/DS244/AB/R): A Legal and Economic Analysis of the Appellate Body Ruling
- 4 United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (WT/DS217/AB/R: DSR 2003:I,375)
- 5 European Community – Antidumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil (WT/DS219/AB/R: DSR 2003:VI, 2613)
- 6 United States – Final Determination with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada (AB-2003-6, WT/DS257/AB/R)
- 7 United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products (WT/DS259; WT/DS252; WT/DS248; WT/DS249; WT/DS251; WT/DS258; WT/DS254; WT/DS253: DSR 2003:VII, 3117)
- 8 Mexico – Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services (WT/DS204/R): A Comment on “El mess in TELMEX”
- 9 European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries (WT/DS246/AB/R)
- 10 United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 (Original Complaint by the European Communities) – Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS136/ARB, 24 February 2004: A Legal and Economic Analysis
- 11 Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples (AB-2003-4): One Bad Apple? (DS245/AB/R): A Comment
- Index
- References
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
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword
- A Note on the American Law Institute
- American Law Institute Reporters
- 1 Introduction
- 2 European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India (AB-2000-13, WT/DS141/AB/R:DSR 2003: III, 965): Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by India
- 3 United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan (AB-2003-5, WT/DS244/AB/R): A Legal and Economic Analysis of the Appellate Body Ruling
- 4 United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (WT/DS217/AB/R: DSR 2003:I,375)
- 5 European Community – Antidumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil (WT/DS219/AB/R: DSR 2003:VI, 2613)
- 6 United States – Final Determination with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada (AB-2003-6, WT/DS257/AB/R)
- 7 United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products (WT/DS259; WT/DS252; WT/DS248; WT/DS249; WT/DS251; WT/DS258; WT/DS254; WT/DS253: DSR 2003:VII, 3117)
- 8 Mexico – Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services (WT/DS204/R): A Comment on “El mess in TELMEX”
- 9 European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries (WT/DS246/AB/R)
- 10 United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 (Original Complaint by the European Communities) – Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS136/ARB, 24 February 2004: A Legal and Economic Analysis
- 11 Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples (AB-2003-4): One Bad Apple? (DS245/AB/R): A Comment
- Index
- References
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 2003The American Law Institute Reporters' Studies, pp. 280 - 310Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2006
References
- 7
- Cited by