Chapter 4 examines the requirement in Article XX GATT 1994 and Article XIV GATS (the General Exceptions) as well as Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement that a Member’s measure must contribute to a certain policy objective. The chapter argues that this requirement is essentially a causal requirement, and raises some jurisprudence that has argued the same. The chapter also traces through parts of the jurisprudence that would seem to support a non-attribution analysis of some kind being used in this context. The chapter concludes by proposing that the Tripartite Non-attribution/Causal Link Analysis might be applied to make a determination of causation for the purposes of this requirement under the General Exceptions and Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. The chapter concludes by setting out in detail how the Tripartite Non-attribution/Causal Link Analysis might be applied to make causal determinations for the purposes of the General Exceptions and Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.

Chapter 1 introduces the distinction between cause-in-fact and cause-in-law and defines both. Under ’cause-in-fact’, this chapter introduces different approaches to determining causation based on non-quantitative approaches (e.g., sine qua non and weak necessity/strong sufficiency tests) vis-à-vis quantitative approaches (e.g., the Statistical Significance Test and Linear Regression Analysis). The chapter also discusses the benefits and drawbacks of each of these tests. Chapter 1 also introduces the concept of ’cause-in-law’ theories, but explains why they are less relevant for the purposes of the book. To this end, it argues that the quantitative methods that are inherent in the use of the Tripartite Non-attribution/Causal Link Analysis serve to delimit responsibility for injury.