Thursday, September 15, 2011
The World Trade Organization issued the report of the panel that had examined Mexico’s complaint regarding “United States — Measures concerning the importation, marketing and sale of tuna and tuna products” (DS381). Click here for the panel report. Here's a summary of the key findings:
Summary of key findings
- This dispute concerns the following measures: (i) the United States Code, Title 16, Section 1385 (“Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act”), (ii) the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Section 216.91 (“Dolphin‑safe labeling standards”) and Section 216.92 (“Dolphin‑safe requirements for tuna harvested in the ETP [Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean] by large purse seine vessels”) and (iii) the ruling in Earth Island Institute v. Hogarth, 494 F.3d 757 (9th Cir. 2007). These measures establish the conditions for use of a “dolphin‑safe” label on tuna products. The measures condition the access to the US Department of Commerce official dolphin-safe label upon bringing certain documentary evidence that varies depending on the area where tuna contained in the tuna product is harvested and the fishing method by which it is harvested.
- Mexico's main claims were that the measures were discriminatory, and that they were also unnecessary.
- The Panel first determined whether the US dolphin-safe labelling provisions constitute a technical regulation under the TBT Agreement. The Panel found that they do, and in particular that the measures are mandatory within the meaning of Annex 1.1 of the TBT Agreement. One of the members of the Panel expressed a dissenting opinion on this particular issue but sided with the majority for the rest of the report. The Panel then examined Mexico's claims under Articles 2.1, 2.2, and 2.4 of the TBT Agreement.
- The Panel rejected Mexico's first claim by finding that the US dolphin-safe labelling provisions do not discriminate against Mexican tuna products and are therefore not inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement. Despite finding that Mexican tuna products are like tuna products originating in the United States or any other country within the meaning of Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, the Panel concluded that Mexican tuna products are not afforded less favourable treatment than tuna products of US and other origins in respect of the US dolphin safe labelling provisions on the basis of their origin.
- With respect to Mexico's claim under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, the Panel found that Mexico had demonstrated that the US dolphin-safe labelling provisions are more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil the legitimate objectives of (i) ensuring that consumers are not misled or deceived about whether tuna products contain tuna that was caught in a manner that adversely affects dolphins and (ii) contributing to the protection of dolphins, by ensuring that the US market is not used to encourage fishing fleets to catch tuna in a manner that adversely affects dolphins, taking account of the risks non-fulfilment would create. The Panel's conclusion was based on the following two findings: (i) the findings that the US dolphin-safe labelling provisions only partly address the legitimate objectives pursued by the United States and (ii) the finding that Mexico had provided the panel with a less trade restrictive alternative capable of achieving the same level of protection of the objective pursued by the US dolphin-safe labelling provisions.
- As regards Mexico's claim under Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement, the Panel found that the US dolphin-safe labelling provisions are not in violation of such provision, which requires technical regulations to be based on relevant international standards where possible. Despite finding that the standard referred to by Mexico is a relevant international standard for the purposes of the US dolphin-safe provisions and that the United States has not used it as basis for its measures, the Panel concluded that this standard would not be appropriate or effective to achieve the US objectives.
- The Panel declined to rule in addition on Mexico's non-discrimination claims under the GATT 1994 and therefore exercised judicial economy with respect to Mexico's claims under Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT.