Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter July 11, 2013

Is There a Linkage Between Sustainable Development and Market Access of LDCs?

  • Sharmin Jahan Tania EMAIL logo

Abstract

This article revisits the decades-long trade–sustainable development debate in the context of Rio+20 and its endorsement of green economy policy. It aims to grapple with the possible linkages between LDCs’ market access regime and the concept of sustainable development itself. Conflicting perceptions of developed and least developed country (LDC) members of the WTO as to the conceptual basis of sustainable development, this article argues, explain the challenges LDCs face in the form of impediments to their market access. By examining the specific market access issues, this article reveals how developed countries’ concerns for sustainable development turn out to be market access barriers for LDCs. As the call for transition to green economy could exacerbate some of these concerns of LDCs, the article suggests a common ground, where a balanced trading regime can be most productively envisioned through a reasoned discourse of market access for LDCs linked with a conceptual route of sustainable development.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Professor Rafiqul Islam, Associate Professor Shawkat Alam and Dr Jona Razzaque for their comments on the earlier draft and Professor Alan Boyle for his comments on the ANZSIL presentation. All errors are mine.

References

Adams, William M., Green Development, Environment and Sustainability in the Third World (2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2001).Search in Google Scholar

Address of the President of the Republic of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, at the Opening of the World Summit for Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, 26 August 2002), available at: http://www.dfa.gov.za/docs/speeches/2002/mbek0826.htm>.Search in Google Scholar

Alam, Shawkat, Sustainable Development and Free Trade, Routledge Studies in Development Economics (London: Routledge, 2007).10.4324/9780203936061Search in Google Scholar

Appleton, Arthur E., Supermarket Labels and the TBT Agreement: Mind the GAP, Business Law Brief (Fall 2007); Bio Suisse, Bio Suisse Import Restrictions, available at: http://www.bio-suisse.ch/en/biosuisseimportpolicy.php>.Search in Google Scholar

Atapattu, Sumudu, Sustainable Development Myth or Reality?: A Survey or Sustainable Development under International Law and Sri Lankan Law, 14 Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, no. 2 (2002).Search in Google Scholar

Athukorala, Prema-chandra and Sisira Jayasuriya, Food Safety Issues, Trade and WTO Rules: A Developing Country Perspective, 26 The World Economy, no. 9 (2004).10.1046/j.1467-9701.2003.00576.xSearch in Google Scholar

Atik, Jeffery, “Trade and Health”, in D. Bethlehem, D. McRae, R. Neufeld and I. Van Damme (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).Search in Google Scholar

Bagwell, Kyle and Robert W. Staiger, The WTO as a Mechanism for Securing Market Access Property Rights: Implications for Global Labor and Environmental Issues, 15 Journal of Economic Perspectives, no. 3 (2001).10.1257/jep.15.3.69Search in Google Scholar

Bagwell, Kyle, Petros C. Mavroidis and Robert W. Staiger, It’s a Question of Market Access, 96 American Journal of International Law, no. 1 (2002).10.2307/2686125Search in Google Scholar

Bartels, Lorand, “Trade and Human Rights”, in D. Bethlehem, D. McRae, R. Neufeld and I. Van Damme (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Trade Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).Search in Google Scholar

Bartels, Lorand, Article XX of GATT and the Problem of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: The Case of Trade Measures for the Protection of Human Rights, 36 Journal of World Trade, no. 2 (2002).Search in Google Scholar

Baughen, Simon, International Trade and the Protection of the Environment (London, New York: Routledge-Cavendish, 2007).Search in Google Scholar

Bernasconi-Osterwalder, Nathalie, Linsey Sherman, and Mahesh Sugathan, “Environmental Goods and Non-Agricultural Market Access”, in A. Najam, M. Halle and R. Melendez-Ortiz (eds.), Trade and Environment: A Resource Book (Manitoba: International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2007).Search in Google Scholar

Bhagwati, Jagdish, “Trade Liberalisation and ‘Fair Trade’ Demands: Addressing the Environmental and Labour Standards Issues”, in J. Bhagwati (ed.), A Stream of Windows: Unsettling Reflections on Trade, Immigration, and Democracy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998).Search in Google Scholar

Bhagwati, Jagdish, Afterword: The Question of Linkage, 96 American Journal of International Law, no. 1 (2002).10.2307/2686129Search in Google Scholar

Bodansky, Daniel and Jessica C. Lawrence, “Trade and Environment”, in D. Bethlehem, D. McRae, R. Neufeld and I. Van Damme (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).Search in Google Scholar

Bonsi, Richard, A. L. Hammett, and Bob Smith, Eco-Labels and International Trade: Problems and Solutions, 42 Journal of World Trade, no. 3 (2008).Search in Google Scholar

Boyle, Alan and David Freestone, “Introduction”, in A. Boyle and D. Freestone (eds.), International Law and Sustainable Development (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198298076.003.0001Search in Google Scholar

Brack, Duncan, Michael Grubb, and Craig Windram, International Trade and Climate Change Policies (London and Virginia: Earthscan, 2000).Search in Google Scholar

Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres, Report of the Appellate Body, WTO Doc WT/DS322/AB/R (17 December 2007).Search in Google Scholar

Brown, Bartram S., Developing Countries in the International Trade Order, 14 Northern Illinois University Law Review, no. 2 (1993).Search in Google Scholar

Burri-Nenova, Mira, Trade and Culture in International Law: Paths to (Re)conciliation, 44 Journal of World Trade, no. 1 (2010).10.2139/ssrn.1349089Search in Google Scholar

Carbon Trust, available at: http://www.carbontrustcertification.com/page?pageid=a042000000FjjEv>Search in Google Scholar

Carpentier, Chantal Line, Kevin P. Gallagher, and Scott Vaughan, Environmental Goods and Services in the World Trade Organisation, 14 The Journal of Environment and Development, no. 14 (2005).10.1177/1070496505277218Search in Google Scholar

Chang, Seung Wha, GATTing the Green Trade Barrier: Eco-Labelling and the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, 31 Journal of World Trade, no. 1 (1997).Search in Google Scholar

Charnovitz, Steve, “An Introduction to the Trade and Environment Debate”, in Kevin P. Gallagher (ed.), Handbook on Trade and the Environment (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008).10.4337/9781848446045.00029Search in Google Scholar

Charnovitz, Steve, A New WTO Paradigm for Trade and the Environment, 11 Singapore Yearbook of International Law (2007), 15–40.Search in Google Scholar

Charnovitz, Steve, The Law of Environmental “PPMs” in the WTO: Debunking the Myth of Illegality, 27 Yale Journal of International Law, no. 1 (2002).Search in Google Scholar

Charnovitz, Steve, The World Trade Organization and the Environment, 8 Yearbook of International Environmental Law, no. 1 (1997).10.1093/yiel/8.1.98Search in Google Scholar

Charnovitz, Steve, The Influence of International Labour Standards on the World Trading Regime: A Historical Overview, 126 International Labour Review, no. 5 (1987), 565–584.Search in Google Scholar

Chaturvedi, Sachin and Nagesh Kumar, “An Introduction”, in N. Kumar and S. Chaturvedi (eds.), Environmental Requirements and Market Access: Reflections from South Asia (New Delhi: Academic Foundation, 2007).Search in Google Scholar

Chaytor, Beatrice, “Liberalisation of Environmental Goods: A Double-Edged Sword or a Panacea?” In A. Najam, M. Halle and R. Melendez-Ortiz (eds.), Trade and Environment: A Resource Book (Geneva: International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2007).Search in Google Scholar

China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials, Report of the Panel, WT/DS394/R; WT/DS395/R; WT/DS398/R, (22 February 2012); Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS394/AB/R; WT/DS395/AB/R; WT/DS398/AB/R (22 February 2012).Search in Google Scholar

China – Publications and Audiovisual Products, WT/DS363/AB/R, Report of the Appellate Body (21 December 2009).Search in Google Scholar

Commission on Sustainable Development, Report of the Expert Group Meeting on Identification of Principles of International Law for Sustainable Development, Paper No 3, Prepared for the Commission on Sustainable Development, Fourth Session (Geneva, 26–28 September 1995), available at: http://www.un.org/documents/ecosoc/cn17/1996/background/ecn171996-bp3.htm>.Search in Google Scholar

Cosbey, Aaron, “Are There Downsides to a Green Economy? The Trade, Investment and Competitiveness Implications of Unilateral Green Economic Pursuit”, in Chris M. Simpson (ed.), The Road to Rio+20: For a Development-led Green Economy (New York and Geneva: United Nations, 2011), available at: http://unctad.org/en/Docs/ditcted20108_en.pdf>.10.2139/ssrn.1949934Search in Google Scholar

Cosbey, Aaron, “Trade, Sustainable Development and a Green Economy: Benefits, Challenges and Risks”, in The Transition to a Green Economy: Benefits, Challenges and Risks from a Sustainable Development Perspective, Report by a Panel of Experts to Second Preparatory Committee Meeting for United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, p. 16, available at: http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/content/documents/Green%20Economy_full%20report.pdf> accessed 10 February 2013.Search in Google Scholar

Cullet, Philippe, Differential Treatment in International Environmental Law (Aldershot Hants: Ashgate, 2003).Search in Google Scholar

Das, Kasturi, “Coping with SPS Challenges in South Asia”, in B. S. Chimni, S. Kelegama, M. Rahman and L. M. Philip (eds.), South Asian Yearbook of Trade and Development (New Delhi: Academic Foundation, 2009).Search in Google Scholar

Davis, Christina L., Food Fights over Free Trade: How International Institutions Promote Agricultural Trade Liberalization (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003).Search in Google Scholar

Dean, Judith M., Trade and the Environment: A Survey of the Literature, Policy Research Working Paper Series 966 (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 1992), p. 15.Search in Google Scholar

Dhar, Biswajit and Kasturi Das, How Vulnerable Is India’s Trade to Possible Border Carbon Adjustments in the EU? 46 Journal of World Trade, no. 2 (2012).10.54648/TRAD2012009Search in Google Scholar

Disdier, Anne-Celia, Belay Fekadu, Carlos Murillo, and Sara A. Wong, Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical and Diversification Products, ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development, Issue Paper No 2 (Geneva: ICTSD, 2008).10.7215/AG_IP_20080501ASearch in Google Scholar

Doyle, Timothy, Sustainable Development and Agenda 21: The Secular Bible of Global Free Markets and Pluralist Democracy, 19 Third World Quarterly, no. 4 (1998).10.1080/01436599814235Search in Google Scholar

Earley, Jane and Laura Kneale Anderson, Developing-Country Access to Developed-Country Markets Under Selected Ecolabelling Programmes, Joint Working Party on Trade and Environment, COM/ENV/TD(2003)30/FINAL (24 December 2003), available at: http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocumentpdf/?cote=com/env/td(2003)30/final&doclanguage=en>.Search in Google Scholar

Earth Summit 2012, available at: http://earthsummit2012.org/historical-ngo-reports-and-papers/the-founex-report-on-development-and-environment>.Search in Google Scholar

Engdahl, F. William, The Hidden Agenda behind the Bush Administration’s Biofuel Plan, Global Research (25 July 2007), available at: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context= va&aid=6407>.Search in Google Scholar

Epps, Tracey, International Trade and Health Protection: A Critical Assessment of the WTO”s SPS Agreement, Elgar International Economic Law Series (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008).10.4337/9781848443877Search in Google Scholar

Espa, Ilaria, The Appellate Body Approach to the Applicability of Article XX GATT in the Light of China – Raw Materials: A Missed Opportunity? 46 Journal of World Trade, no. 6 (2012).10.54648/TRAD2012044Search in Google Scholar

Esty, Daniel C., Bridging the Trade-Environment Divide, 15 Journal of Economic Perspectives, no. 3 (2001).10.1257/jep.15.3.113Search in Google Scholar

European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, Report of the Appellate Body, WTO Doc WT/DS135/AB/R (5 April 2001).Search in Google Scholar

French, Duncan, Developing States and International Environmental Law: The Importance of Differentiated Responsibilities, 49 International and Comparative Law Quarterly, no. 1 (2000).10.1017/S0020589300063958Search in Google Scholar

GATT Secretariat, International Trade 1990–1991, vol. 1 (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1992), available at: http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/008-082/008-082.html>.Search in Google Scholar

Gehring, Markus W. and Marie-Claire Cordiner Segger, “Introduction”, in Markus W. Gehring and Marie-Claire Cordiner Segger (eds.), Sustainable Development in World Trade Law (The Hague: The Kluwer Law International, 2005).Search in Google Scholar

Geneva Ministerial Declaration, WTO Ministerial Conference, Geneva, WTO Doc WT/MIN(98)/DEC/1 (25 May 1998) (adopted on 20 May 1998).Search in Google Scholar

George, Clive and Colin Kirkpatrick, Trade and Development: Assessing the Impact of Trade Liberalisation on Sustainable Development, 38 Journal of World Trade, no. 3 (2004).Search in Google Scholar

Global Ecolabelling Network, available at: http://www.gen.gr.jp/eco.html>.Search in Google Scholar

Global Ecolabelling Network, Product Category List by Program, available at: http://www.globalecolabelling.net/categories_7_criteria/list_by_program/>.Search in Google Scholar

Goh, Gavin, The World Trade Organization, Kyoto and Energy Tax Adjustments at the Border, 38 Journal of World Trade, no. 3 (2004).10.54648/TRAD2004016Search in Google Scholar

Gray, Kevin R., Right to Food Principles vis a vis Rules Governing International Trade (December 2003), available at: http://www.redsan-palop.org/doc01/013.pdf>.Search in Google Scholar

Green Economy Side Event, The Trade Dimension in the Follow-up to the Rio+20 Summit (Rio de Janeiro, 08:30 to 10:30 am, 20 June 2012), available at: http://r0.unctad.org/trade_env/rio2012green.asp>.Search in Google Scholar

Halle, Mark, Trade and Environment: Looking Beneath the Sands of Doha, 2 Journal of European Environmental and Planning Law, no. 2 (2006).10.1163/187601006X00353Search in Google Scholar

Hawley, Charles, The World from Berlin “Rio+20 Has Become the Summit of Futility” (Spiegel Online International, 21 June 2012), available at: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/widespread-criticism-of-rio-environment-summit-a-840181.html>.Search in Google Scholar

Henson, Spencer and Rupert Loader, Barriers to Agricultural Exports from Developing Countries: The Role of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Requirements, 29 World Development, no. 1 (2001).10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00085-1Search in Google Scholar

Henson, Spencer, Rupert Loader, Alan Swinbank and Maury Bredahl, “How Developing Countries View the Impact of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures on Agricultural Exports”, in M. D. Ingco and L. A. Winters (eds.), Agriculture and the New Trade Agenda: Creating a Global Trading Environment for Development (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).10.1017/CBO9780511550676.017Search in Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Ulrich and Tom Rotherham, “Environmental Requirements and Market Access for Developing Countries: Promoting Environmental – Not Trade – Protection”, in UNCTAD (ed.), Trade and Environment Review 2006 (New York and Geneva: United Nations, 2006).10.18356/8aa771f9-enSearch in Google Scholar

Holtby, Kareen L., William A. Kerr and Jill E. Hobbs, International Environmental Liability and Barriers to Trade: Market Access and Biodiversity in the Biosafety Protocol (Cambridge, MA: Edward Elgar, 2007).Search in Google Scholar

Horlick, Gary N., “WTO and Climate Change ‘Incentives’”, in T. Cottier, O. Nartova and S. Z. Bigdeli (eds.), International Trade Regulation and Mitigation of Climate Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).10.1017/CBO9780511757396.010Search in Google Scholar

Howse, Robert and Antonia L. Eliason, “Domestic and International Strategies to Address Climate Change: An Overview of the WTO Legal Issues”, in T. Cottier, O. Nartova and S. Z. Bigdeli (eds.), International Trade Regulation and Mitigation of Climate Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).Search in Google Scholar

ICTSD, Environment, 3 Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, no. 43 (1999a).Search in Google Scholar

ICTSD, Labour, 3 Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, no. 43 (1999b).Search in Google Scholar

ICTSD, Obama Trade Agenda Cites “Imbalance” in Doha Talks, Urges Focus on Environment, Labour Standards, 13 Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, no. 8 (2009).Search in Google Scholar

ICTSD, SPS CTTE Considers Private Sector Standards: Struggles Continue with S&D, 9 Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, no. 24 (2005).Search in Google Scholar

ICTSD, Troubled State of Doha Talks Causing WTO “Paralysis” Says Lamy; Focus for December Ministerial Shifts, 15 Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, no. 28 (28 July 2011).Search in Google Scholar

ICTSD, WTO Ministerial Conference: Chair Gavels Decisions, Maps Out Future, Bridges Daily Updates, no. 4 (18 December 2011).Search in Google Scholar

ILA New Delhi Declaration of Principles of International Law Relating to Sustainable Development, UN Doc A/CONF.199/8 (9 August 2002).Search in Google Scholar

Islam, M. Rafiqul, International Trade Law of the WTO (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2006).Search in Google Scholar

IUCN, UNEP and WWF, Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living (1991) (hereinafter Caring for the Earth).Search in Google Scholar

IUCN, UNEP and WWF, World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development (1980).10.2305/IUCN.CH.1980.9.enSearch in Google Scholar

Jha, Veena and Rene Vossenaar, “Environmentally Oriented Product Policies, Competitiveness and Market Access”, in V. Jha, G. Hewison and M. Underhill (eds.), Trade, Environment and Sustainable Development: A South Asian Perspective (Basingstoke, New York: Macmillan, St. Martin’s Press, 1997).10.1007/978-1-349-25417-0_4Search in Google Scholar

Joseph, Sarah, Blame It on the WTO? A Human Rights Critique (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199565894.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Joshi, Manoj, Are Eco-Labels Consistent with World Trade Agreements? 38 Journal of World Trade, no. 1 (2004).10.54648/TRAD2004003Search in Google Scholar

Karapinar, Baris and Christian Haberli (eds.), Food Crisis and the WTO (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).10.1017/CBO9780511712005Search in Google Scholar

Khor, Martin, “Challenges of the Green Economy Concept and Policies in the Context of Sustainable Development, Poverty and Equity”, in The Transition to a Green Economy: Benefits, Challenges and Risks from a Sustainable Development Perspective, Report by a Panel of Experts to Second Preparatory Committee Meeting for United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development.Search in Google Scholar

Khor, Martin, Trade, Environment and Sustainable Development: A Developing Country View of the Issues, Including in the WTO Context, Paper presented at the WTO Symposium on Trade and Environment (Geneva, 15 March 1999).Search in Google Scholar

Koebele, Michael, “Article 1 and Annex 1 TBT”, in R. Wolfrum, P. Stoll and A. Seibert-Fohr (eds.), WTO – Technical Barriers and SPS Measures, Max Planck Commentaries on World Trade Law (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007).Search in Google Scholar

Lafferty, William M. and Oluf Langhelle, “Sustainable Development as Concept and Norm”, in W. M. Lafferty and O. Langhelle (eds.), Towards Sustainable Development: On the Goals of Development and the Conditions of Sustainability (London: MacMillan Press, 1999).10.1057/9780230378797Search in Google Scholar

Lavranos, Nikolaos, The Brazilian Tyres Case: Trade Supersedes Health, 1 Trade, Law and Development, no. 2 (2009).Search in Google Scholar

Leader, Sheldon, “Trade and Human Rights II”, in P. F. J. Macrory, A. E. Appleton and M. G. Plammer (eds.), The World Trade Organization: Legal, Economic and Political Analysis, Economic, Political and Regional Issues, vol. 2 (New York: Springer, 2005).Search in Google Scholar

Lim, Hoe, Trade and Human Rights: What’s Issue? 35 Journal of World Trade, no. 2 (2001); S. Joseph, D. Kinley and J. Waincymer (eds.), The World Trade Organization and Human Rights: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar, 2009).Search in Google Scholar

Low, Patrick, Gabrielle Marceau and Julia Reinaud, The Interface between the Trade and Climate Regimes: Scoping the Issues, 46 Journal of World Trade, no. 3 (2012).10.2139/ssrn.1742803Search in Google Scholar

Lowe, Vaughan, “Sustainable Development and Unsustainable Arguments”, in A. Boyle and D. Freestone (eds.), International Law and Sustainable Development (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198298076.003.0002Search in Google Scholar

Maggio, Gregory F., Inter/Intra generational Equity: Current Applications under International Law for Promoting the Sustainable Development of Natural Resources, 4 Buffalo Environmental Law Journal (1996).Search in Google Scholar

Malhotra, Kamal, Making Global Trade Work for the People (London and Virginia: Earthscan, 2003).Search in Google Scholar

Mann, Howard, “Comment on the Paper by Philippe Sands”, in W. Lang (ed.), Sustainable Development and International Law (London and Boston: Graham & Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff, 1995).Search in Google Scholar

Marceau, Gabrielle, “Trade and Labour”, in D. Bethlehem, D. McRae, R. Neufeld and I. Van Damme (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).Search in Google Scholar

Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, 1867 UNTS I-31874 (1995) (entered into force 1 January 1995).Search in Google Scholar

Martellaand, Roger and Kim Smaczniak, Introduction to Rio + 20: A Reflection on Progress since the First Earth Summit and the Opportunities that Lie Ahead, 12 Sustainable Development Law and Policy, no. 7 (2011).Search in Google Scholar

Mayeda, Graham, Developing Disharmony? The SPS and TBT Agreements and the Impact of Harmonisation on Developing Countries, 7 Journal of International Economic Law, no. 4 (2003).10.1093/jiel/7.4.737Search in Google Scholar

McCrudden, Christopher and Anne Davies, “A Perspective on Trade and Labour Rights”, in M. W. Gehring and M. C. Segger (eds.), Sustainable Development in World Trade Law, Global Trade and Finance Series (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2005).Search in Google Scholar

McIsaac, Christine, Opening a GATE to Reduce Global Emissions: Getting Over and into the WTO, 44 Journal of World Trade, no. 5 (2010).Search in Google Scholar

Melendez-Ortiz, Ricardo, Christophe Bellmann and Jonathan Hepburn (eds.), Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO Green Box: Ensuring Coherence with Sustainable Development Goals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).10.1017/CBO9780511674587Search in Google Scholar

Mill, John Stuart, Principles of Political Economy: With Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy (London: George Routledge and Sons, 1891).Search in Google Scholar

Ministerial Declaration, WTO Ministerial Conference, 4th Sess, Doha, WTO Doc WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1 (20 November 2001) (adopted on 14 November 2001).Search in Google Scholar

Nath, Kamal, “Trade, Environment and Sustainable Development”, in V. Jha, G. Hewison and M. Underhill (eds.), Trade, Environment and Sustainable Development: A South Asian Perspective (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1997).Search in Google Scholar

Neuwirth, Rostam J., The Culture and Trade Debate Continues: The UNESCO Convention in Light of the WTO Reports in China – Publications and Audiovisual Products: Between Amnesia or Déjà Vu? 44 Journal of World Trade, no. 6 (2010).10.54648/TRAD2010051Search in Google Scholar

Ocampo, Jose Antonio, “The Macroeconomics of the Green Economy”, in The Transition to a Green Economy: Benefits, Challenges and Risks from a Sustainable Development Perspective, Report by a Panel of Experts to Second Preparatory Committee Meeting for United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, available at: http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/content/documents/Green%20Economy_full%20report.pdf>.Search in Google Scholar

OECD, Process and Production Methods (PPMs): Conceptual Framework and Considerations on Use of PPM-Based Trade Measures, OECD Doc OECD/GD(97)137 (Paris: OECD, 1997), available at: http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=OCDE/GD(97)137&docLanguage=En>.Search in Google Scholar

OECD/Eurostat, Environmental Goods and Services Industry: Manual for the Collection and Analysis of Data (Paris: OECD, 1999), http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/ceea/archive/EPEA/EnvIndustry_Manual_for_data_collection.PDF>.Search in Google Scholar

Office of the United States Trade Representative, 2009 Trade Policy Agenda and 2008 Annual Report (2008), available at: http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/reports-and-publications/2009/2009-trade-policy-agenda-and-2008-annual-report>.Search in Google Scholar

Otsuki, Tsunehiro, John S. Wilson, and Mirvat Sewadeh, Saving Two in a Billion: Quantifying the Trade Effect of European Food Safety Standards on African Exports, 26 Food Policy (2001).10.1016/S0306-9192(01)00018-5Search in Google Scholar

Pallemaerts, Marc, International Law and Sustainable Development: Any Progress in Johannesburg? 12 RICIEL, no. 1 (2003).10.1111/1467-9388.00339Search in Google Scholar

Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich, “Trade and Human Rights I”, in P. F. J. Macrory, A. E. Appleton and M. G. Plammer (eds.), The World Trade Organization: Legal, Economic and Political Analysis, Economic, Political and Regional Issues, vol. 2 (New York: Springer, 2005).Search in Google Scholar

Potts, Jason, The Legality of PPMs under the GATT: Challenges and opportunities for Sustainable Trade Policy (Manitoba: International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2008), available at: http://www.ppl.nl/bibliographies/wto/files/7883.pdf>.Search in Google Scholar

Prabhu, Maya and Kathryn Garforth, “International Public Health and Trade Law”, in M. W. Gehring and Marie C. Segger (eds.), Sustainable Development in World Trade Law, Global Trade and Finance Series (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2005).Search in Google Scholar

Prebisch, Raul, The Economic Development of Latin America and Its Principal Problems (New York: United Nations, Department of Economic Affairs, 1950).Search in Google Scholar

Prévost, Denise and Mariëlle Matthee, The SPS Agreement as a Bottleneck in Agricultural Trade between the European Union and Developing Countries: How to Solve the Conflict, 29 Legal Issues of Economic Integration, no. 1 (2002).Search in Google Scholar

PricewaterhouseCoopers, Sustainability Impact Assessment of the EU-ACP Economic Partnership Agreements – Key Findings, Recommendations and Lessons Learned (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2007), available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2007/june/tradoc_134879.pdf>.Search in Google Scholar

Rajamani, Lavanya, Developing Country Resistance to Linking Trade and Environment: the Perceptions of Inequity and the Politics of Authority, North–South Series no 1 (Connecticut: GETS, 2001).Search in Google Scholar

Rajamani, Lavanya, Differential Treatment in International Environmental Law, Oxford Monographs in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280704.003.0002Search in Google Scholar

Rajamani, Lavanya, The Changing Fortunes of Differential Treatment in the Evolution of International Environmental Law, 88 International Affairs, no. 3 (2012).10.1111/j.1468-2346.2012.01091.xSearch in Google Scholar

Rao, P. K., The World Trade Organization and the Environment (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000).10.1057/9780333993958Search in Google Scholar

Rees, William E., The Ecology of Sustainable Development, 20 The Ecologist, no. 1 (1990).Search in Google Scholar

Ricardo, David, On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (3rd ed., London: John Murray, 1817).Search in Google Scholar

Rodrik, Dani, The Global Governance of Trade as if Development Really Mattered, Background Paper for Trade and Sustainable Human Development Project (UNDP, 2001), available at: http://gopher.mtholyoke.edu/courses/epaus/econ213/rodrikgovernance.PDF>Search in Google Scholar

Romero, Simon and John M. Broder, “Progress on the Sidelines as Rio Conference Ends”, The New York Times, 23 June 2012, available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/world/americas/rio20-conference-ends-with-some-progress-on-the-sidelines.html>.Search in Google Scholar

Sampson, Gary P., The WTO and Sustainable Development (Tokyo, New York and Paris: United Nations University Press, 2005).Search in Google Scholar

Sands, Philippe, Principles of International Environmental Law (2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).Search in Google Scholar

Sands, Philippe, “International Law in the Field of Sustainable Development: Emerging Legal Principles”, in W. Lang (ed.), Sustainable Development and International Law (London and Boston: Graham & Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff, 1995).Search in Google Scholar

Sands, Philippe, International Law in the Field of Sustainable Development, 65 British Yearbook of International Law, no. 1 (1994).10.1093/bybil/65.1.303Search in Google Scholar

Schroder, Humberto Zuniga, Definition of the Concept “International Standards” in the TBT Agreement, 43 Journal of World Trade, no. 6 (2009).10.54648/TRAD2009048Search in Google Scholar

Segger, Marie-Claire Cordonier, “Integrating Social and Economic Development and Environmental Protection in World Trade Law”, in M. W. Gehring and M. C. Segger (eds.), Sustainable Development in World Trade Law (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2005).Search in Google Scholar

Segger, Marie-Claire Cordonier, Significant Developments in Sustainable Development Law and Governance: A Proposal, 28 Natural Resources Forum, no. 1 (2004).10.1111/j.0165-0203.2004.00072.xSearch in Google Scholar

Segger, Marie-Claire Cordonier, Ashfaq Khalfan, Markus W. Gehring and Michelle Toering, Prospects for Principles of International Sustainable Development Law after the WSSD: Common but Differentiated Responsibilities, Precaution and Participation, 12 RECIEL, no. 1 (2003).10.1111/1467-9388.00344Search in Google Scholar

Shahin, Magda, “Trade and Environment: How Real is the Debate?” in G. P. Sampson and W B. Chambers (eds.), Trade, Environment, and the Millennium (2nd ed., Tokyo, New York and Paris: United National University Press, 2002).Search in Google Scholar

Simi, T. B., Eco-labels: Trade Barriers or Trade Facilitators? Discussion Paper 1 (Jaipur: CUTS Centre for International Trade, Economics & Environment, 2009).Search in Google Scholar

Singapore Ministerial Declaration, WTO Ministerial Conference, Singapore, WTO Doc WT/MIN(96)/DEC (18 December 1996) (adopted on 13 December 1996).Search in Google Scholar

Singer, Hans W., The Distribution of Gains between Investing and Borrowing Countries, 40 American Economic Review, no. 2 (1950).Search in Google Scholar

Smith, Fiona, Agriculture and the WTO: Towards a New Theory of International Agricultural Trade Regulation, Elgar International Economic Law (Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar, 2009).Search in Google Scholar

Stilwell, Matthew, “Trade and Environment in the Context of Sustainable Development”, in M. W. Gehring and M. C. Segger (eds.), Sustainable Development in World Trade Law (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2005).Search in Google Scholar

Sugathan, Mahesh and Johannes Bernabe, “Environmental Services”, in A. Najam, M. Halle and R. Melendez-Ortiz (eds.), Trade and Environment: A Resource Book (Manitoba: International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2007).Search in Google Scholar

Summers, Lawrence, “Let Them Eat Pollution”, The Economist (UK edition), 8 February 1992.Search in Google Scholar

Swinbank, Alan, “The Reform of the EU”s Common Agricultural Policy”, in R. Melendez-Ortiz, C. Bellmann and J. Hepburn (eds.), Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO Green Box: Ensuring Coherence with Sustainable Development Goals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).10.1017/CBO9780511674587.005Search in Google Scholar

Thailand – Restrictions on Importation of and Internal Taxes on Cigarettes, Report of the Panel, GATT Doc DS10/R (7 November 1990).Search in Google Scholar

The Future We Want (2012), available at: http://www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/727The%20Future%20We%20Want%2019%20June%201230pm.pdf>.Search in Google Scholar

Trebilcock, Michael J. and Robert Howse, Trade Policy and Labour Standards, 14 Minnesota Journal of Global Trade, no. 2 (2004–5).Search in Google Scholar

Tumlir, Jan, Industrial Pollution Control and International Trade (GATT Studies in International Trade, July 1971).Search in Google Scholar

UNCSD and UNCTAD, Trade and Green Economy, RIO+20 Issue Briefs, no. 1 (March 2011), available at: http://www.uncsd2012.org/index.php?page=view&type=12&nr=215&menu=45>.Search in Google Scholar

UNCTAD, The Least Developed Countries Report 2004: Linking International Trade with Poverty Reduction (New York and Geneva: United Nations, 2004).Search in Google Scholar

UNCTAD, The Least Developed Countries Report 2010: Towards a New International Development Architecture for LDCs (New York and Geneva: United Nations Publication, 2010).Search in Google Scholar

Understanding the WTO: The Organisation: Members and Observers, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm>.Search in Google Scholar

UNEP, Green Economy Developing Countries Success Stories (UNEP, 2010), available at: http://www.unep.org/pdf/GreenEconomy_SuccessStories.pdf>.Search in Google Scholar

UNEP, Green Economy: Inclusive Green Economy Given Go Ahead by Heads of State at Rio+20 (UNEP, 22 June 2012), available at: http://www.unep.org/GreenEconomy/InformationMaterials/News/PressRelease/tabid/4612/language/en-US/Default.aspx?DocumentId=2688&ArticleId=9195>.Search in Google Scholar

UNEP, International Trade Centre and ICTSD, Trade and Environment Briefings: Trade and Green Economy, Policy Brief. 1 (UNEP, June 2012), available at: http://www.intracen.org/uploadedFiles/Policy%20Brief%201%20trade-and-green-economy.pdf>.Search in Google Scholar

UNEP, Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication (UNEP, 2011), available at: http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/Portals/88/documents/ger/GER_synthesis_en.pdf>.Search in Google Scholar

United Nations, Economic Survey of Latin America (New York: United Nations, 1949).Search in Google Scholar

United Nations, Fourth United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries (Istanbul, Turkey, 9–13 May), available at: http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/ldc/home/Background/quick_facts#11132>.Search in Google Scholar

United Nations, Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for the Decade 20112020, UN Doc A/CONF.219/3 (UN LDC-IV, Istanbul, Turkey, 9–13 May 2010), available at: http://ldc4istanbul.org/uploads/IPoA.pdf>.Search in Google Scholar

United Nations, Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development: Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (Annex I) (1993), UN Doc A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1 (vol I).Search in Google Scholar

United Nations, Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development: Agenda 21 (Annex II), UN Doc A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1 (vol. I).Search in Google Scholar

United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Report of the Appellate Body, WTO Doc WT/DS58/AB/R (6 November 1998).Search in Google Scholar

United States – Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, Report of the Appellate Body, WTO Doc WT/DS2/AB/R (20 May 1996).Search in Google Scholar

United States – Restrictions on Imports of Tuna, Report of the Panel, GATT Doc DS21/R/155 (3 September 1991) (unadopted) (hereinafter, US – Tuna/Dolphin I).Search in Google Scholar

United States – Restrictions on Imports of Tuna, Report of the Panel, GATT Doc DS 29/R (16 June 1994) (unadopted) (hereinafter, US – Tuna/Dolphin II).Search in Google Scholar

United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Recourse to Article 21.5 by Malaysia, Report of the Panel, WTO DocWT/DS58/RW (21 November 2001).Search in Google Scholar

Veel, Paul-Erik, Carbon Tariffs and the WTO: An Evaluation of Feasible Policies, 12 Journal of International Economic Law, no. 3 (2009).10.1093/jiel/jgp031Search in Google Scholar

Voon, Tania, Cultural Products and the World Trade Organization, Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law, no. 54 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).Search in Google Scholar

Watts, Jonathan and Liz Ford, “Rio+20 Summit: Campaigners Decry Final Document”, The Guardian, 23 June 2012, available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/23/rio-20-earth-summit-document>.Search in Google Scholar

Weeramantry, Christopher G., “Forward”, in M. C. Segger and A. Khalfan, Sustainable Development Law: Principles, Practices and Prospects (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).Search in Google Scholar

Weiss, Edith Brown, “Intergenerational Equity: Toward an International Legal Framework”, in Nazli Choucri (ed.), Global Accord: Environmental Challenges and International Responses (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993).Search in Google Scholar

Weiss, Edith Brown, In Fairness to Future Generations and Sustainable Development, 19 American University Journal of International Law and Policy, no. 1 (1992).Search in Google Scholar

Weiss, Friedl, “Internationally Recognised Labour Standards and Trade”, in F. Weiss, E. Denters and P. de Waart (eds.), International Economic Law with a Human Face (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1998).Search in Google Scholar

Wiemann, Jurgen, “Impacts for Developing Countries”, in S. Chaturvedi and N. Kumar (eds.), Environmental Requirements and Market Access: Reflections from South Asia (New Delhi: Academic Foundation, 2007).Search in Google Scholar

Wiener, Jonathon B., Whose Precaution After All? A Comment on the Comparison and Evolution of Risk Regulatory Systems, 13 Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, no. 13 (2003).10.2139/ssrn.460262Search in Google Scholar

World Bank, International Trade and Climate Change: Economic, Legal and Institutional Perspectives, Environment and Development (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2008).Search in Google Scholar

World Commission of Environment and Development, Our Common Future (Australian ed., Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1990).Search in Google Scholar

WTO Committee on Trade and Development, Implementation of Special and Differential Treatment Provisions in WTO Agreements and Decisions (Note by the Secretariat), WTO Doc WT/COMTD/W/77 (25 October 2000).Search in Google Scholar

WTO Committee on Trade and Environment Special Session, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Manuel A J Teehankee, to the Trade Negotiations Committee for the Purpose of the TNC Stocktaking Exercise, WTO Doc TN/TE/20 (21 April 2011).Search in Google Scholar

WTO Committee on Trade and Environment Special Session, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Manuel A. J. Teehankee, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, WTO Doc TN/TE/20 (21 April 2011).Search in Google Scholar

WTO Committee on Trade and Environment: Special Session, Environmental Goods–Submission by New Zealand, Document No 02–3150 (2002), available at: http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/docs_e.htm>.Search in Google Scholar

WTO database SPS Information Management System, available at: http://spsims.wto.org/web/pages/report/report13/Report13.aspx>.Search in Google Scholar

WTO General Council, Preparations for the 1999 Ministerial ConferenceTrade, Environment and Sustainable Development, Paragraph 9(d) of the Geneva Ministerial Declaration, WTO Doc WT/GC/W/387 (15 November 1999) (Communication from Cuba).Search in Google Scholar

WTO General Council, Preparations for the 1999 Ministerial Conference, Negotiations on Agriculture, WTO Doc WT/GC/W/163 (9 April 1999) (Communication from Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Pakistan).Search in Google Scholar

WTO General Council, Preparations for the 1999 Ministerial Conference, the Future WTO Work Programme, under Paragraph 10 of the Geneva Ministerial Declaration, WTO Doc WT/GC/W/255 (16 July 1999) (Communication from Dominican Republic, Honduras and Pakistan).Search in Google Scholar

WTO General Council, Preparations for the 1999 Ministerial Conference, Trade and Sustainable Development, WTO Doc WT/GC/W/304 (6 August 1999) (Communication from the US).Search in Google Scholar

WTO General Council, Preparations for the 1999 Ministerial Conference, EC Approach to Trade and Environment in the New WTO Round, WTO Doc WT/GC/W/194 (1 June 1999) (Communications from the European Communities).Search in Google Scholar

WTO Secretariat, Negotiating History of the Coverage of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade with Regard to Labelling Requirement, Voluntary Standards and Processes and Production Methods Unrelated to Product Characteristics, WTO Doc WT/CTE/W/10 (29 August 1995).Search in Google Scholar

WTO Trade Policy Review Body, Trade Policy Review: Report by the Secretariat: European Union, WTO/TPR/S/248 (1 June 2011).Search in Google Scholar

WTO, A Chronology of Principal Provisions, Measures and Initiatives in Favour of Developing and Least Developed Countries in the GATT and The WTO, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/d2legl_e.htm>.Search in Google Scholar

WTO, Early Years: Emerging Environment Debate in GATT/WTO, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/hist1_e.htm, accessed 30 January 2009.Search in Google Scholar

WTO, Eliminating Trade Barriers on Environmental Goods and Services, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/envir_neg_serv_e.htm>.Search in Google Scholar

WTO, Lamy: Sustainable Development is at the Heart of the Rio+20 and the WTO, WTO News Speeches – DG Pascal Lamy, 20 June 2012, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl237_e.htm>.Search in Google Scholar

WTO, Members Encouraged of High Trade Growth of Least Developed Countries, Sub-Committee on Least Developed Countries, WTO: 2012 News Items, 10 October 2012, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news12_e/devel_10oct12_e.htm>.Search in Google Scholar

WTO, The Legal Texts: The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).Search in Google Scholar

WTO, Trade and Environment at the WTO (April 2004), available at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/envir_wto2004_e.pdf>.Search in Google Scholar

WTO, Understanding the WTO: The Organisation: Least Developed Countries, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org7_e.htm>.Search in Google Scholar

Wyatt, Christine, “Environmental Policy Making, Eco-Labelling and Eco-Packaging in Germany and Its Impact on Developing Countries”, in V. Jha, G. Hewison and M. Underhill (eds.), Trade, Environment and Sustainable Development: A South Asian Perspective (Basingstoke and New York: Macmillan and St. Martin’s Press, 1997).10.1007/978-1-349-25417-0_5Search in Google Scholar

Biermann, Frank, The Rising Tide of Green Unilateralism in World Trade Law: Options for Reconciling the Emerging North-South Conflict, 35 Journal of World Trade, no. 3 (2001), 421.10.1023/A:1016770305442Search in Google Scholar

  1. This article forms part of the author’s PhD thesis ‘Market Access and Sustainable Development: A Legal and Policy Analysis of the Market Access Regime of the Least Developed Countries under the WTO’ at Macquarie University, Sydney. The article was presented as ‘Interface between Market Access and Sustainable Development: In the Context of the Economic Crisis’ in the 17th ANZSIL Conference in Wellington on 2–4 July 2009.

  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10

    Bodansky and Lawrence (2009), supra note 4, p. 522.

  12. 11

    This has been expressed in the proposals of a number of developing countries and LDCs in the lead-up to the 1999 Seattle Ministerial Conference: See infra note 187–188.

  13. 12

    Some of these treaties intended to protect fisheries, flora and fauna are: Convention between France and Great Britain Relative to Fisheries (Paris), opened for signature 11 November 1867, 21 IPE 1 (entered into force 18 January 1868); Treaty for the Regulation of the Police of the North Sea Fisheries (Overfishing Convention), 1882, S.EX. Doc 106, 50 Congress, 2 Sess 97; Convention for the Protection of Birds Useful to Agriculture (Paris), opened for signature 19 March 1902, 4 IPE1615 (entered into force 20 April 1904); Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds in the United States and Canada (Washington), opened for signature 16 August 1916, 4 IPE 1638; Convention Relative to the Preservation of Fauna and Flora in their Natural State (London), opened for signature 8 November 1933, 172 LNTS 241 (entered into force 14 January 1936): P. Sands, Principles of International Environmental Law (2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 27–28.

  14. 13

    For instance, in Behreing Sea Fur Seals Arbitration (Great Britain v United States) (1893), the Arbitral Tribunal adopted regulations on sealing, which incorporate some elements recognizable as a “sustainable” approach to natural resource use: P. Sands, International Law in the Field of Sustainable Development, 65 British Yearbook of International Law, no. 1 (1994), 303–381, at 306.

  15. 14

    International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (Washington), opened for signature 2 December 1946, 161 UNTS 72 (as amended 19 November 1956, 338 UNTS 336) (entered into force 10 November 1948); General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Geneva), opened for signature 30 October 1947, 55 UNTS 194 (entered into force provisionally since 1 January 1948 under the 1947 Protocol of Application, 55 UNTS 308); African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Banjul), opened for signature 27 June 1981, 21 ILM 59 (1982) (entered into force 21 October 1986); United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea (Montego Bay), opened for signature 10 December 1982, 21 ILM 1261 (1982) (entered into force 16 November 1994); Association of South East Asian Nations Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (Kuala Lumpur), opened for signature 9 July 1985, 15 EPL 64 (1985) (not in force) (the first treaty to refer to “sustainable development”); Single European Act (Luxembourg), opened for signature 17 February 1986, 27 ILM 1109 (entered into force 28 May 1987); Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal), opened for signature 16 September 1987, 26 ILM 154 (1987) (entered into force 1 January 1989); Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal (Basel), opened for signature 22 March 1989, 28 ILM 657 (1989), entered into force 1992; ILO Convention (No 169) Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (Geneva), opened for signature 27 June 1989, 28 ILM 1382 (not yet in force); and Agreement Establishing the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (London), opened for signature 29 May 1990, 29 ILM 1077 (1990) (entered into force 1991): Sands (2003), supra note 12, pp. 257–258; Sands (1994), supra note 13, at 306–307.

  16. 15

    Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (Jurisdiction) [1997] ICJ Rep 7; Separate Opinion of Vice-President Weeramantry, 88, p. 92, available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/92/7383.pdf>, accessed 20 June 2008.

  17. 16

    The official website of the Stakeholder Forum comments that the 1971 seminar held in Founex, Switzerland and subsequent Founex Report on Development and Environment played a critical role in laying the groundwork for the 1972 Stockholm conference. Founex identified key environment-development objectives and relationships, and contributed to locating and bridging the policy and conceptual differences that separated developed and developing countries: Earth Summit 2012, available at: http://earthsummit2012.org/historical-ngo-reports-and-papers/the-founex-report-on-development-and-environment>, accessed 24 July 2011.

  18. 17

    Resolution on Development and Environment, GA Res 2849 (XXVI), UN GAOR, 26th Sess, 2026th plen mtg, UN Doc A/Res/2849 (1971), available at: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/26/ares26.htm>, accessed 24 July 2011.

  19. 18
  20. 19

    Ibid., 5. The UN Conference on Human Environment was held on 5–16 June 1972, was attended by 114 States and a large number of international institution and non-governmental observers: Sands (2003), supra note 12, p. 36.

  21. 20

    This report is named the Brundtland Report after the name of the Chairman of the World Commission on Sustainable Development and Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland.

  22. 21
  23. 22

    Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, 16 June 1972, UN Doc A/Conf.48/14/Rev (1973); reprinted in 11 ILM 1416 (1972).

  24. 23

    The report, for the first time, calls for an integrated action among all areas of economic, social and environmental fields to face the one interlocking global crisis, rather than the various “crises”. It asserts that environment and development are not separate challenges. Instead, they are inexorably linked in a complex system of cause and effect. The way development cannot subsist upon a deteriorating environmental resource base, the environment cannot be protected when growth does not take into account the costs of environmental destruction: Our Common Future (1990), supra note 21, p. 81.

  25. 24
  26. 25

    Sands (1994), supra note 13, p. 303. UNCED was held in Rio de Janeiro, on 3–14 June 1992, with representatives of 176 countries, more than 50 intergovernmental organisations and several thousand corporations and non-governmental organisations: Sands (2003), supra note 12, p. 52.

  27. 26
  28. 27

    World Charter for Nature, GA Res 37/7, UN GAOR, 48th plen mtg, UN Doc A/Res/37/7 (1982), available at: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r007.htm>, accessed 24 July 2011.

  29. 28

    Environmental Perspective to the Year 2000 and Beyond, GA Res 42/186, UN GAOR, 42nd sess, 97th plen mtg (1987).

  30. 29
  31. 30

    UN, Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development: Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (Annex I) (1993), pp. 2–8, UN Doc A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1 (vol. I) (Rio Declaration was adopted on 12 August 1992) (hereinafter Rio Declaration).

  32. 31
  33. 32

    Boyle and Freestone (1999), supra note 18, p. 1.

  34. 33

    Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development: Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, pp. 1–5, UN Doc A/CONF.199/20 (2002), available at: http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/aconf199d20&c1_en.pdf>, accessed 24 July 2011 (hereinafter Johannesburg Declaration).

  35. 34

    The WSSD was held in Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August to 4 September 2002.

  36. 35
  37. 36

    Plan of Implementation of World Summit on Sustainable Development: Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, pp. 6–72, UN Doc A/CONF.199/20 (2002), available at: http://www.unc(hereinafter Johannesburg Plan of Implementation).

  38. 37

    For instance, The Future We Want reaffirmed the principles enumerated in the Stockholm Declaration, Rio Declaration, Agenda 21, Johannesburg Declaration and Plan of Implementation, the Istanbul Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries, the United Nations Millennium Development Goals: The Future We Want (2012), supra note 1, paras. 14–18.

  39. 38

    Ibid., paras. 56–74.

  40. 39
  41. 40

    See The Future We Want (2012), supra note 1, paras. 245–251.

  42. 41

    Nicaraguan representative Miguel d”Escoto Brockmann commented at the Rio+20 conference that “[o]ur final document is an opportunity that has been missed. It contributes almost nothing to our struggle to survive as a species”, cited in J. Watts and L. Ford, “Rio+20 Summit: Campaigners Decry Final Document”, The Guardian, 23 June 2012, available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/23/rio-20-earth-summit-document>(<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/23/rio-20-earth-summit-document>), accessed 24 July 2012.

  43. 42
  44. 43

    Ibid.

  45. 44

    Watts and Ford (2012), supra note 41.

  46. 45
  47. 46

    J. Bhagwati, Afterword: The Question of Linkage, 96 American Journal of International Law, no. 1 (2002), 126–134, at 133. He doubted the credibility of the concept of sustainable development.

  48. 47

    Lafferty and Langhelle (1999), supra note 21, p. 1.

  49. 48

    World Conservation Strategy (1980), supra note 26, p. 2.

  50. 49

    Caring for the Earth (1991), supra note 29, p. 10.

  51. 50

    Our Common Future (1990), supra note 21, p. 8.

  52. 51

    Ibid., 87.

  53. 52
  54. 53

    Lafferty and Langhelle (1999), supra note 21, p. 13.

  55. 54

    T. Doyle, Sustainable Development and Agenda 21: The Secular Bible of Global Free Markets and Pluralist Democracy, 19 Third World Quarterly, no. 4 (1998), 771–786, at 772. Critics also argue that the concept of sustainable development, as shaped in the Rio Declaration and WSSD, has been embraced by the political mainstream because it represents a process of rehabilitation of the ideology of economic growth: W. E. Rees, The Ecology of Sustainable Development, 20 The Ecologist, no. 1 (1990), 18–23, at 18; M. Pallemaerts, International Law and Sustainable Development: Any Progress in Johannesburg? 12 RICIEL, no. 1 (2003), 1–11, at 9.

  56. 55

    M. C. Segger and A. Khalfan, Sustainable Development Law: Principles, Practices and Prospects (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 46, 47, 368. In other words, they regard sustainable development law as a special type of norm that “facilitates and requires a balance and reconciliation between conflicting legal norms relating to environmental protection, social justice and economic growth”: at 47.

  57. 56

    P. Sands, “International Law in the Field of Sustainable Development: Emerging Legal Principles”, in W. Lang (ed.), Sustainable Development and International Law (London and Boston: Graham & Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff, 1995), p. 53; M. C. Segger, A. Khalfan, M. Gehring, and M. Toering, Prospects for Principles of International Sustainable Development Law after the WSSD: Common but Differentiated Responsibilities, Precaution and Participation, 12 RECIEL, no. 1 (2003), 54–68, at 54. International sustainable development law has also been described as “a group of congruent norms, a corpus of international legal principles and treaties, which address the areas of intersection between international economic law, international environmental law and international social law in the interests of both present and future generations”: Segger and Khalfan (2004), supra note 55, p. 47.

  58. 57
  59. 58

    Separate Opinion of Vice-President Weeramantry (1997), supra note 15, p. 88.

  60. 59
  61. 60

    Sands (1995), supra note 56, pp. 40, 53.

  62. 61

    Ibid., pp. 57–58. Howard Mann departed from Philippe Sands, arguing that principles of international law on sustainable development are not legal tenets that fall within Article 38(1)(c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, i.e. “general principles of law recognized by civilized nations”. Rather, he considered them a “goal” that we aspire to reach: H. Mann, “Comment on the Paper by Philippe Sands”, in W. Lang (ed.), Sustainable Development and International Law (London and Boston: Graham & Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff, 1995) pp. 67, 71.

  63. 62

    Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (Jurisdiction) [1997] ICJ Rep 7.

  64. 63

    Ibid., para. 140. The last line of the paragraph reconciles economic development and environmental protection within the concept of sustainable development. It does not mention social policies.

  65. 64

    Lowe (1999), supra note 59, pp. 19–20.

  66. 65

    Separate Opinion of Vice-President Weeramantry (1997), supra note 15, p. 88.

  67. 66

    Ibid., 95.

  68. 67

    Lowe (1999), supra note 59, p. 19.

  69. 68

    Vaughan Lowe also considered that this norm-creating character is lacking in its components, such as “intergenerational equity”, “intragenerational equity” and “sustainable use” for their complicated enforceability: Lowe (1999), supra note 59, pp. 26–30.

  70. 69

    Ibid., p. 31. Despite Vaughan Lowe’s most systematic analysis of the legal character of sustainable development law, Judge Weeramantry still holds the same notion about sustainable development law. He expressed his belief that sustainable development is taking the same path human rights took in becoming hard law after its long journey from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: C. G. Weeramantry, “Forward”, in M. C. Segger and A. Khalfan (eds.), Sustainable Development Law: Principles, Practices and Prospects (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. IX–X.

  71. 70

    Segger and Khalfan (2004), supra note 55, p. 50.

  72. 71

    Ibid.

  73. 72
  74. 73
  75. 74
  76. 75
  77. 76
  78. 77
  79. 78
  80. 79

    The 48 LDCs are: Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kiribati, Lao People’s Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Yemen and Zambia: UNCTAD, UN List of Least Developed Countries, available at: http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=3641&lang=1>, accessed 8 February 2013. Since the establishment of the category in 1971, only three countries have graduated from the list: Botswana in 1994, Cape Verde in 2007 and Maldives on 1 January 2011. Samoa is set to graduate in 2014: United Nations, Fourth United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries (Istanbul, Turkey, 9–13 May), available at: http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/ldc/home/Background/quick_facts#11132>(<http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/ldc/home/Background/quick_facts#11132>), accessed 8 August 2011.

  81. 80

    WTO LDC Members are: Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Samoa, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Togo, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu and Zambia: WTO, Understanding the WTO: The Organisation: Least Developed Countries, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org7_e.htm>(<http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org7_e.htm>), accessed 14 January 2013.

  82. 81

    These are: Afghanistan, Bhutan, Comoros, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Laos, Liberia, Sao Tome and Principe, Sudan, and Yemen: Ibid.

  83. 82
  84. 83
  85. 84

    General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, Part IV, art XXXVI:1(b) (hereinafter GATT 1994) art XXXVI:2.

  86. 85

    Two main instruments that devised the GSP mechanism are Waiver for Generalised System of Preferences, Decision of 25 June 1971, GATT BISD, 18th Supp, 24 (1972) and Decision on Differential and More Favourable Treatment, Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of Developing Countries, Decision of 28 November 1979, (L/4903), GATT BISD, 26th Supp, 203–218 (1980).

  87. 86

    WTO Agreement, Preamble, para 2.

  88. 87
  89. 88

    Doha Work Programme, Ministerial Declaration, WTO Ministerial Conference, 6th sess, Hong Kong, WTO Doc WT/MIN(05)/DEC (22 December 2005) (adopted on 18 December 2005) (hereinafter Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration).

  90. 89

    Ibid., para. 47 and Annex F: Special and Differential Treatment: Para. 36, Decision on Measures in Favour of Least-Developed Countries. Annex F provides: developed-country Members shall, and developing-country Members declaring themselves in a position to do so should: (a)(i) Provide duty-free and quota-free market access on a lasting basis, for all products originating from all LDCs by 2008 or no later than the start of the implementation period in a manner that ensures stability, security and predictability. (ii) Members facing difficulties at this time to provide market access as set out above shall provide duty-free and quota-free market access for at least 97% of products originating from LDCs ….

  91. 90
  92. 91
  93. 92
  94. 93

    Separate Opinion of Vice-President Weeramantry (1997), supra note 15, p. 88.

  95. 94

    The 1992, Agenda 21, the Forest Principles, the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change and the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity.

  96. 95

    Sands (1994), supra note 13, p. 338.

  97. 96

    ILA New Delhi Declaration of Principles of International Law Relating to Sustainable Development, UN Doc A/CONF.199/8 (9 August 2002). This document was adopted in the 70th Conference of International Law Association, held in New Delhi, India, 2–6 April 2002.

  98. 97

    The Future We Want (2012), supra note 1, paras. 15, 16.

  99. 98

    See, supra note 90.

  100. 99

    The Future We Want (2012), supra note 1, paras. 16, 34, 181.

  101. 100

    Our Common Future (1990), supra note 21, p. 5.

  102. 101

    Ibid., 4.

  103. 102
  104. 103

    Sands (2003), supra note 12, p. 263.

  105. 104

    Principle 4 of the, “In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it”. The shift of the Rio to a more anthropocentric approach is evident in the way the principle of integration has been drafted. It shows a shift from the Stockholm Principle 13. Here, Paragraph 39.1 of Agenda 21 reflects a balanced approach in which States commit to focus on the “further development of international law on sustainable development, giving special attention to the delicate balance between environmental and developmental concerns”. An entire chapter of Agenda 21 is dedicated to this approach. Chapter 8 of Agenda 21 is named “Integrating Environment and Development in Decision-Making”.

  106. 105

    US – Shrimp, Report of the Appellate Body (1998), supra note 72.

  107. 106

    Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development, para. 5; Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, para. 2; The Future We Want (2012), supra note 1, paras. 3, 20, 40.

  108. 107

    Principle 5 of the states that eradicating poverty is an indispensable requirement for sustainable development. The third chapter of the Agenda 21, “Combating Poverty”, states that a specific anti-poverty strategy is one of the basic conditions for ensuring sustainable development: Agenda 21, art. 3.1. Our Common Future identifies poverty as one of the most important causes of environmental degradation: Our Common Future (1990), supra note 21, pp. 72–75. Principle 11 of the 2002 Johannesburg Declaration recognizes “poverty eradication” as one of the “overarching objectives of, and essential requirements for sustainable development”. Similarly, Article 7 of the 2002 Johannesburg Plan of implementation highlights that “eradicating poverty is the greatest global challenge facing the world today and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development, particularly for developing countries”. It also incorporates a separate chapter on poverty entitled “Poverty Eradication”. Poverty retains the uppermost attention in The Future We Want, with its pronouncement that “[e]radicating poverty is the greatest global challenge facing the world today and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development”: The Future We Want (2012), supra note 1, para. 2.

  109. 108
  110. 109
  111. 110
  112. 111
  113. 112
  114. 113
  115. 114
  116. 115
  117. 116

    American Journal of International Law devotes a special issue to the scholarly works on the linkage of trade with non-trade issues. The issue is entitled “Symposium: the Boundaries of the WTO”: 96 American Journal of International Law Issue 1 (2002).

  118. 117
  119. 118
  120. 119

    US – Shrimp, (Article 21.5 – Malaysia) (2001), Report of the Panel, supra note 72, footnote 202.

  121. 120

    For instance, The Future We Want (2012), supra note 1, paras. 1, 4, 6, 19.

  122. 121
  123. 122

    Weiss (1993), supra note 118, p. 336.

  124. 123

    Weiss (1992), supra note 121, p. 22.

  125. 124
  126. 125

    Brundtland Report mentioned that LDCs use primary commodities for 73% of their export earnings: Our Common Future (1990), supra note 21, p. 127.

  127. 126

    Maggio (1996), supra note 124, p. 178.

  128. 127

    Sands (2003), supra note 12, p. 285.

  129. 128

    1972 Convention Concerning Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, Preamble: Convention for the Protection of World Cultural Property and Natural Heritage (Paris) opened for signature 16 November 1972, 27 UST 37 (entered into force 17 December 1975).

  130. 129

    Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, opened for signature 27 January 1967, 610 UNTS 205 (entered into force 10 October 1967), art 1.

  131. 130

    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (New York), opened for signature 9 May 1992, 31 ILM 849 (1992) (entered into force 24 March 1994), art 4(1).

  132. 131

    1992 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, art 1: Convention on Biological Diversity, opened for signature 5 June 1992, 31 ILM 822 (1992) (entered into force 29 December 1993).

  133. 132

    Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn), opened for signature 23 June 1979, 19 ILM 15 (1980) (entered into force 1 November 1983), Preamble.

  134. 133

    For instance, United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea (Montego Bay), opened for signature 10 December 1982, 21 ILM 1261 (1982) (entered into force 16 November 1994), Preamble and art 207; Convention for the Protection of Ozone Layer (Vienna), opened for signature 22 March 1985, 26 ILM 1529 (entered into force 22 September 1988), art 2(2). For details, see Sands (2003), supra note 12, pp. 285–289. Sands (1994), supra note 13, p. 303.

  135. 134
  136. 135

    The Future We Want (2012), supra note 1, para. 15.

  137. 136

    See generally Rajamani (2006), supra note 6.

  138. 137
  139. 138
  140. 139

    GATT 1947, art XX (b).

  141. 140

    GATT 1947, art XX (b). However, such measures can be applied only when they do not create any arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between the similarly situated countries or disguised restriction on international trade, Chapeau of the Article XX of the GATT 1947.

  142. 141
  143. 142
  144. 143

    Part IV, GATT BISD, 13th Supp, 1–12 (1965).

  145. 144

    GATT 1947, Part IV, art XXXVI:1(e).

  146. 145

    Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, reproduced in WTO, The Legal Texts: The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 121. This is also known as the “Standards Code”.

  147. 146

    Ministerial Declaration, Punta del Este, GATT BISD, 33rd Supp (1987), p. 3.

  148. 147
  149. 148
  150. 149

    Ibid.

  151. 150

    Ibid.

  152. 151
  153. 152
  154. 153
  155. 154
  156. 155

    It claims that an “open, equitable, secure, non-discriminatory and predictable multilateral trading system” consistent with the goals of sustainable development will promote sustainable development through trade: Agenda 21, arts 2.3, 2.5.

  157. 156

    To make trade and environment mutually supportive, it recommends that trade and environmental policies will have to be mutually supportive in favour of sustainable development: Agenda 21, art 2.19.

  158. 157
  159. 158

    Ibid., preamble (emphasis added).

  160. 159

    Gehring and Segger (2005), supra note 154, p. 10.

  161. 160
  162. 161

    Ibid., para. 6.

  163. 162

    Ibid., para. 16.

  164. 163

    Gehring and Segger (2005), supra note 154, p. 11.

  165. 164
  166. 165
  167. 166

    Ibid.

  168. 167

    For details of the similarities between the Doha Declaration and the Johannesburg Declaration, see Sampson (2005), supra note 142, pp. 38–51.

  169. 168

    Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development, para. 101.

  170. 169

    Ibid., para. 141.

  171. 170

    The Future We Want (2012), supra note 1, para. 281.

  172. 171

    Ibid., para. 252.

  173. 172

    US – Shrimp, Report of the Appellate Body (1998), supra note 72.

  174. 173

    US – Shrimp, (Article 21.5 – Malaysia) (2001), Report of the Panel, supra note 72, footnote 202.

  175. 174

    Sampson (2005), supra note 142, pp. 2, 4.

  176. 175

    Decision on Trade and Environment, reproduced in WTO, The Legal Texts (1999), supra note 145, at 411. The Decision on Trade and Environment was adopted by the ministers at the meeting of the Uruguay Round Negotiations Committee in Marrakesh on 14 April 1994.

  177. 176

    The original 1994 items are trade rules, environment agreements and disputes; environmental protection and the trading system; tax and other environmental requirements; transparency of environmental trade measures; environment and trade liberalisation; domestically prohibited goods; relevant provisions of the TRIPS; services and the WTO and other organisations: Items on the CTE’s Work Programme, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/cte00_e.htm>, accessed 5 February 2009.

  178. 177

    Doha Ministerial Declaration, para. 51.

  179. 178

    Ibid. para. 31.

  180. 179

    Ibid. para. 32.

  181. 180
  182. 181
  183. 182

    Sampson (2005), supra note 142, pp. 30–33.

  184. 183
  185. 184

    Shahin (2003), supra note 3, p. 46; Sampson (2005), supra note 142, p. 20.

  186. 185

    Rio Declaration, principle 3.

  187. 186

    Ibid., principle 4; Boyle and Freestone (1999), supra note 18, pp. 10–12; Sands (2003), supra note 12.

  188. 187
  189. 188

    WTO General Council, Preparations for the 1999 Ministerial Conference, Negotiations on Agriculture, WTO Doc WT/GC/W/163 (9 April 1999) (Communication from Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Pakistan); WTO General Council, Preparations for the 1999 Ministerial Conference, the Future WTO Work Programme, under Paragraph 10 of the Geneva Ministerial Declaration, WTO Doc WT/GC/W/255 (16 July 1999) (Communication from Dominican Republic, Honduras and Pakistan). Similar other proposals are: Kenya (WT/GC/W/233), Bangladesh (WT/GC/W/251), Pakistan (WT/GC/W/126): WTO, Preparations for the 1999 Ministerial Conference: Compilation of the Proposals Submitted in Phase 2 of the Preparatory Process, WTO Doc JOB(99)/4797/Rev.3(6986) (18 November 1999) (Informal Note by the Secretariat).

  190. 189
  191. 190
  192. 191
  193. 192
  194. 193

    Rajamani (2001), supra note 191, p. 2; S. Baughen, International Trade and the Protection of the Environment (London and New York: Routledge-Cavendish, 2007), pp. 92–93; Holtby, Kerr and Hobbs (2007), supra note 138, p. 5.

  195. 194
  196. 195
  197. 196
  198. 197
  199. 198

    Doha Ministerial Declaration, para. 6.

  200. 199

    Ibid.

  201. 200
  202. 201
  203. 202
  204. 203
  205. 204
  206. 205
  207. 206
  208. 207

    Ibid., p. 17.

  209. 208

    Ibid., 17.

  210. 209
  211. 210

    The Future We Want (2012), supra note 1, para. 269.

  212. 211

    Ibid., para. 273.

  213. 212
  214. 213

    Article 2 of Convention for the Protection of Birds Useful to Agriculture of 1902 utilized an import ban for protecting birds: Convention for the Protection of Birds Useful to Agriculture, supra note 12;S. Charnovitz, “An Introduction to the Trade and Environment Debate”, in Kevin P. Gallagher (ed.), Handbook on Trade and the Environment (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008), pp. 237–238; Charnovitz (2007), supra note 109, pp. 15–17.

  215. 214

    Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Washington), opened for signatures 3 March 1973, 993 UNTS 243 (entered into force 1 July 1975).

  216. 215

    Protocol on Substances that deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal), opened for signature 16 September 1987, 26 ILM 154 (1987) (entered into force 1 January 1989).

  217. 216
  218. 217
  219. 218
  220. 219
  221. 220

    Ibid., p. 250. See Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the Community, Official Journal of the European Union, 5.6.2009, L 140/63.

  222. 221
  223. 222
  224. 223

    Veel, supra note 222, p. 798.

  225. 224

    US – Shrimp, Report of the Appellate Body (1998), supra note 72.

  226. 225

    Charnovitz (2007), supra note 109, p. 20.

  227. 226

    Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, in WTO, The Legal Text (1999), supra note 145, p. 59.

  228. 227

    TBT Agreement, art 2.2; SPS Agreement, preamble.

  229. 228

    GATS, art XIV(b).

  230. 229

    Charnovitz (2008), supra note 213, p. 243; Bodansky and Lawrence (2009), supra note 4, p. 517.

  231. 230
  232. 231

    Low, Marceau and Reinaud (2012), supra note 222, p. 508.

  233. 232

    GATT 1994, art XX(g).

  234. 233

    US – Tuna/Dolphin II, Report of the Panel, supra note 152.

  235. 234

    EC – Asbestos, Report of the Appellate Body, supra note 230, paras. 162–172.

  236. 235

    US – Tuna/Dolphin I, Report of the Panel, supra note 151.

  237. 236
  238. 237

    Ibid., para. 77.

  239. 238

    WTO, GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement Practice Relating to GATT Article XX, Paragraphs (b), (d) and (g), WTO Doc WT/CTE/W/203, (8 March 2002) (Note by the WTO Secretariat).

  240. 239
  241. 240
  242. 241

    BrazilRetreaded Tyres, Report of the Appellate Body, supra note 239, para. 182. The Brazilian measure was ultimately struck down as arbitrary and unjustified because it contained an exception for imports from other Mercosur Member States: at para. 233.

  243. 242

    For instance, both in US – Shrimp and US – Gasoline, the AB held that the US TREMs in question fulfilled the requirements of Article XX(g); in the former, it being related to the conservation of an exhaustible natural resources and in the latter, to the conservation of endangered sea turtles. However, in both cases, the AB knocked down the measures for being arbitrary and unjustified, and hence for being contrary to the Chapeau of Article XX: Bodansky and Lawrence (2009), supra note 4, p. 516; United States – Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, Report of the Appellate Body, WTO Doc WT/DS2/AB/R (20 May 1996).

  244. 243

    Bodansky and Lawrence (2009), supra note 4, p. 519.

  245. 244
  246. 245

    US – Tuna/Dolphin I, Report of the Panel, supra note 151, para. 5.27 art XX(b), para. 5.32 art XX(g).

  247. 246

    US – Tuna/Dolphin II, Report of the Panel, supra note 152, para. 5.26 art XX(g) and paras. 5.38–5.39 art XX(b) (emphasis added).

  248. 247

    Cf Lorand Bartels suspected whether the panels in Tuna cases correctly applied the rules of customary international law in examining the extraterritorial ambit of Article XX(b) and XX(g) of the GATT 1994: Bartels (2002), supra note 244, p. 390.

  249. 248

    US – Shrimp, Report of the Appellate Body (1998), supra note 72, para. 133.

  250. 249

    Ibid., para. 133.

  251. 250
  252. 251

    US – Shrimp, Report of the Appellate Body (1998), supra note 72, para. 172.

  253. 252

    Ibid., para. 168.

  254. 253

    US – Shrimp, (Article 21.5 – Malaysia), Report of the Panel, supra note 72.

  255. 254

    Ibid., paras. 134, 152–153; Bodansky and Lawrence (2009), supra note 4, pp. 516, 524.

  256. 255

    Bodansky and Lawrence (2009), supra note 4, p. 524.

  257. 256

    Ibid.

  258. 257
  259. 258
  260. 259

    Ibid., Report of the Panel, para. 7.160, Report of the Appellate Body, para. 307.

  261. 260
  262. 261

    SPS Agreement, Preamble, para 8.

  263. 262
  264. 263

    SPS Agreement, Annex A, art 1.

  265. 264

    European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, Report of the Panel, WTO Docs WT/DS291/R, WT/DS292/R, WT/DS293/R (21 November 2006).

  266. 265

    Ibid., para. 7.209.

  267. 266

    SPS Agreement, preamble, para. 1.

  268. 267
  269. 268

    The term “shall” used in Article 3:1 of the SPS Agreement implies a legal requirement to base SPS measures on the basis of international standards.

  270. 269
  271. 270
  272. 271
  273. 272

    Aflatoxins are a group of structurally related toxic compounds that contaminate certain foods. They are substances that can produce liver cancer in the human body: Ibid., 498.

  274. 273

    The EC proposal to harmonise aflatoxin standards was announced in 1998 and was scheduled for enforcement in 2002: Ibid., 497.

  275. 274

    Ibid., 495.

  276. 275

    Ibid., 500–501.

  277. 276
  278. 277

    An examination of the SPS notifications within the timeframe of 1 July 2010 to 31 July 2011 reveals that in most of the cases the time limit for making comments on an SPS measure notified by a WTO Member ranges from 15 days to maximum two months after the date of issuing the notification. This observation is based on data retrieved from the WTO database SPS Information Management System, available at: http://spsims.wto.org/web/pages/report/report13/Report13.aspx>(<http://spsims.wto.org/web/pages/report/report13/Report13.aspx>), accessed 17 August 2011.

  279. 278

    Henson and Loader (2001), supra note 269, p. 93; Henson, Loader, Swinbank and Bredahl (2004), supra note 269, p. 367.

  280. 279
  281. 280

    EurepGAP started in 1997 as an initiative by retailers belonging to the EUREP, an association that joins big European leadership supermarkets in the food sectors: Ibid., 13.

  282. 281
  283. 282

    Ibid.

  284. 283

    Islam (2006), supra note 142, p. 154.

  285. 284
  286. 285

    Low, Marceau and Reinaud (2012), supra note 222, p. 521.

  287. 286

    Ibid.

  288. 287

    Cosbey, supra note 221, p. 29.

  289. 288

    Preamble of the TBT Agreement in Paragraph five expresses the desire of WTO Members “to ensure that technical regulations and standards, including packaging, marking and labelling requirements, and procedures for assessment of conformity with technical regulations and standards do not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade”.

  290. 289

    Preamble of the TBT Agreement in Paragraph 6 recognises that “no country should be prevented from taking measures necessary to ensure that quality of its exports, or for the protection of human, animal or plant life or health, of the environment, or for the prevention of deceptive practices, at the levels it considers appropriate”.

  291. 290

    TBT Agreement, preamble, para. 6.

  292. 291

    Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement stipulates that “members shall ensure that in respect of technical regulations, products imported from the territory of any Member shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin and to like products originating in any other country”.

  293. 292

    Apart from expressing concern for developing countries in the Preamble, Article 11 of the TBT Agreement provides for technical assistance and Article 12 provides for S&DT for developing countries and LDCs.

  294. 293
  295. 294

    TBT Agreement, art 1.3.

  296. 295

    Ibid., art 1.6.

  297. 296

    Ibid., art 3.

  298. 297

    Ibid., Annex 1, arts 1 and 2.

  299. 298

    Hoffmann and Rotherham (2006), supra note 293, p. 7.

  300. 299

    Islam (2006), supra note 142, p. 157.

  301. 300

    Hoffmann and Rotherham (2006), supra note 293, p. 19.

  302. 301

    What are Food Miles? available at: http://www.ecoaction.com.au/category.php?id=80>, accessed 25 July 2011.

  303. 302
  304. 303

    TBT Agreement, art 2.2.

  305. 304

    Ibid.

  306. 305

    Ibid., art 2.4.

  307. 306

    Ibid., art 2.5.

  308. 307

    SPS Agreement, Annex A.3.

  309. 308
  310. 309

    Schroder, supra note 308, p. 1223.

  311. 310
  312. 311
  313. 312
  314. 313
  315. 314

    Koebele (2007), supra note 308, p. 195; Sampson (2005), supra note 142, p. 122; Bonsi, Hammett and Smith (2008), supra note 284, p. 415.

  316. 315
  317. 316

    Ibid., p. 42.

  318. 317

    Ibid., pp. 45–46.

  319. 318

    Ibid., p. 42.

  320. 319

    Ibid., pp. 44–45.

  321. 320
  322. 321

    US – Tuna/Dolphin II, Report of the Panel, supra note 152, para 5.8.

  323. 322

    EC – Asbestos, Report of the Appellate Body, supra note 230, paras. 133–140. By PCG fibres the AB refers collectively to polyvinyl alcohol fibres (PVA), cellulose and glass fibres: at para. 84.

  324. 323

    Ibid., paras. 134–140.

  325. 324

    TBT Agreement, Annex 1, Clause 1 (emphasis added).

  326. 325

    TBT Agreement, Annex 1, Clause 2 (emphasis added).

  327. 326

    Appleton (2007), supra note 302.

  328. 327
  329. 328

    Sampson (2005), supra note 142, pp. 122–123.

  330. 329

    Eco-label is awarded by an impartial third party in relation to certain products or services that are independently determined to meet environmental leadership criteria: Global Ecolabelling Network, available at: http://www.gen.gr.jp/eco.html>(<http://www.gen.gr.jp/eco.html>), accessed 14 March 2011.

  331. 330

    Koebele (2007), supra note 308, p. 199.

  332. 331
  333. 332
  334. 333
  335. 334

    For instance, a display of the German Blue Angel eco-label on washing machines demonstrates their suitability in the consumption of energy and water. Hence, a product bearing the Angel is considered more environmentally friendly than a product without such a label: Bonsi, Hammett and Smith (2008), supra note 284, pp. 411–412.

  336. 335
  337. 336

    Bonsi, Hammett and Smith (2008), supra note 284, p. 418.

  338. 337

    Ibid., p. 420.

  339. 338

    Low, Marceau and Reinaud (2012), supra note 222, p. 523.

  340. 339
  341. 340

    The Future We Want (2012), supra note 1, para. 281.

  342. 341
  343. 342

    Ibid.

  344. 343
  345. 344
  346. 345

    The OECD/Eurostat classified the main categories of EGS, comprising of: (a) Category A: the pollution management group, which includes such goods and services as air pollution controls and wastewater management; (b) Category B: cleaner technologies and products, which are products and technologies with fewer adverse environmental impacts in their production and/or use than standard products; and (c) Category C: resource management products, such as water supply systems and renewable energy. OECD/Eurostat, Environmental Goods and Services Industry: Manual for the Collection and Analysis of Data (OECD, 1999), available at: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/ceea/archive/EPEA/EnvIndustry_Manual_for_data_ collection.PDF>, accessed 2 August 2011.

  347. 346
  348. 347
  349. 348
  350. 349

    WTO Committee on Trade and Environment Special Session, Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Manuel A. J. Teehankee, to the Trade Negotiations Committee for the Purpose of the TNC Stocktaking Exercise, WTO Doc TN/TE/20 (21 April 2011), p. 2.

  351. 350

    HS 2002 Codes 841810, 841821, 841830, 841840, 841861 and 841869 refer to different types of refrigerators and freezers and their parts. HS 2002 Codes 851711, 851721 and 851730 refer to telephone sets, facsimile machines and telephonic apparatus: Annex II.A: Reference Universe of Environmental Goods: Official HS Descriptions: Ibid., 29, 36.

  352. 351
  353. 352

    HS Codes 530310 and 530410: Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Manuel A. J. Teehankee (2011), supra note 349, p. 22.

  354. 353

    HS Code 630510: Ibid., 23.

  355. 354

    Ibid., 3.

  356. 355

    Khor supra note 209.

  357. 356
  358. 357

    Low, Marceau and Reinaud (2012), supra note 222, p. 526.

  359. 358

    Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, in WTO, The Legal Text (1999), supra note 145, p. 231.

  360. 359

    SCM Agreement, art 1.2.

  361. 360

    Ibid., arts 1.2, 2, 3.

  362. 361

    Ibid., arts 1.2, 5, 6.

  363. 362

    United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton, Report of the Panel, WT/DS267/R (8 September 2004), para. 7.1142.

  364. 363

    Low, Marceau and Reinaud (2012), supra note 222, pp. 529–530.

  365. 364

    Article 8 of the SCM Agreement lapsed on 1 January 2000: Low, Marceau and Reinaud (2012), supra note 222, p. 531.

  366. 365

    Agreement on Agriculture, in WTO, The Legal Text (1999), supra note 145, p. 33.

  367. 366
  368. 367
  369. 368

    The 2011 Trade Policy Review of the EU noted that since 2000/01, the EU Green Box expenditure has increased nearly three-fold, to €62.6 billion, while both Blue and Amber box support have declined by three-quarters, to about €5.2 billion and €12.4 billion respectively: WTO Trade Policy Review Body, Trade Policy Review: Report by the Secretariat: European Union, WTO/TPR/S/248 (1 June 2011), pp. 111–112.

  370. 369
  371. 370

    The Future We Want (2012), supra note 1, para. 58(h).

Published Online: 2013-07-11

©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin / Boston

Downloaded on 28.2.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/ldr-2013-0005/html
Scroll to top button