Eu Vs Canada Wto

BRIEF BACKROUND ON WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION

The WTO helps to facilitate, govern and regulate international trade. Its principals are centred on raising the standard of living, ensuring full employment and improving gross domestic product of member countries by ensuring the efficient allocation of resources. Under Article II(2) of the agreement establishing the world trade organization all members are bound to all legal instruments included in annexes 1,2 and 3 referred to as Multilateral agreements, thus all signatories including those in the customs union, European Commission have a legal obligation to follow the agreements' regulation(3). The agreements included in this report are the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1947, GATT 1994, the Agreement on Agriculture and the Technical Barriers to trade Agreement(TBT) specified in Annex 1A of the Multilateral Agreements.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The primary objective of this report is to assess the complaints docked DS400 and DS401 lodged by seal hunting countries Canada and Norway respectively to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The end result of the evaluation is to bring about a possible conclusion to be decided by panel should the matter be brought fourth. The Dispute Settlement Board (DSB) of the WTO established a single panel whereby Canada and Norway are co-Complaints. Their grievance, based on the facts, is that the European Parliament and council adopted regulation (EC) No. 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the EC Council dated 16 September 2009 which bans trade in seal products and subsequent related measures.

The regulation was put in effect on 20 November 2009 by all EC members. The complainants were outraged due to the fact that they had been following established rules of animal husbandry. The regulation was in response to numerous activist groups protesting and citing "cruel and unnecessary hunting". Thus the complainants proceeded in exercising their rights under the WTO.

Disregarding the WTO legal obligations bounding all EC members who are also WTO affiliates, the dispute being discussed may also be considered an animal welfare issue. However it is not in the sense of declining seal numbers but rather that seals are sentiment marine animals which express feelings including that of pain and distress.

This report sets off by delving in to the procedure governing the DSU, assessing possible arguments from both sides and lastly concluding based on the facts.

2.0 PROCEDURE

As mentioned the parties involved are Canada and Norway hereinafter referred to as the Co-Claimants, and the European Community referred to as the Respondent. Art XXII and XXIII of GATT give the Claimant the chance to exercise its right and give written notice to the Respondent. According to Art 4 DSU consultation is to take place so as to avoid going to panel. The Respondent must reply the Claimants request w/i 10 days and commence consultation w/I 30 days of the receipt of request. If the consultations fail, Art 6-8 DSU allows the Claimant to request for Dispute Settlement Board (DSB) to set up a panel. The panel will investigate and present a report which is to be distributed to WTO members for consideration and w/I 60 days this report will be automatically adopted by the DSB unless all members agree otherwise, or give notice to appeal to the Appellate Body, this is in accordance with Art 16(4) DSU.

3.0 REPORT

3.1 CLAIMANTS ARGUMENTS

3.1.1 Art V (2): FREEDOM OF TRANSIT

This article emphasises freedom of transit of goods through signatory countries, especially of the passing through is the most convenient route for international transit. It further accentuates that no distinction shall be made in relation to the ownership of the goods....etc By adopting the ban, signatory EC members are not adhering to this principle since the ban only permits three situations in which seal products may be allowed to pass through customs; for enlightenment purposes the exceptions under Art 3 of the (EC) 1007/2009 are;

* If seal products are a result from hunts conducted traditionally by Inuit and other indigenous groups.

* When goods are exclusively for occasional personal use and the quantity not indicative of potential commercial reasons.

* If products are by products of hunting regulated by law and is for sustainable management and is strictly non-profit in nature.

Given the above, seal products from the Co-complaints which are destined for other countries do not satisfy the regulation. Transit goods are not exclusively mentioned in the regulation thereby breaching the regulation which then violates Art V (2) since seal hunting nations may not under the new regulation pass through EC customs even if the route through the countries is the "most convenient route"

3.1.2 ART I:GENERAL MOST-FAVOURED- NATION-TREATMENT

Before Art I can be discussed it is important to prove products derived from seals and those that are not are "like products". As stated in regulation (EC) No 1007/2009(3) (footnote) seal products include meat, oil, blubber, organs, fur skins and other products such as omega-3 capsules. These products are said to be indistinguishable from non-seal products. To further prove the "likeness" of the products the factors established in the EC Biotech case may be used, these are;

* Physical difference- The seal products look taste and feel the same

* They may be used interchangeably with non-seal products and are therefore close substitutes

* Consumer taste/preference-This may be irrelevant since the physical difference is minimal, however if the consumers were informed on the current situation, the may prefer non-seal products, but since taste is the same, this point may be ignored.

* Difference in tariff between the two types of goods-from the facts there seems not to be a difference in tariff.

From the above facts it can be decided that the two products are "like" products. It is also important to note that according to Tuna Dolphin case , method of production, being the "manner in which the seals are harvested" is irrelevant thus the crux of the regulation