Sample Solution

development of World Trade Organization Jurisprudence.
a) US – Shrimp case
The countries, namely, India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand lodged a complaint against United States for banning of importation of shrimp and shrimp products from the countries who lodged the complaint which was imposed by the US under Section 609 of US Public Law 101-162 stating that the ban was in violation of Article I, XI and XIII of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariff, 1994. The Dispute Settlement Body established a panel and the panel after concluding the hearings of all the parties, including the third parties, issued a report which was circulated to the members. The panel found that the import ban in shrimp and shrimp products as applied by the United States is inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994, and cannot be justified under Article XX of the GATT 1994.

The United States notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the panel. The Appellate Body reversed the panel’s finding that the US measure at issue is not within the scope of measures permitted under the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994, but concluded that the US measure, while qualifying for provisional justification under Article XX(g), fails to meet the requirement of the chapeau of Article XX. The Dispute Settlement Body adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body.

The case became significant because it was the first time the WTO recognized environmental protection as one of the objectives of international trading regulation. This case was probably not good for India specifically, but India’s active participation in the dispute shows that India was committed to follow the principles established by the World Trade Organization.