Catherine Redgwell - University of Oxford will be holding a research seminar on 'WTO Shrimp-Turtle Case for a forthcoming publication on Landmark Cases in International Law’.  The seminar will begin with lunch at 12:30 and will start at 1pm in S2.12.

Abstract

‘LANDMARK CASES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW’: Shrimp-Turtle

On 30 November 1999 hundreds of people donned sea turtle costumes and marched through the streets of Seattle. They, and thousands of others, were there to protest against the World Trade Organisation (WTO) during its Third Ministerial Conference. The resulting images of the "Battle of Seattle" of protestors facing tear gas and riot police remain poignant over fifteen years on and a reminder of the various tensions and voices in debates on international trade liberalisation. Like many of those present, the turtles were protesting against the WTO's environmental record and particularly the Appellate Body's October 1998 finding that a US ban on certain shrimp imports for the purpose of protecting endangered species of sea turtle was not permitted under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).

US-Shrimp spanned five years and involved seventeen WTO Members. It was the second time in two years that the Appellate Body was tasked with reviewing the United States’ environmental regulations and was the first time a claim was brought by a coalition of developing country members (DCMs) against a highly-developed WTO Member.

US-Shrimp is considered a landmark case by many because the Appellate Body grappled with three difficult questions: (i) the limitations imposed by the WTO Agreement on WTO Members’ continued ability to pursue non-trade related policies through (trade-related) regulation; (ii) the transparency and participatory nature of WTO proceedings, and the capacity of non-state third parties to be involved in proceedings through amicus curiae briefs; and (iii) the WTO’s place in the broader international legal order, and the methods of interpretation to be adopted and the legal rules relevant in WTO dispute settlement. In this chapter we investigate the historical and material conditions that led to US-Shrimp coming before the Appellate Body (Part I). After outlining the decisions (Part II), we then consider US-Shrimp's impact in international trade law and public international law more broadly (Part III). Lastly, we assess US-Shrimp's legacy as a landmark case (Part IV). For the purposes of this presentation, I will focus particularly on the last two parts.

[1] The contribution, forthcoming in Landmark Cases in Public International Law (co-edited by Eirik Bjorge and Cameron Miles, Hart Publishing) is co-authored with Callum Musto (PhD candidate, LSE).

^[1] United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Report of the Appellate Body (8 October 1996) WT/DS58/AB/R, 'US-Shrimp'

^[1] In addition to the disputing Members (India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Thailand and the United States) twelve Members participated as third parties in the initial and/or Article 21.5 proceedings: Australia, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Communities, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, The Philippines, Singapore and Venezuela.

^[1] For the first, see: United States — Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline (Venezuela and Brazil) Report of the Appellate Body [29 April 1996] 'US-Gasoline'