Elaborating the common but differentiated responsibilities principle in the WTO

Authors
Publication date 2017
Host editors
  • M.-C. Cordonier Segger
  • H.E. Judge
  • C.G. Weeramantry
Book title Sustainable Development Principles in the Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals
Book subtitle 1992-2012
ISBN
  • 9781138780057
ISBN (electronic)
  • 9781315769639
Series Routledge research in international environmental law
Pages (from-to) 425-442
Publisher London: Routledge
Organisations
  • Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences (FMG) - Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research (AISSR)
Abstract
This chapter analyses the interpretation of the common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) principle in the environmental literature and in World Trade Organization (WTO) cases. The CBDR principle is particularly relevant in relation to common global environmental problems; where countries have differential roles in contributing to causing the problems as well as different abilities to deal with the impacts of the problem. The chapter then focuses on the disputes regarding discrimination and differentiation in order to identify if clear precedents have emerged in decisions of the Panels established by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body. Only one case actually mentions the CBDR principle (the US Shrimp-Turtle case), while the other cases (India, European Union (EU), Korea, Mexico, and European Communities (EC)) discusses differentiation between countries based on their 'capabilities'. This Korea case between the Republic of Korea and the European Communities related to the ship-building industry. The Mexico case concerned a dispute between the US and Mexico regarding taxes on soft drinks.
Document type Chapter
Language English
Published at https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315769639-18
Permalink to this page
Back