"Ironically, it was not producers in the EU who were asking for protection but, rather, consumers. The hormone case does illustrate a weakness of the WTO – it only recognises producers as sources of protectionism (Perdikis et al., 2000). The beef hormone case has only clouded this issue because the EU attempted to use an inappropriate mechanism – the SPS – to obtain protection for what was a consumer issue. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: At the time, the negotiation of the SPS agreement was seen as a major accomplishment of the Uruguay Round. One of the first major tests of both the SPS and the WTO's new dispute settlement system was the long standing and acrimonious dispute between the EU and the US and Canada over trade in beef produced using hormones. Both the SPS and the disputes system performed as expected but the EU, the loser in the case, has chosen to ignore the WTO Panel's ruling and accept retaliation. As a result, the credibility of the WTO is threatened and the outcome suggests that new negotiations may be required. The issues in the case are outlined and implications for trade in biological products drawn. Copyright Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002.
World Economy 02/2002; 25(2):283-296. DOI:10.1111/1467-9701.00431 · 0.76 Impact Factor
Note: This list is based on the publications in our database and might not be exhaustive.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.