Based on the attachment

WTO decided that the USA may ban imports and impose its environmental standards on other countries. What do you think about this ruling of the WTO? What can it mean for international relations?

Shrimps, Turtles, and the WTO There are seven species of sea turtles in the As is normal in such cases, the WTO formed an in- world; six of them are on the list of endan- dependent arbitration panel composed of three ex- Country Fo gered species in the United States. A major perts from countries not involved in the dispute. The cause of the decline of sea turtles has been panel was charged with reviewing the U.S. position to poor fishing practices, particularly by shrimp see whether it conflicted with WTO rules. In its de- boats. An estimated 150,000 sea turtles are fense, the United States claimed there are provisions trapped and drown in the nets of shrimp in the WTO rules for taking restrictive measures if boats each year. In an effort to limit this carnage, in they are related "to the conservation of exhaustible 1989 the U.S. Congress passed a law that required natural resources and if such measures are made ef- shrimp boats to be equipped with a turtle-excluder de- fective in conjunction with restrictions on domestic vice. This is a simple grate that fits over the mouth of production or consumption." The United States was shrimp trawling nets and prevents sea turtles from be- supported in its case by a number of environmental or- coming trapped. The law also banned the importation ganizations, including the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). of shrimp from countries that fail to mandate the use In a brief submitted to the panel, the WWF argued that of turtle-excluder devices. marine turtles are migratory animals, a global resource As with many such laws, the U.S. government that should be subject to stewardship by international dragged its heels on enforcing the import ban. It wasn't society. Even though no multilateral body or resolution until 1996 that the United States placed an embargo had authorized the United States to enact its ban, the on the importation of shrimp from countries that failed WWF claimed that the United States acted in a man- to mandate the use of excluder devices. Even then, it ner consistent with its obligations and took reasonable did so only because environmental groups in the measures that reflected the will of the international United States had brought a lawsuit against the gov- community. ernment to compel it to enforce its own law. Three For their part, the four countries that brought the countries were targeted by the 1996 ban-India, Pak- complaint argued that the U.S. ban represented an un- istan, and Malaysia. The three responded to the ban fair restraint on trade that was illegal under WTO rules. by filing a complaint with the World Trade Organiza- According to these countries, the United States was tion. They were joined by Thailand, which decided as violating WTO rules by applying domestic legislation a matter of principle to pursue the WTO case (Thailand outside of its boundaries and by applying it in a dis- had already satisfied the United States that its turtle protection methods were adequate). criminatory manner. Influential voices in all these countries accused the United States of hypocrisy. Anarticle in The Hindu, an Indian newspaper, stated, entire life form is threatened with extinction." How- "Compared to what the U.S. as a nation is doing to an- ever, this reaction, which was widely reported in the other global shared resource, the world's climate and press, seems to have been based on a failure to read atmosphere, what complainant nations like India are and/or understand the WTO's ruling. The ruling ac- doing to the marine turtle is a contemptuously small tually stated that under certain circumstance it problem . . The U.S. leadership has, unfortunately, al- was all right for the United States to restrict ways put its national interests before global concerns imports for environmental reasons, but only in its global environmental policies. Its behavior on the if such restrictions were applied in a climate change issue is one example. Its refusal to nondiscriminatory manner. The problem sign the bio-diversity treaty is another. Its refusal to with the U.S. ban as it stood was that it pay dues to the United Nations is yet another." had targeted a select group of countries- The World Trade Organization panel on April 6, it was discriminatory. 1998, ruled that the ban was in violation of WTO rules In response, the United States revised the and would need to be amended. According to the law so that it restricted shrimp imports from any WTO, by enacting a targeted ban against just three country that failed to use a turtle-excluder device on countries, the United States had acted in a discrimi its shrimp boats. The import ban, however, stayed in natory manner, which was in violation of WTO ac- place. Malaysia responded by filing a complaint in Oc- cords. Further, the WTO stated that if the United tober 2000 with the WTO, arguing that the United States wished to impose such a ban, it should be a States was still in violation of WTO rules. In October blanket ban against imports from all countries that fail 2001, the WTO rejected Malaysia's complaint, effect to use a turtle-excluder device, not just a targeted list tively confirming that the amended U.S. ban was con- of countries. sistent with WTO rules The environmental movement reacted to the WTO ruling with dismay. A Sierra Club spokesman noted, Sources: A. Aggarwal and S. Narain, "Politics of Conservation," "This is the clearest slap at environmental protection The Hindu, October 26, 1997, p. 26; J. H. Cushman, "Trade to come out of the WTO to date." Similarly, a spokes- Group Strikes a Blow at U.S. Environmental Law," New York Times, April 7, 1998, p. D1; "WTO Ruling in Turtle Protection Dis- woman for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for pute," Bangkok Post, March 18, 1998; J. Maggs, "WTO Shrimp Marine Conservation stated, " It is unthinkable that we Ruling Heightens Environment vs. Trade Debate," Journal of should not be allowed to mitigate the impacts of our Commerce, April 7, 1998, p. 3A; and "Malaysia Swims against own shrimp markets on endangered sea turtles. This the Tide over U.S. Shrimps Import Ban," New Straits Times Press (Malaysia), October 25, 2001, p. 2