The European Community (EC) had been the world's largest importer of bananas, two-thirds of which were grown in Latin America. A large percentage came from developing countries that were once colonies of Britain, Spain, and France, located in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific (known as ACP countries). Growers in the ACP countries could not compete with the highly efficient non-ACP producers, most of which are operating in Latin America. In order to encourage the import of ACP-grown bananas and to aid in the development of ACP economies, the EC devised a host of tariff and nontariff barriers aimed at non-ACP bananas. For example, a complex quota scheme was used permitting only a limited quantity of non-ACP bananas to be imported each year, while licenses to import ACP bananas were granted routinely. Whereas most ACP bananas entered duty free, other bananas had a very substantial tariff rate. Several Latin American countries requested consultations, claiming that the EC regulations violated GATT by discriminating against bananas grown in their countries. The United States joined with them, arguing that the United States also had a substantial interest in the issue because U.S. companies that grew and exported Latin American bananas would lose business. The EC maintained that the United States had no grounds for complaining about the EC regulations because it was not a producer and grower. A WTO panel was convened, and its decision was appealed to the WTO Appellate Body.
1. When may a member bring a complaint against another member of the WTO?
2. What was the basis for the EC's argument in this case?
3. The EU-Latin America banana dispute did not end until 2012. What was the ultimate conclusion to this WTO issue?