Processes And Production Methods Research Articles

PENERAPAN METODE PROSES PRODUKSI DALAM PERDAGANGAN INTERNASIONAL UNTUK PERLINDUNGAN LINGKUNGAN DAN KESEHATAN

Processes and Production Methods (PPMs) are the subject of one of the most complicated controversies in the debate over international trade and protection of the environment and human health. The issue of PPMs actually is not prohibited under the WTO system. There are some cases which may become evident to prove that PPMs is permisible in WTO system. However, PPMs for some rasons can be used as a tool of disguise protectionism by the developed countries. Unfortunately, a developing country finds difficulty to challenge it. The article emphasizes in a weighty examination of the two issues , namely : (i)What are the justifications of process and production method (PPMs) to implement in international trade? (ii) What are the legal implication of PPMs in international trade to the protection of the environment and the human health ? The research method is qualitative and the approach of the research is normative. The research finds that the implementation of PPMs to some extend are justifiable in international trade to the extent that comply with the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement.

A Comment on the Appellate Body Report in EC‐Seal Products in the Context of the Trade and Environment Debate

The Appellate Body (AB) Report in EC‐Seal Products has potential ramifications for the environmental or social concerns in the World Trade Organization. It refines the jurisprudence on the balance between members' market access obligations and their right to give priority consideration to non‐trade concerns under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). This article outlines the main points of the AB Report, particularly related to what measures constitute technical regulations within the scope of the TBT Agreement, and the relationship between the GATT and TBT Agreement in the context of the pursuit of legitimate non‐trade concerns. It further highlights one of the issues raised in the report concerning processes and production methods (PPMs). In particular, it offers comments on what could constitute product‐related and non‐product related PPMs – a categorization that has emerged in the trade‐environment doctrine over the last 40 years and that should now be informed by the AB's interpretation of the TBT Agreement in this case.

The Scope of the TBT Agreement in Light of Recent WTO Case Law

Until very recently, little guidance existed as to the application of the Agreement on Technical Barriers of Trade (TBT Agreement). Through the reports in three disputes in 2012, US - Clove Cigarettes, US - Tuna II and US - COOL, the Appellate Body (AB) provided important and controversial insights regarding the interpretation of the TBT Agreement. Among other matters, the AB shed light on the precise scope of this Agreement. The authors argue that recent WTO case law broadened the scope of the TBT Agreement by establishing the limits of technical regulations, providing further enlightenment to the understanding of standards and leaving room for the inclusion of process and production methods (PPMs) under the purview of the TBT Agreement.

United States—Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products

In a Mexican challenge against U.S. criteria for labeling tuna products as “dolphin-safe,” the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO), on May 16, 2012, held against the United States while reversing various findings of the panel. The case was one of three WTO Appellate Body decisions issued in 2012 that interpreted and applied the key substantive provisions of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement or TBT) for the first time. Systemically, the decision is important for its interpretation of the TBT Agreement’s substantive obligations, the types of labeling that fall within the scope of the Agreement, the legitimacy of labeling based on foreign process and production methods (PPMs), and the relation of other international law to WTO law.

Fisheries Management Standards in the WTO Fisheries Subsidies Talks: Learning How to Discipline Environmental PPMs?

The ongoing fisheries management discussions, held at the World Trade Organization (WTO) in the context of the fisheries subsidies negotiations, can influence the highly debated WTO legal parameters for the assessment of national environmental regulation addressing non-product-related processes and production methods (PPMs).This can be the case because the harmonization of fisheries management standards entails legal and political aspects analogous to the harmonization of environmentally-friendly PPMs among sovereign entities, and this process happens for the first time within the WTO. This article analyses the extent to which this harmonization process is informed by regulatory and standard-setting guidelines drawn respectively from WTO jurisprudence and an array of relevant international instruments; at the same time, it argues that the fisheries subsidies negotiations can result in the WTO taking a more definite position on the 'issue' of environmental PPMs.

Green Farm Subsidies Sponsoring Eco Labeling: Is the Separation of Market Access and Subsidies Regulation in WTO Law Sustainable?

Ecolabel products, such as organic products, are more expensive than their non-organic counterparts. If nearly all costs incurred when changing production methods from traditional to organic are paid in a subsidy, is that subsidy trade-distorting? It will most likely not be inconsistent with World Trade Organization (WTO) law. The paper evaluates various reasons why WTO law responds so poorly to these situations, questions the historical separation of market access and subsidy regulation that causes the poor response, and seeks other, new and innovative solutions. The paper covers a wide range of issues, including non-violation complaints and why process and production methods (PPMs) are so difficult to work with.

Greenhouse Gases Emissions Reduction and WTO Trade Rules

Greenhouse Gases Emissions Reduction and WTO Trade Rules-Greenhouse Gases, Emissions Reduction, Multilateral Environment Agreements, WTO Agreements, Border Greenhouse Gases Adjustment Measures, Comparable Actions, Process and Production Methods (PPMs)

PROCESS and PRODUCTION METHODS (PPMs) in the GATT Agreement

ZEuS verfolgt ein breit angelegtes Konzept: Die Beiträge widmen sich aktuellen und grundsätzlichen Problemen der Europäischen Integration, des Europarechts und des Internationalen Rechts. Mit der Möglichkeit in deutscher, englischer, französischer und spanischer Sprache zu veröffentlichen, bietet ZEuS ein ideales internationales Forum für Beiträge aus Wissenschaft und Praxis.

PPMs, the EC-Biotech Dispute and Applicability of the SPS Agreement: Are the Panel's Findings Built on Shaky Ground?

Despite striking similarities between processes and production methods (PPMs) and genetic engineering, the EC-Biotech panel report is silent on the points of contention raised in the debate on PPMs. The reason is that in EC-Biotech, the panel decided the dispute based on the SPS Agreement, and not based on the GATT or the TBT Agreement. This decision, if not revoked, may well pre-determine the lines of reasoning along which future disputes on national regulations of biotech products will be decided. In this paper, the author critically analyzes the panel's arguments for applying the SPS Agreement. She detects three fundamental concerns: a) the panel interprets the scope of the SPS Agreement in an overly broad manner; b) it fails to address that the contested measures differ considerably from those in previous SPS disputes, and c) it omits exploring the full meaning of environmental protection and biodiversity. Given these doubts about the applicability of the SPS Agreement to regulations of biotech products, the author sets forth the argument that in this particular situation the rule of the minimum of obligations should be applied. With this rule, it can be determined whether the definitions of SPS measures, which in turn decide on the scope of the SPS Agreement, should be interpreted in a broad or rather a narrow manner. Methodologically, the rule requires a comparison of the substantive disciplines on regulations of biotech products contained in different WTO agreements. The author concludes that given the ambiguity of the scope of the SPS Agreement with respect to measures on biotech products, the agreement with softer disciplines provides a more solid legal basis for decisions in respective international disputes.

Eco-labeling and non-product-related process and production methods

Eco-labeling has caused some concerns about international trade, particularly between developed and developing countries, owing to the incorporation of non-product-related process and production methods (PPMs) into eco-labeling criteria. Most countries prefer inclusion of non-product-related PPMs for effectiveness and efficiency of eco-labeling. Using a simple duopoly model, this article compares two eco-labeling schemes: one with inclusion of non-product-related PPMs and the other without. This is done for the case where there has already existed a regulation on the production phase in the form of an emission tax. Counterintuitively, the analysis shows that the exclusion scheme is socially desirable under certain conditions. It reminds us of the importance of the policy mix when introducing eco-labeling. The paper concludes with a discussion of future research directions.