English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Pro

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Presents AI Discovery search usage as a premium feature

AI Discovery

Presents AI Discovery explain and summary usage as a premium feature

Content Analysis

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

1500 Top-up

3000 Top-up

Zendy Basic

2500 Top-up

Zendy Unlimited

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

One of the issues on which the report of the Appellate Body inEC – Seal Productshas stirred considerable debate among legal academics is how to deal with product regulations allegedly having multiple policy  purposes under World Trade Organization (WTO) law. For the most part, academic discussions have focused on the Appellate Body’s analysis of this issue under the chapeau of Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). This article seeks to contribute to this debate by taking a more systemic perspective and considering also how this type of measure would be appraised under Article 2.1 Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). It begins by examining why measures purportedly balancing multiple competing purposes, as in theEC - Seal Productscase, may necessitate justification under WTO law and why the Appellate Body’s self-imposed rational connection requirement is not appropriate to that end. A second argument advanced in this article is that, contrary to what the Appellate Body appeared to suggest inEC – Seal Products, the legal standards for justifying discrimination under the GATT Article XX-chapeau and Article 2.1 TBT Agreement should be essentially the same, and thus conflicting interpretations avoided in relation to the rational connection standard. A two-tier test for bringing in line these justification provisions is suggested which enquires, first, into whether there is a genuinely legitimate rationale for the discrimination, and secondly, whether the discriminatory impact is necessary to achieve that legitimate purpose.

journal of international economic law

Measures with Multiple Competing Purposes after               EC – Seal Products              : Avoiding a Conflict between GATT Article XX-Chapeau and Article 2.1 TBT Agreement