Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

The meaning of ‘necessary’ in GATT Article XX and GATS Article XIV: the myth of cost–benefit balancing

  • DONALD H. REGAN (a1)
Abstract
Abstract

Conventional wisdom tells us that in KoreaBeef, the Appellate Body interpreted the word ‘necessary’ in GATT Article XX to require a cost–benefit balancing test. The Appellate Body is supposed to have applied this test also in EC–Asbestos, US–Gambling (involving GATS Article XIV), and Dominican Republic–Cigarettes. In this article I demonstrate, by detailed analysis of the opinions, that the Appellate Body has never engaged in such balancing. They have stated the balancing test, but in every case they have also stated the principle that Members get to choose their own level of protection, which is logically inconsistent with judicial review by cost–benefit balancing. And they have decided every case by reference to the ‘own level of protection’ principle. The Appellate Body is right not to balance. Balancing is not authorized by the treaty texts, and it is not needed to prevent inefficient harm to foreign interests.

Copyright
Corresponding author
*Email: donregan@umich.edu
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Regan, ‘What Are Trade Agreements For? – Two Conflicting Stories Told by Economists, With a Lesson for Lawyers’, Journal of International Economic Law, 9(4), 951988 (2006

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

World Trade Review
  • ISSN: 1474-7456
  • EISSN: 1475-3138
  • URL: /core/journals/world-trade-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×