Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Do you mind if I don't smoke? Products, purpose and indeterminacy in US – Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes

  • TOMER BROUDE (a1) and PHILIP I. LEVY (a2)
Abstract
Abstract

The AB Report in US–Clove Cigarettes confirmed the Panel's conclusions that imported clove cigarettes were ‘like’ US menthol cigarettes, and accorded ‘less favourable treatment’ for the purpose of national treatment under Article 2.1 TBT, but it employed significantly different logic. The AB's reasoning extends earlier GATT jurisprudence into the TBT, applying competition-oriented analysis to the question of product definition, while reserving consideration of regulatory purpose to the comparison of treatment. We consider this emphasis from the perspectives of legal and economic indeterminacy, which we find run in parallel to each other. In the particular questions of the appeal, the AB's decisions are sensible from both perspectives, but ultimately do not add significantly to determinacy. We find it impossible to ignore regulatory purpose in discrimination cases, and we provide a novel economic model for analysing regulatory utility in this respect. In our view, there is not much economic difference in analysing regulatory purpose separately from more observable market considerations, but this sequencing does add political logic, analytical focus and formal transparency, all of which may enhance the legitimacy of WTO dispute settlement rulings, although ideally, further specification from the WTO Membership regarding the methodological content of the national treatment discipline would be preferred.

Copyright
Corresponding author
*Email: tomerbroude@gmail.com.
**Email: plevy@thechicagocouncil.org.
References
Hide All
CBS Chicago (2012), ‘“Dusting” High a Deadly Fad for Young People’, at http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/11/12/dusting-high-a-deadly-fad-for-young-people/, 12 November.
Choi Won-Mog (2003), ‘Like Products’ in International Trade Law: Towards a Consistent GATT/WTO Jurisprudence, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Conrad C. R. (2011), Process and Production Methods (PPMs) in WTO Law: Interfacing Trade and Social Goals, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Farrell J. and Shapiro C. (2010), ‘Antitrust Evaluation of Horizontal Mergers: An Economic Alternative to Market Definition’, B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, 10 (1) (March).
Flett J. (2013), ‘WTO Space for National Regulation: Requiem for a Diagonal Test Vector’, Journal of International Economic Law, 16(1): 3790.
Horn H. and Mavroidis P. C. (2004), ‘Still Hazy after All These Years: The Interpretation of National Treatment in the GATT/WTO Case-Law on Tax Discrimination’, European Journal of International Law, 15: 3969.
Howse R. and Levy P. (2012), ‘The TBT Panels: US–Clove Cigarettes, US–Tuna, and US–COOL’, in Bown C. P. and Mavroidis P. C. (eds.), The WTO Case Law of 2011, American Law Institute Reporters’ Studies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hudec R. E. (1998), ‘GATT/WTO Constraints on National Regulation: A Requiem for an “Aim and Effects” Test’, International Lawyer, 32: 619649.
Hudec R. E. (2000), ‘“Like Product”: The Differences in Meaning in GATT Articles I and III’, in Cottier Thomas and Mavroidis Petros C. (eds.), Regulatory Barriers and the Principle of Non-Discrimination, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 101123.
Kaplow L. (1992), ‘Rules versus Standards: An Economic Analysis’, Duke Law Journal, 42: 557629.
Kaplow L. (2010), ‘Why (Ever) Define Markets?’, Harvard Law Review, 124: 437.
Kress K. (1989), ‘Legal Indeterminacy’, California Law Review, 77: 283.
Marceau G. (2013), ‘The New TBT Jurisprudence in US–Clove Cigarettes, US–Tuna II and US–Cool’, Asian Journal of WTO and International Health Law and Policy, 8(1): 139.
Mavroidis P. C. (2013), ‘Driftin’ Too Far from the Shore – Why the Test for Compliance with the TBT Agreement Developed by the WTO Appellate Body Is Wrong, and What Should the AB Have Done Instead’, World Trade Review, 12(3): 509531.
Melischek C. A. (2013), The Relevant Market in International Economic Law: A Comparative Antitrust and GATT Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Regan D. H. (2006), ‘Regulatory Purpose and “Like Products” in Article III:4 of the GATT (with Additional Remarks on Article III:2)’, in Bermann G. A. and Mavroidis P. C. (eds.), Trade and Human Health and Safety, Columbia Studies in WTO Law and Policy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 190223.
Solum L. B. (1987), ‘On the Indeterminacy Crisis: Critiquing Critical Dogma’, University of Chicago Law Review, 54: 462.
Trachtman J. P. (1999), ‘The Domain of WTO Dispute Settlement’, Harvard International Law Journal, 40: 333.
Zhou W. (2012), ‘US–Clove Cigarettes and US–Tuna II (Mexico): Implications for the Role of Regulatory Purpose under Article III:4 of the GATT’, Journal of International Economic Law, 15(4): 1075–1022.
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? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 5
Total number of PDF views: 57 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 441 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 15th December 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.