Skip to main content
×
Home

Should Fundamental Rights to Privacy and Data Protection be a Part of the EU's International Trade “Deals”?

  • SVETLANA YAKOVLEVA (a1)
Abstract
Abstract

This article discusses ways in which the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and post-GATS free trade agreements may limit the EU's ability to regulate privacy and personal data protection as fundamental rights. After discussing this issue in two dimensions – the vertical relationship between trade and national and European Union (EU) law, and the horizontal relationship between trade and human rights law – the author concludes that these limits are real and pose serious risks.

Inspired by recent developments in safeguarding labour, and environmental standards and sustainable development, the article argues that privacy and personal data protection should be part of, and protected by, international trade deals made by the EU. The EU should negotiate future international trade agreements with the objective of allowing them to reflect the normative foundations of privacy and personal data protection. This article suggests a specific way to achieve this objective.

Copyright
Corresponding author
*Email: svyakovleva@gmail.com.
Footnotes
Hide All

The author thanks Professors Kristina Irion and Ingo Venzke for the supervision of her research master thesis on which this article is largely based. The author is also grateful to Professors Gloria González Fuster, Daniel Gervais, Eleni Kosta, the editor of World Trade Review and anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of and insightful comments on this manuscript that contributed to the improving of its final version.

Footnotes
References
Hide All

1 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, Exchanging and Protecting Personal Data in a Globalised World, 10.1.2017 COM(2017) 7 final, Section I.3.

2 Compare recital M of the preamble and para. c(iii) of the European Parliament Resolution of 3.02.2016 on Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) (2015/2233(INI).

3 Communication from the Commission (note 1) section I.3.

4 Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the One Part, and the United Mexican States, of the Other Part, 8 December 1997 [2000] OJ L 276/45, https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/28.10.2000_mexico.pdf.

5 Decision No. 2/2001 of the EU–Mexico Joint Council of 27 February 2001 implementing Articles 6, 9, 12(2)(b), and 50 of the Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement (2001/153/EC) [2001] OJ L70, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2004/october/tradoc_111722.pdf.

6 Agreement Establishing an Association between the European Community and Its Member States, of the One Part, and the Republic of Chile, of the Other Part, 11 November 2002 [2002] OJ L 352/3, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:f83a503c-fa20-4b3a-9535-f1074175eaf0.0004.02/DOC_2&format=PDF.

7 Agreement Establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other, 29 June 2012 [2012] OJ L 346/3, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:22012A1215(01)&rid=1.

8 Free Trade Agreement Between the European Union and its Member States, of the One Part, and the Republic of Korea, of the Other Part, 6 October 2010 [2011] OJ L. 127/6, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:22011A0514%2801%29&rid=1.

9 Trade Agreement Between the European Union and its Member States, of the One Part, and Colombia and Peru, of the Other Part, 31 May 2012 [2012] OJ L 354/1, http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e4c7ab87-4a17-11e2-8762-01aa75ed71a1.0001.04/DOC_30.

10 EU–Singapore Free Trade Agreement (not yet ratified by the EU). Authentic text as of May 2015 is available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=961.

11 Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part, 14 September 2014 [2017] OJ L 11/23, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:22017A0114(01)&from=EN.

12 Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), currently under negotiation between Australia, Canada, Chile, Chinese Taipei, Colombia, Costa Rica, the EU, Hong Kong China, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Korea, Liechtenstein, Mauritius, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Switzerland, Turkey, and the US, http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/tisa/.

13 Case C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P. Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities [2008] ECLI:EU:C:20 08:461, paras. 282, 307, 308, 316. Although, this decision is fact-specific, it is believed that this approach applies to the relationship between the EU and international law in general, see e.g. See de Burca G., ‘The European Court of Justice and the International Legal Order after Kadi’, 51(1) Harvard International Law Journal (2010) 5 .

14 For discussion see Yakovleva S. and Irion K., ‘The Best of Both Worlds? Free Trade in Services and EU Law on Privacy and Data Protection’, 2 European Data Protection Law Review (2016) 191, 200202 .

15 Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data [1995] OJ L 281, 31.

16 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) [2016] OJ L 119/1-88.

17 Articles 26, 27 VCLT.

18 Articles 3(5) and 21 of the Treaty on European Union, consolidated version, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, 13–390.

19 van den Bossche P. and Zdouc W., The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization: Text, Cases and Materials, 3rd edn (Cambridge University Press, 2013); Matsushita M. et al. , The World Trade Organization: Law, Practice and Policy (Oxford University Press, 2015).

20 See L. Bartels, ‘Trade and Human Rights’, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2013) section 1; Trebilcock M. et al. , The Regulation of International Trade, 4th edn (Routledge, 2013); Cottier T. et al. , Human Rights and International Trade (Oxford University Press. 2005).

21 Kuner C., ‘Extraterritoriality and Regulation of International Data Transfers in EU Data Protection Law’, 5(4) International Data Privacy Law (2015) 235 ; Kuner C., ‘Developing an Adequate Legal Framework for International Data Transfers’, in Gutwirth S. et al. (eds.), Reinventing Data Protection? (Springer, 2009); C. Kuner, ‘Regulation of Transborder Data Flows under Data Protection and Privacy Law: Past, Present, and Future’ (2010) TILT Law and Technology Working Paper No, 016/2010, http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1689483; Bygrave L. A., Data Privacy Law: An International Perspective (Oxford University Press, 2014).

22 F. Costa-Cabral and O. Lynskey ‘The internal and external constraints of data protection on competition law in the EU’ (2015) LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers 25/2015, 11, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/64887/1/Lynskey_Internal%20and%20External%20Constraints%20of%20Data%20Protection%20_Author_2015.pdf.

23 Ibid.

24 Article 1 of the EU Charter.

25 Explanation on Article 1, Explanations Relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (2007/C 303/02).

26 European Data Protection Supervisor, Opinion 4/2015, Towards a new digital ethics, Data, dignity and technology, 11 September 2015, 12; Rodota S., ‘Data Protection as Fundamental Right’, in Gutwirth S. et al. (eds.), Reinventing Data Protection? (Springer, 2009) 80.

27 C. de Terwangne, ‘Is a Global Data Protection Regulatory Model Possible?’, in S. Gutwirth et al. (eds.), Reinventing Data Protection? 55.

28 Zuboff S., ‘Big Other: Surveillance Capitalism and the Prospects of an Information Civilization’, 30 Journal of Information Technology (2015) 75, 75, 85.

29 S. Zuboff, ‘The Secrets of Surveillance Capitalism’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (5 March 2016).

30 Ogus A., Regulation: Legal Form and Economic Theory, 3rd edn (Clarendon Press, 1994) 29.

31 Ibid., 54.

32 Ibid., 33.

33 Cohen G. M., ‘The Negligence–Opportunism Tradeoff in Contract Law’ (1991–1992) 20 Hofstra Law Review, 941, 976; Schäfer H. B. and Ott C., The Economic Analysis of Civil Law (Edward Elgar, 2000) 360.

34 S. Shavell, ‘Welfare Economics, Morality, and the Law’ (2003) Harvard Law School Discussion Paper No. 409, chapter 26, 11, http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/409.pdf.

35 Ibid.

36 J. Cabinakova, C. Zimmermann, and G. Mueller, ‘An Empirical Analysis of Privacy Dashboard Acceptance: The Google Case’ (2016) Research Papers ECIS. 114, http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2016_rp/114, 12.

37 The OECD Privacy Framework (2013), Supplementary explanatory memorandum to the revised recommendation of the council concerning guidelines governing the protection of privacy and transborder flows of personal data, 29, https://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/oecd_privacy_framework.pdf.

38 Kuner C., Transborder Data Flows and Data Privacy Law (Oxford University Press, 2013) 36.

39 L. A. Bygrave (note 21) 45.

40 The OECD Privacy Framework (2013), Supplementary explanatory memorandum (note 37) 4.

41 OECD Privacy Framework (2013) para. 16.

42 Ibid., para. 17.

43 Ibid., para. 18.

44 APEC Privacy Framework (2015), published in August 2017, http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=1883.

46 Bygrave (note 21) 76.

47 Principle IX, para. 26 of APEC Privacy Framework (2005), Principle IX, para. 32 and paras. 69–70 of APEC Privacy Framework (2015).

48 Kuner, ‘Regulation of Transborder Data Flows Under Data Protection and Privacy Law’ (note 21) 21.

49 Purtova N., Property Rights in Personal Data: a European Perspective (Kluwer Law International 2011) 224, 232240 ; Keller P., European and International Media Law: Liberal Democracy, Trade and New Media (Oxford University Press, 2011) 347; Harris D. et al. , Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, 2nd edn (Oxford University Press, 2009) 362; UN Human Rights Committee General Comment 16, 23.03.1988 (UN Doc a/43/40, 181–183) para. 10.

50 Article 1 of the Convention 108.

51 Explanation on Article 7, Explanations Relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (note 25).

52 Preparatory Work on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (9 August 1956) A.28.696 TD 996/AEG/WM, para. 3.

53 Article 25 DPD, Article 45 GDPR.

54 Case C 362/14 Maximillian Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:650, para. 73.

55 Article 25(4) and (6) DPD, Article 45(1) GDPR.

56 Article 288(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated version) [2012] OJ C 326, 47–390. As of April 2017, the Commission has issued adequacy decisions for Andorra, Argentina, Canada, the Faroe Islands, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Israel, Jersey, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Uruguay. A special sectoral regime with the USA – the ‘Privacy Shield’ – was approved by a formal adequacy decision of the Commission (European Commission implementing decision pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on adequacy of the protection provided by the EU–US Privacy Shield of 12.07.2016 C(2016) 4176 final).

57 The Commission has never adopted a negative decision on the adequate level of protection in a third country.

58 Article 26 DPD, Articles 46, 49 GDPR.

59 See e.g. Kuner, ‘Regulation of Transborder Data Flows Under Data Protection and Privacy Law: Past, Present, and Future’ (note 21) 7; Keller (note 49) 351; S. Peng, ‘Digitalization of Services, the GATS and the Protection of Personal Data’, in Kommunikation: Festschrift fur Rolf H. Weber zum 60 Geburtstag 753, 765.

60 Bartels (note 20) section 2.

61 C. Dommen, ‘Human Rights and Trade: Two Practical Suggestions for Promoting Coordination and Coherence’, in Cottier et al., Human Rights and International Trade (note 20) 201–202.

62 See e.g. Recital 4 of the preamble to the GATS.

63 Dworkin R., Taking Rights Seriously (Harvard University Press, 1978) 31.

64 WTO, Argentina – Measures Relating to Trade in Goods and Services, Report of the Appellate Body (14 April 2016) WT/DS453/AB/R, para. 6.114.

65 Recital 3 of the Preamble of the GATS.

66 Recital 7, Article 8.1(3) of FTA with Singapore.

67 Recital 6 of the FTA with Korea.

68 See e.g. Bygrave (note 21) 199; Kuner, ‘Regulation of Transborder Data Flows Under Data Protection and Privacy Law: Past, Present, and Future’ (note 21) 17; Keller (note 49) 353; Chen Yi-Hsuan, ‘The EU Data Protection Law Reform: Challenges for Service Trade Liberalisation and Possible Approaches for Harmonizing Privacy Standards into the Context of GATS’, 19 Spanish Yearbook of International Law (2015) 211 ; Yakovleva and Irion (note 14) 203–205.

69 A specific commitment that only applies in relation to service sectors indicated in a party's schedules of specific commitments (Article XX GATS).

70 WTO, European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products, Report of the Appellate Body (22 May 2014) WT/DS400/AB/R, WT/DS401/AB/R, para. 5.82; WTO, Argentina–Financial Services, Report of the Appellate Body (note 64) para. 6.24.

71 Articles 9.3, 9.5 CETA.

72 Article 120(2) of FTA with Colombia and Peru.

73 Goco J. B., ‘Non-Discrimination, “Likeness”, and Market Definition in World Trade Organization Jurisprudence’, 40 Journal of World Trade (2006) 315, 325; Argentina–Financial Services, Report of the Appellate Body (note 64) paras. 6.26, 6.105, 6.127; Cossy M., ‘Some Thoughts on the Concept of “Likeness” in the GATS’, in Panizzon M., Pohl N., and Sauvé P. (eds.), GATS and the Regulation of International Trade in Services (Cambridge University Press, 2008) 338; WTO, Thailand – Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the Philippines, Report of the Appellate Body (17 June 2011) WT/DS371/AB/R, para. 134.

74 Diebold N. F., Non-Discrimination in International Trade in Services: ‘Likeness’ in WTO/GATS (Cambridge University Press, 2010) 143.

75 Connolly K., ‘Finding Space for Regulatory Autonomy in GATS Article XVII after EC–Seals: Public Services and the “Likeness” of Public and Private Service Providers42 Legal Issues of Economic Integration (2015) 57, 82; Cossy (note 73) 345–346.

76 Argentina–Financial Services, Report of the Appellate Body (note 64). See also Connolly (note 75) 61; Cossy (note 73) 331; WTO, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, Report of the Appellate Body (9 September 1997) WT/DS27/AB/R, para. 241; WTO, EC–Seal Products (note 70) 122–129.

77 WTO, Argentina–Financial Services, Report of the Appellate Body (note 64) paras. 6.106, 6.121.

78 Ibid., para. 6.106.

79 Ibid., paras. 6.114, 6.115.

80 Goco (note 73) 326–327.

81 WTO, Argentina–Financial Services, Report of the Appellate Body (note 64) paras. 6.22–6.23, 6.25, 6.34.

82 Ibid., para. 6.26.

83 Ibid., paras. 6.38, 6.44.

84 WTO, European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Products Containing Asbestos, Report of the Appellate Body (12 March 2001) WT/DS135/AB/R, paras. 101–102.

85 K. Irion, ‘Cloud services made in Europe after Snowden and Schrems’ (23 October 2015) Internet Policy Review, http://policyreview.info/articles/news/cloud-services-made-europe-after-snowden-and-schrems/377. In November 2015, Microsoft announced plans to deliver the Microsoft Cloud from datacenter in Germany offering to localize data of users in Germany, Microsoft News Center Europe, https://news.microsoft.com/europe/2015/11/11/45283/#sm.00004dclt5ee6ey9w001o5rcdzfvj.

86 K. Irion and Lucheta, ‘Online Personal Data Processing and EU Data Protection Reform’, report of the CEPS Digital Forum (2013) 35–36; Acquisti A.The Economics and Behavioral Economics of Privacy’, in Lane J., Stodden V., Bender S., and Nissenbaum H. (eds.), Privacy, Big Data, and the Public Good Frameworks for Engagement (Cambridge University Press 2014) 8586 .

87 Costa-Cabral and Lynskey (note 22) 13. K. Martin and H. Nissenbaum, ‘Measuring Privacy: An Empirical Test Using Context to Expose Confounding Variables’ (2015) 7.5, 6, 40, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2709584.

88 Chapter 16 of CETA, chapter 8 section F of the FTA with Singapore, chapter 6 of the FTA with Colombia and Peru, chapter 7 section F of the FTA with Korea, chapter 6 of the association agreement with Central America, article 104 of the association agreement with Chile.

89 Article 9 of TiSA Annex on Telecommunications Services of 8 June 2016, WikiLeaks, https://wikileaks.org/tisa/document/20160608_TiSA_Annex-on-Telecommunication/.

90 Article 8.27 of the FTA with Singapore, article 149 of the FTA with Colombia and Peru, article 7.35 of the FTA with Korea, article 192 of the association agreement with Central America.

91 Article 15.3(4) of CETA, article 192 of the association agreement with Central America.

92 Article B.8 of the Understanding on commitments in financial services, articles 13.15(1) of CETA, 157(1) of the FTA with Colombia and Peru, article 22(1) of the association agreement with Mexico, article 7.43(a) of the FTA with Korea, article 198(1) of the FTA between the EU and Central America, article 122(1) of the association agreement with Chile, article 8.54(1) of the FTA with Singapore, article 14 of the EU proposal of TiSA Annex on financial services (July 2013, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/july/tradoc_152688.pdf) and article X.10 of draft TiSA Annex on Financial Services of 27 June 2016, WikiLeaks, https://wikileaks.org/tisa/document/20160627_TiSA_Annex-on-Financial-Services/.

93 Article 8.54(2) of the FTA with Singapore, article 157(2) of the FTA with Colombia and Peru, article 198(2) of the association agreement with Central America, article 13.15(2) of CETA, article 7.43(b) of the FTA with Korea, article 22(2) of EU–Mexico Joint Council Decision.

94 See also article 8.54(2) of the FTA with Singapore, article 157(2) of the FTA with Colombia and Peru, article 198(2) of the association agreement with Central America, article 7.43(b) of the FTA with Korea, article 22(2) of EU–Mexico Joint Council Decision.

95 In addition to CETA, see FTAs with Colombia and Peru, Korea, Association agreement with Central America.

96 Article B.8 of the Understanding on commitments in financial services.

97 Article 7.43(b) of the FTA with Korea and footnote 41 to this provision.

98 See e.g. article 8.57 of the FTA with Singapore.

99 Article 2 of TiSA Annex on Electronic Commerce, May 2016, https://wikileaks.org/tisa/document/20151001_Annex-on-Electronic-Commerce/.

100 See also article 162(2) of the FTA with Colombia and Peru, article 7.48(2) of the FTA with Korea, article 201(2) of the association agreement with Central America.

101 Article 16.4 of CETA.

102 Wunsch-Vincent S., ‘Trade Rules for the Digital Age’, Panizzon M., Pohl N., and Sauvé P. (eds.), GATS and the Regulation of International Trade in Services (Cambridge University Press 2008) 519520 .

103 Article 164 FTA with Colombia and Peru.

104 WTO, United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services, Report of the Appellate Body (7 April 2005) WT/DS285/AB/R, para. 306; WTO, Argentina–Financial Services, Report of the Panel (30 September 2015) WT/DS453/R, para. 7.684.

105 WTO, Argentina–Financial Services, Report of the Panel (note 104) paras. 7.685, 7.727, referring to WTO, Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef, Report of the Appellate Body (11 December 2000) WT/DS161/AB/R and WT/DS169/AB/R, para. 163.

106 Leader S., ‘Human Rights and International Trade’, Sheeran S. and Rodley N. (eds.), Routledge Handbook of International Human Rights Law (Routledge 2013) 255.

107 WTO, Argentina–Financial Services, Report of the Panel (note 104) para. 7.729 referring to WTO, US–Gambling (note 104) para. 308.

108 D. Etsy, Greening the GATT: Trade, Environment and the Future (Institute for International Economics, 1994) 48.

109 Leader (note 106) 255.

110 See also Yakovleva and Irion (note 14) 206.

111 Kuner, ‘Developing an Adequate Legal Framework for International Data Transfers’ (note 21) 269–271.

112 Alston P., ‘Resisting the Merger and Acquisition of Human Rights by Trade Law: A Reply to Pertersmann’, 13(4) European Journal of International Law (2002) 815, 181.

113 Trebilcock et al. (note 20) 747.

114 Article 53 the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

115 de Schutter O., International Human Rights Law, 2nd edn (Cambridge University Press 2014) 7273 ; Moeckli D. et al. , International Human Rights Law, 2nd edn (Oxford University Press 2014) 114.

116 Moeckli (note 115) 114.

117 Trebilcock et al. (note 20) 747.

118 Moeckli (note 115) 105.

119 De Schutter (note 115) 118.

120 European Commission on Human Rights, Austria v. Italy (the ‘Pfunders’ Case), Appl. No. 788/60, European Convention on Human Rights Yearbook, 4 (1961) 116, 140.

121 Q. Kong, ‘A Human Rights Approach to Trade? Some reflections’, Cottier et al., Human Rights and International Trade (note 20) 233–234.

122 Leader (note 106) 248–250.

123 Article 55 of the ILC Articles on Responsibility of States.

124 Annex 2 to the WTO Agreement.

125 van den Bossche and Zdouc (note 19) 58; Trachtman J., ‘The Domain of WTO Dispute Resolution’, 40 Harvard International Law Journal (1999) 333, 342.

126 Articles 3.2 and 19.2 DSU

127 WTO, Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages, Report of the Appellate Body (6 March 2006) WT/DS308/AB/R, para. 56.

128 Zalnieriute M., ‘An International Constitutional Moment for Data Privacy in the Times of Mass-Surveillance’, International Journal of Law and Information Technology (2015) 23, 132.

129 Joseph S., ‘Trade Law and Investment Law’, Shelton D. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights Law (Oxford University Press 2013) 864, 869.

130 See e.g. WTO, European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), Report of the Appellate Body (16 January 1998) WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, paras. 120–25. In addition, such conclusion is made with respect to international customary law in general, without special reference to human rights. See M. Koskenniemi, ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law’, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, para. 165, http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_l682.pdf.

131 Joseph (note 129) 864.

132 Ibid., 869.

133 Article 29.12 of CETA, article 15.18 of FTA with Singapore, article 317 of the FTA with Colombia and Peru, article 14.16 of the FTA with Korea, article 321(3) of the association agreement with Central America.

134 Leader (note 106) 248–250.

135 Article 3.2 DSU, article 29.17 of CETA, article 15.18 of the FTA with Singapore, article 317 of the FTA with Colombia and Peru, article 34 of the Model Rules of Procedure (Annex III to Decision No. 2/2001 of the EU–Mexico Joint Council of 27 February 2001, implementing Articles 6, 9, 12(2)(b) and 50 of the Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement (2001/153/EC), article 14.16 of the FTA with Korea, article 322 of the association agreement with Central America, article 186(3) of the association agreement with Chile.

136 United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline (29 April 1996) WT/DS2/AB/R, 17; van den Bossche and Zdouc (note 19) 61; Koskenniemi (note 130) paras. 45, 165.

137 Resolution No. 5/2008 on International Trade Law, the 73rd Conference of the International Law Association, 17–21 August 2008.

138 Trebilcock et al. (note 20) 748. See also Aaronson S. A., ‘Seeping in Slowly: How Human Rights Concerns Are Penetrating the WTO6 World Trade Review (2007) 413, 422.

139 Matsushita et al. (note 19) 81.

140 Koskenniemi (note 130) paras. 167, 169.

141 WTO, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Report of the Appellate Body (12 October 1998) WT/DS58/AB/R, paras. 127–131.

142 Matsushita et al. (note 19) 78.

143 See also article 1 of FTA with Colombia and Peru; article 1 of EU–Mexico economic partnership agreement, Preambles of EU's FTAs with Singapore and Korea.

144 Koskenniemi (note 130) para. 169, Dommen (note 61) 200–201.

145 Koskenniemi (note 130) para. 169, Joseph (note 129) 862.

146 Reid E., Balancing Human Rights, Environmental Protection and International Trade: Lessons from the EU Experience (Hart Publishing 2015) 279.

147 Ibid., 303.

148 Ibid., 311.

149 Articles 22.1, 23.2, and 24.3 of CETA, article 13.1(1) of the FTA with Singapore, articles 269(3) and 270(2) of the FTA with Colombia and Peru, articles 286(1)–(2), 287 of the Association Agreement with Central America. Articles 13.4 and 13.5 of the FTA with Korea.

150 A similar provision is contained in article 13.2(2) of the FTA with Singapore and in Article 268 of the FTA with Colombia and Peru.

151 Article 291(1) of the Association agreement with Central America contains a similar provision.

152 Council of the European Union, Draft Directives for the Negotiation of a Plurilateral Agreement on Trade in Services, 10 March 2015, http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6891-2013-ADD-1-DCL-1/en/pdf; Council of the European Union, Directives for the Negotiation on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the European Union and the United States of America 11103/13 of 17 June 2013, http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11103-2013-DCL-1/en/pdf.

The author thanks Professors Kristina Irion and Ingo Venzke for the supervision of her research master thesis on which this article is largely based. The author is also grateful to Professors Gloria González Fuster, Daniel Gervais, Eleni Kosta, the editor of World Trade Review and anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of and insightful comments on this manuscript that contributed to the improving of its final version.

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: 8
Total number of PDF views: 33 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 172 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 6th November 2017 - 14th December 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.