Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 6
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    DOWNES, CHRIS 2015. Worth Shopping Around? Defending Regulatory Autonomy under the SPS and TBT Agreements. World Trade Review, Vol. 14, Issue. 04, p. 553.


    VOON, TANIA 2015. Exploring the Meaning of Trade-Restrictiveness in the WTO. World Trade Review, Vol. 14, Issue. 03, p. 451.


    Ranjan, Prabhash 2014. Using the Public Law Concept of Proportionality to Balance Investment Protection with Regulation in International Investment Law: A Critical Reappraisal. Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol. 3, Issue. 3, p. 853.


    REGAN, DONALD H. 2012. United States – Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry from China: the fascinating case that wasn't. World Trade Review, Vol. 11, Issue. 02, p. 273.


    Kurtz, Jürgen 2010. ADJUDGING THE EXCEPTIONAL AT INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW: SECURITY, PUBLIC ORDER AND FINANCIAL CRISIS. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 59, Issue. 02, p. 325.


    BOWN, CHAD P. and TRACHTMAN, JOEL P. 2009. Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres: A Balancing Act. World Trade Review, Vol. 8, Issue. 01, p. 85.


    ×

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

  • DONALD H. REGAN (a1)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1474745607003424
  • Published online: 31 October 2007
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? *
×