Next

De Facto Discrimination in WTO Law: National and Most-Favored-Nation Treatment - or Equal Treatment?

Lothar Ehring  ^*

• Abstract
• I. Introduction
• II. The Neglected Question
• III. The Interpretative Choice
  • A. GATT Article III:4
    • 1. The Diagonal Test
    • 2. The Asymmetric Impact Test
    • 3. Illustration
      • a) Asymmetric Distribution
      • b) Symmetric Distribution
      • c) Reverse Asymmetric Distribution
    • 4. Further Options
  • B. GATT Article III:2
  • C. GATT Article I:1 and Other Provisions
• IV. The Jurisprudence
  • A. Early Cases - Factual Asymmetry and Denial of Likeness
  • B. Factual Asymmetry and Violation Finding
    • 1. Spanish Coffee
    • 2. Canada Automobiles
    • 3. Bananas III
    • 4. 1987 Japan - Alcoholic Beverages
    • 5. 1996 Japan - Alcoholic Beverages
    • 6. Korea - Alcoholic Beverages
    • 7. Chile - Alcoholic Beverages
    • 8. Hormones
    • 9. Malt Beverages
  • C. Finding of WTO Consistency in View of Lacking Asymmetry
  • D. Problematic Cases
  • E. Asbestos
    • 1. The Decision
    • 2. Interpretation
  • F. Section 337?
  • G. Conclusion
• V. European Communities Law
  • A. Tax Discrimination
  • B. Sex Discrimination
• VI. Positions Expressed in the WTO Related Literature
• VII. The Scope of the Question
• VIII. The Current Relevance of the Question
• IX. Hermeneutic Arguments for and Against Asymmetry
  • A. Language
  • B. Context
  • C. Telos
  • D. History
  • E. A Maiore ad Minus
• X. Problematic Details of the Asymmetric Impact Requirement
  • A. Quantitative and Qualitative Conditions of Asymmetry
  • B. Relevant and Irrelevant Reasons for an Existing Asymmetry
  • C. The Origin of Imports to Be Included in the Comparison
  • D. Limits of Likeness and Substitutability
• XI. Conclusion
• Bibliography
  • Literature
  • Decisions

* Legal Affairs Officer, Appellate Body Secretariat, World Trade Organization, Geneva; LE@post.harvard.edu. Master of Public Administration (Harvard), Assessor juris (Berlin), First Legal State Examination (Passau). I wish to express my particular gratitude to Professor Joseph H.H. Weiler for making my two years at Harvard a unique experience of reflection, understanding and learning, and for supervising this work. I am indebted to Simon Lester, Jochem Wiers, Jillyanne Redpath and Joost Pauwelyn for their helpful comments on a previous draft. This article expresses only my personal views; it was written before my arrival at the Appellate Body Secretariat.

Top|Next

© Lothar Ehring 2001