What is the strongest argument to make for the American side in the dispute over

Question

What is the strongest argument to make for the American side in the dispute over tuna and dolphins? What is the strongest argument for the Mexican side? In your view, did the GATT dispute settlement panel do the right thing? Who has the stronger arguments in the tropical timber dispute? What are the business implications of each of this dispute? Under what circumstances should nations use trade policy as an instrument to achieve environmental objectives? Are there circumstances under which OECD governments should require their firms to comply with environmental standards set in the home country when the firms operate in countries with less stringent regulations? Are there circumstances under which the firms should do so anyway, even if this is not required?"

Explanation / Answer

The strongest argument to make for the American side is the incidental killing of dolphins in the process of gathering yellowfin tuna. As the dolphins swim above the school of yellowfin tuna, the fishermen make these dolphins their target in the process and millions of them are killed in casualties and drowning. Thus they called for a ban on import of the tuna in the country which is produced by this process.

The strongest argument for the Mexican side is that the tuna ban was inconsistent under article 13, 11 and 3 of GATT. They also debated through PPM process saying that the process is irrelevant if the product is same.

Yes, the GATT dispute pannel did the right thing because the dolphin-safe labelling measures adapted by them were trade restrictive and not focused on achieving their targets.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse W
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.