Assignments week 6 Uitwerkingen
Part A: True/False Questions
1. Under customary international law, states are not only required to
prevent significant damage to the environment of other states but
they are also required to prevent damage to areas beyond their
national jurisdiction.
The core legal question is whether states are not only required to prevent
significant damage to the environment of other states but they are also
required to prevent damage to areas beyond their national jurisdiction,
under customary international law. The point of departure is the Rio
Declaration on Environment and Development that refects customary
international law. Principle 2 Rio Declaration states that a state has the
responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or controls
should not cause damage to the environment of other states or areas
beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. Originally this was a limitation for
the national territory.
This statement is true.
2. The Most Favored-Nation principle obliged members of the WTO,
among other things, to grant any favours in relation to the
importation of a particular product to all like products originating
from other members of the WTO.
The core legal question is whether the MFN-principle obliges members of
the WTO to grant any favours in relation to the importation of particular
products to all like products originating from other members of the WTO.
The MFN-principle is set out in art. 1 GATT and means that the members
of the WTO must enjoy the same treatment. This statement is true.
Like products:
- Same use;
- Consumer tastes and habits;
- Physical characteristics of the products;
- Tariff classification.
3. In the US-Shrimp case, the Appellate Body of the WTO held that the
trade restricting measures taken by the US could not be justified
under article XX(g) GATT 1994, even though the measures related to
the conservation of an exhaustible natural resource.
The core legal question is whether the Appellate Body of the WTO held
that the trade restricting measures taken by the USA could not be justified
under art. XX(g) GATT, even though the measures are related to the
conservation of an exhaustible natural resources. (US-Shrimp case)
The US Shrimp-case stated that although the measure is necessary, this is
only allowed if this it not an arbitrary (§184) or unjustifiable discrimination
(§176). This was the reason that the trade restricting measures taken by
the USA could not be justified under art. XX(g) GATT.
Part A: True/False Questions
1. Under customary international law, states are not only required to
prevent significant damage to the environment of other states but
they are also required to prevent damage to areas beyond their
national jurisdiction.
The core legal question is whether states are not only required to prevent
significant damage to the environment of other states but they are also
required to prevent damage to areas beyond their national jurisdiction,
under customary international law. The point of departure is the Rio
Declaration on Environment and Development that refects customary
international law. Principle 2 Rio Declaration states that a state has the
responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or controls
should not cause damage to the environment of other states or areas
beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. Originally this was a limitation for
the national territory.
This statement is true.
2. The Most Favored-Nation principle obliged members of the WTO,
among other things, to grant any favours in relation to the
importation of a particular product to all like products originating
from other members of the WTO.
The core legal question is whether the MFN-principle obliges members of
the WTO to grant any favours in relation to the importation of particular
products to all like products originating from other members of the WTO.
The MFN-principle is set out in art. 1 GATT and means that the members
of the WTO must enjoy the same treatment. This statement is true.
Like products:
- Same use;
- Consumer tastes and habits;
- Physical characteristics of the products;
- Tariff classification.
3. In the US-Shrimp case, the Appellate Body of the WTO held that the
trade restricting measures taken by the US could not be justified
under article XX(g) GATT 1994, even though the measures related to
the conservation of an exhaustible natural resource.
The core legal question is whether the Appellate Body of the WTO held
that the trade restricting measures taken by the USA could not be justified
under art. XX(g) GATT, even though the measures are related to the
conservation of an exhaustible natural resources. (US-Shrimp case)
The US Shrimp-case stated that although the measure is necessary, this is
only allowed if this it not an arbitrary (§184) or unjustifiable discrimination
(§176). This was the reason that the trade restricting measures taken by
the USA could not be justified under art. XX(g) GATT.
