Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

WTO and Human Rights

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Influence of Human Rights on International Law

Abstract

International law is a normative system but is more than a set of independent rules. Yet normative conflicts are endemic in international law. The international rules on world trade and human rights are often regarded as conflicting legal branches in the system of international law. Both sets of rules are distinct but not independent from each other and impacting the respective legal order. International human rights rules can constitute an impediment to trade liberalisation as established by the WTO. For instance, they could be used as a ground of justification for not exporting a good from a country that does not apply the same human rights standard. The Director General of the WTO, Pascal Lamy, implies a more positive understanding of the two regimes by stating that “trade and human rights are mutually supportive”, which at least indicates a rather fruitful than opposing relationship.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Higgins (1995), p. 1.

  2. 2.

    ILC, Study Group (2006), para. 486.

  3. 3.

    An early analysis of the relationship is provided by Petersmann (2000), pp. 19–26; and McCrudden and Davies (2000), pp. 43–62.

  4. 4.

    See Pavoni (2010), pp. 649 and 650.

  5. 5.

    See Petersmann (2000), p. 19.

  6. 6.

    For different views in the early WTO regime, see McRae (2000), pp. 27–42.

  7. 7.

    Appellate Body, United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R at 17.

  8. 8.

    Pauwelyn (2006) Fragmentation, para. 4.

  9. 9.

    See, e.g., Art. 53 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT).

  10. 10.

    UNTS, vol. 999, p. 171.

  11. 11.

    UNTS, vol. 993, p. 3.

  12. 12.

    E.g., the prohibition of torture.

  13. 13.

    For an analysis of the state of fragmentation, see ILC, Study Group (2006).

  14. 14.

    See ILC, Study Group (2006), para. 483. Pauwelyn (2006, Fragmentation, para. 2) names expressly the relationship between trade and human rights as an example of fragmentation.

  15. 15.

    See, e.g., Appellate Body, US – Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R.

  16. 16.

    Van Damme (2010), p. 643.

  17. 17.

    Wolfrum and Matz (2003), pp. 159 et seq.

  18. 18.

    Hörmann (2010), pp. 597 et seq.

  19. 19.

    Art. 2.2 TBT Agreement and Art. 2 SPS Agreement entail a similar wording but will not be addressed in this article. Art. XX GATT will be analysed infra.

  20. 20.

    Stoll (2011) World Trade Organization, mn. 105.

  21. 21.

    Stoll (2011) World Trade Organization, mn. 106.

  22. 22.

    See supra Fn. 6.

  23. 23.

    Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, Annex 2 to the WTO Agreement.

  24. 24.

    Of 23 May 1969, UNTS vol. 1155, p. 331. For the customary status: ICJ, Advisory Opinion, Palestinian Wall, ICJ-Reports 2004, p. 38, para. 94 and Gardiner (2008), p. 16, with further references. For the WTO: Appellate Body, Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II, WT/DS8, 10-11/AB/R, 1996, Part D. paras. 10–12.

  25. 25.

    For a first comment in this respect, see Simma (2008), p. 738.

  26. 26.

    Van Damme (2010), p. 643.

  27. 27.

    See, with further references, Lorenzmeier (2008a), pp. 178 et seq.

  28. 28.

    Van Damme (2010) p. 643.

  29. 29.

    Van Damme (2010), op. cit.

  30. 30.

    Wolfrum et al. (2011), Art. XX, General Exception, para. 1.

  31. 31.

    Van den Bossche/Zdouc (2013), pp. 325 et seq. and 360 et seq.

  32. 32.

    ILA Resolution 5/2008 on International Trade Law, which is not binding on the WTO bodies.

  33. 33.

    RIAA 2 (1928), 829, 845.

  34. 34.

    ILC, Study Group (2006), para. 478 Gardiner (2008), pp. 252 et seq.

  35. 35.

    AB, US – Reformulated Gasoline, WT/DS2/9, ILM 1996, pp. 603 et seq.; AB, US – Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, para. 129.

  36. 36.

    Art. II.4 WTO Agreement.

  37. 37.

    A parallel provision for services is laid down in Art. XIV lit. a) GATS.

  38. 38.

    See e.g. the EU-Seals dispute: AB, European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products, WT/DS400,401/AB/R of 22 May 2014.

  39. 39.

    Wenzel (2011), Art. XX GATT, lit. a), para. 1, in: Wolfrum R, Stoll PT, Hestermeyer HP (2011) Max Planck commentaries on World Trade Law.

  40. 40.

    Panel, China – Audiovisual Services, WT/DS363/R, para 7.759; Panel, US – Gambling, WT/DS285/R, para 6.465 (for Art. XIV lit. a GATS). See also Panel European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products, WT/DS400,401/R, para. 7.631.

  41. 41.

    Wenzel (2011), Art. XX GATT, lit. a), para. 6, in: Wolfrum R, Stoll PT, Hestermeyer HP (2011) Max Planck commentaries on World Trade Law.

  42. 42.

    Stoll (2011) World Trade Organization, para. 100.

  43. 43.

    See, e.g., ICJ, Nicaragua II, ICJ-Rep. 1986, para 205.

  44. 44.

    Kunig (2008) Intervention, Prohibition of, para. 2 et seq.

  45. 45.

    Wenzel (2011), Art. XX GATT, lit. a), para. 7, in: Wolfrum R, Stoll PT, Hestermeyer HP (2011) Max Planck commentaries on World Trade Law.

  46. 46.

    Eres (2004), pp. 618 et seq.

  47. 47.

    Feddersen (1998), p. 109.

  48. 48.

    In this regard, see Howse (1999), p. 143.

  49. 49.

    For the opposite view, see Wenzel (2011), Art. XX GATT, lit. a), para. 15, in: Wolfrum R, Stoll PT, Hestermeyer HP (2011) Max Planck commentaries on World Trade Law.

  50. 50.

    Panel, European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products, WT/DS400,401/R, 7.625.

  51. 51.

    This had been accepted by the Panel as well as the Appellate Body in the Seals-case.

  52. 52.

    Wenzel (2011), Art. XX GATT, lit. a), para. 16, in: Wolfrum R, Stoll PT, Hestermeyer HP (2011) Max Planck commentaries on World Trade Law.

  53. 53.

    Wenzel (2011), Art. XX GATT, lit. a), paras. 16 and 22 et seq., in: Wolfrum R, Stoll PT, Hestermeyer HP (2011) Max Planck commentaries on World Trade Law.

  54. 54.

    Of 19 December 1966, UNTS vol. 993, p. 3.

  55. 55.

    AB, US – Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R para. 129 et seq.

  56. 56.

    Panel, EC – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, WT/DS291-293, para. 7.70 et seq.

  57. 57.

    Qureishi (2006), pp. 104 et seq.

  58. 58.

    AB, US – Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, para. 157, speaks only of “limited and conditional exceptions”. See also AB, EC – Hormones (WT/DS26, 48AB/R, para. 104: “[…] merely characterizing a treaty provision as an exception does not by itself justify a stricter or narrower interpretation of that provision than would be warranted by examination of the ordinary meaning of the treaty words, viewed in context and in the light of the treaty’s object and purpose, or, in other words, by applying the normal rules of treaty interpretation.”

  59. 59.

    Qureishi (2006), pp. 109 et seq.

  60. 60.

    For services, a parallel exception is enshrined in Art. XIV lit. b) GATS.

  61. 61.

    For parallel regulations on sanitary measures, see Art. 2.3, 4 SPS Agreement; for technical barriers to trade, see Art. 2.2 TBT Agreement. The exceptions are not mutually exclusive, Wolfrum et al. (2011), Art. XX GATT, para. 7.

  62. 62.

    AB, EC – Asbestos, WT/DS135/AB/R, para. 186; Stoll and Strack (2011), Art. XX GATT, lit. b), para. 31, in: Wolfrum R, Stoll PT, Hestermeyer HP (2011) Max Planck commentaries on World Trade Law.

  63. 63.

    Stoll and Strack (2011), Art. XX GATT, lit. b), paras. 33–35, in: Wolfrum R, Stoll PT, Hestermeyer HP (2011) Max Planck commentaries on World Trade Law.

  64. 64.

    AB, EC – Asbestos, WT/DS135/AB/R, para. 168.

  65. 65.

    Stoll and Strack (2011), Art. XX GATT, lit. b), para. 47, in: Wolfrum R, Stoll PT, Hestermeyer HP (2011) Max Planck commentaries on World Trade Law.

  66. 66.

    AB, US – Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, paras. 119 and 120.

  67. 67.

    Van den Bossche/Zdouc (2013), p. 573.

  68. 68.

    AB, China – Measures affecting Trading Rights and Distribution services for certain Publication and Audiovisual Entertainment Products, WT/DS363/AB/R, 12 August 2009, para. 215 et seq.

  69. 69.

    It states in its pertinent part: “Without prejudice to China’s right to regulate trade in a manner consistent with the WTO Agreement […]”.

  70. 70.

    Spiegel Feld and Switzer (2012), p. 25.

  71. 71.

    Appellate Body, China – Measures Relating to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials, WT/DS394/AB/R, para. 303. Critical: Gu (2012), pp. 1007 et seq.

  72. 72.

    Panel, United States – Certain Measures affecting Imports of Poultry from China, WT/DS392/R, para. 4.174–4-198.

  73. 73.

    It remains to be seen how the Panel in China – Raw Materials will address the issue (China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Rare Earths, Tungsten and Molybdenum, WT/DS431-433).

  74. 74.

    Cassese (2005), p. 170.

  75. 75.

    ILC, Study Group (2006), para. 420.

  76. 76.

    Pauwelyn (2006) Fragmentation, para. 29.

  77. 77.

    See Lorenzmeier (2008b), p. 161, with further references.

  78. 78.

    Panel, EC – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, WT/DS291-293, para. 7.67; Lorenzmeier (2008a), p. 170.

  79. 79.

    McLachlan (2005), p. 280.

  80. 80.

    WT/DS291-293, para. 7.68. Also Lennard (2002), p. 36.

  81. 81.

    Gardiner (2008), p. 265.

  82. 82.

    The Appellate Body has not yet applied the doctrine of stare decisis (Van Damme 2010, p. 614), and its permanent jurisprudence, that its rulings “create reasonable expectations”, cannot be held against the proposed reading because this is only a self-understanding of the Appellate Body and is not laid down in the covered agreements or the DSU. Moreover, the Appellate Body had not found on the precise meaning of Art. 31 para. 3 lit. c) VCLT yet.

  83. 83.

    Appellate Body, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, WT/DS332/AB/R, para. 233.

  84. 84.

    Appellate Body, Mexiko – Sweeteners, WT/DS308/AB/R, para. 44 et seq.

  85. 85.

    Cassese (2005), pp. 153 et seq.

  86. 86.

    Pauwelyn (2003), p. 316.

  87. 87.

    Qureishi (2006), p. 163.

  88. 88.

    For the opposite opinion, see Qureishi (2006), p. 163. Yet, even if the nature of the GATT obligations would be integral, the parties would only be the parties of a conflict and not all WTO members due to the inter partes effect of WTO panel decisions.

  89. 89.

    Van den Bossche/Zdouc (2013), p. 318.

  90. 90.

    Van den Bossche/Zdouc (2013), p. 317.

  91. 91.

    Appellate Body, US – Standards for Reformulated or Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R, at 21.

  92. 92.

    15 Iran–US CTR 18, p. 222, para. 112. Also the separate opinion of Judge Kooijmans in the Oil Platforms case (Fn 91), para. 23.

  93. 93.

    See infra Sect. 11.5.2.

  94. 94.

    ICJ, Oil Platforms, ICJ-Reports 2003, pp. 225, 238, para. 49.

  95. 95.

    ICJ, Oil Platforms, ICJ-Reports 2003, para. 78.

  96. 96.

    ECtHR, Al-Adsani, Reports 2001-XI, p. 79, 100, para. 55 et seq.

  97. 97.

    ILC, Study Group (2006), para. 415.

  98. 98.

    To exemplify this, an importing state relying on a human rights provision would not, for instance, violate Art. XI GATT. The provision’s object and purpose would, by way of interpretation, be limited to the extent that the norm would fully respect international human rights. See Lorenzmeier (2008b), pp. 168 et seq.

  99. 99.

    Pavoni (2010), pp. 660 et seq.

  100. 100.

    Arbitral Award of 24 May 2005, para. 59: “Environmental Law and the law on development stand not as alternatives but as mutually reinforcing, integral concepts.”

  101. 101.

    ICJ, Gabcikovo-Nagymaros, ICJ-Reports 1997, p. 7 at p. 78, para. 140.

  102. 102.

    Appellate Body, US-Shrimp, paras. 166–172.

  103. 103.

    Pavoni (2010), p. 678.

  104. 104.

    For Germany: e.g., German Constitutional Court, BVerfGE 19, 206/220; for the EU: ECJ, C-112/00, Schmidberger, ECJ-Reports 2003, I-5659.

References

  • Cassese A (2005) International law. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Eres T (2004) The limits of GATT Article XX: a back door for human rights? Georget J Int Law 35:597–635

    Google Scholar 

  • Feddersen CT (1998) Focusing on substantive law in international economic relations: the public morals of GATT’s Article XX(a) and “Conventional” rules of interpretation. Minn J Global Trade 7:75–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner R (2008) Treaty interpretation. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gu B (2012) Applicability of Article XX GATT in China-raw materials. J Int Econ Law 15:1007–1032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins R (1995) Problems and process, international law and how we use it. OUP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hörmann S (2010) WTO und Menschenrechte. In: Hilf M, Oeter S (eds) WTO-Recht. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 596–615

    Google Scholar 

  • Howse R (1999) The World Trade Organisation and worker’s rights. J Small Emerg Bus Law 3:131–172

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission (2006) Report of the study group: fragmentation of international law. UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunig P (2008) Intervention, prohibition of. In: Wolfrum R (ed) MPEPIL. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lennard M (2002) Navigating by the stars: interpreting the WTO Agreements. J Int Econ Law 5:17–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzmeier S (2008a) WTO-Recht und Außenvölkerrecht. In: Hilf M, Niebsch T (eds) Perspektiven des Internationalen Wirtschaftsrechts. Boorberg, Munich, pp 159–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzmeier S (2008b) Wasser als Ware. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McCrudden C, Davies A (2000) A perspective on trade and labor rights. Eur J Int Law 3:27–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLachlan C (2005) The principle of systemic integration and article 31 (3) (c) of the Vienna Convention. Int Comp Law Q 54:279–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McRae D (2000) The WTO in international law. J Int Econ Law 3:27–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauwelyn J (2003) Conflict of norms in public international law. CUP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pauwelyn J (2006) Fragmentation of international law. In: Wolfrum R (ed) MPEPIL. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavoni R (2010) Mutual supportiveness as a principle of interpretation and law-making. Eur J Int Law 21:649–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersmann E-U (2000) The WTO constitution and human rights. Eur J Int Law 3:19–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Qureishi A (2006) Interpreting WTO Agreements. CUP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Simma B (2008) Der Einfluss der Menschenrechte auf das Völkerrecht. In: Buffard a. o. (eds) International law between universalism and fragmentation, pp 729–745

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiegel Feld D, Switzer S (2012) Whither Article XX? Regulatory autonomy under non-GATT agreements after China-raw materials. Yale J Int Law 38:16–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoll PT (2011) World Trade Organization. In: Wolfrum R (ed) MPEPIL. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Damme I (2010) Treaty interpretation by the WTO appellate body. Eur J Int Law 21:605–679

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bossche P/Zdouc W (2013) The law and policy of the world trade organization. CUP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfrum R, Matz N (2003) Conflicts in international environmental law. Springer, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfrum R, Stoll PT, Hestermeyer HP (2011) Max Planck commentaries on World Trade Law, vol 5. WTO – trade in goods. Brill, Leiden (cited by author, article, para.)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany

    Stefan Lorenzmeier

Authors
  1. Stefan Lorenzmeier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Lorenzmeier .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany

    Norman Weiß

  2. Université Paris Ouest Nanterre la Défense, Nanterre la Défense, Hauts-de-Seine, France

    Jean-Marc Thouvenin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lorenzmeier, S. (2015). WTO and Human Rights. In: Weiß, N., Thouvenin, JM. (eds) The Influence of Human Rights on International Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12021-8_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation