Search

This article explores economic and legal issues in the WTO dispute China–Broiler Products (Article 21.5–United States). In 2011, the US initiated a dispute against the conduct and results of China's 2009 trade remedy investigation into US broiler products (chickens). The Panel Report found that China had acted inconsistently with its WTO obligations. On the basis of a redetermination, China continued to impose duties and the United States initiated WTO compliance proceedings. The compliance Panel Report, circulated in 2018, concluded that China had failed to comply with its WTO obligations when allocating costs to construct US domestic prices for broiler products. However, China was found to have acted consistently with its WTO obligations with respect to two claims which raise some interesting legal questions. Ultimately, after almost a decade of litigation, China removed the antidumping and countervailing duties on US broiler products in 2018.

These compliance proceedings concern a second revised measure adopted by the United States regarding the labelling of dolphin-safe tuna products (the 2016 Tuna Measure). The 2016 Tuna Measure places three types of conditions on the use of the dolphin-safe label: (i) conditions relating to the automatic disqualification of certain tuna products (eligibility criteria); (ii) conditions relating to certifications (certification requirements); and (iii) conditions relating to record keeping and segregation of dolphin-safe and non-dolphin-safe tuna (tracking and verification requirements). Regarding the eligibility criteria, tuna harvested using large-scale driftnets on the high seas and tuna products containing tuna harvested by setting on dolphins anywhere in the world are automatically disqualified for the dolphin-safe label. Regarding the certification and tracking/verification requirements, the 2016 Tuna Measure makes a distinction between the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP) large purse seine fishery, on the one hand, and all other fisheries, on the other hand.

This dispute arose after African Swine Fever (ASF), a highly contagious disease of pigs, was detected in four member States of the European Union (EU) and Russia stopped accepting imports of pigs and pig products from the EU. The EU presented claims with respect to two measures: (i) the ‘EU-wide ban’, consisting of Russia's ban on the importation of the products at issue from the entire EU; and (ii) the ‘country-specific import bans’ imposed by Russia on imports from the four EU member States – Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. There were two categories of products at issue: ‘treated products’ (finished products subject to a treatment that ensures destruction of ASF) and ‘non-treated products’ (products including live pigs, and raw meat preparations). Treated products were not subject to the EU-wide ban. The EU brought multiple claims under the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement).