The law and economics of Canada's WTO litigation contesting U.S. country‐of‐origin labeling (COOL).

We explain the interplay of law and economics in the successful WTO challenge by Canada of U.S. mandatory country‐of‐origin labeling (COOL) measures for beef and pork, which hinged on origin of livestock used in U.S. meat production. Canada mounted a successful legal and economic strategy to convince WTO adjudicating bodies that the United States had violated specific WTO provisions. Canada's economic evidence shows that through costs of segregation the COOL measure harmed the competitive position of Canadian cattle and hogs in the U.S. market. Economic evidence was built into the strategy and cited by the WTO Panels in support of their legal findings that the COOL measure violated U.S. obligations under WTO agreements. Canada was awarded rights to more than one billion Canadian dollars in retaliation and the United States responded by eliminating the offending COOL measure. The COOL case demonstrates how economic and econometric evidence can be used in complex dispute settlement proceedings dealing with technical trade barriers. Economics is especially valuable in the initial stage of framing the effects at issue, in the intermediate stages of documenting empirical causation and in the final stage of litigation, which was to calculate and defend the amount of retaliation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]