IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/gjagec/98861.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Die Entscheidungen des ’Dispute Settlement’-Verfahrens der WTO im Hormonstreit zwischen der EU und den USA - Implikationen für den zukünftigen Umgang mit dem SPS-Abkommen

Author

Listed:
  • Kramb, Marc Christopher

Abstract

Institutions should reduce uncertainty and the costs of transaction with their regulating activities. This target was pursued at an international level with the foundation of the WTO. With an extensive treaty and a new dispute settlement procedure, the WTO was founded as the institutional platform for international co-operation. In view of the growing conflicts in international trade, the hope to create with this institution an international trade order, in which legally comprehensible decisions dominate and power-oriented politics are deterred, is fading. The case of the hormone dispute shows that the target of a fast harmonization of international standards cannot be reached in critical trade disputes. A solo effort in the area of trade measures that is introduced with the reason to protect consumers is still possible.

Suggested Citation

  • Kramb, Marc Christopher, 2001. "Die Entscheidungen des ’Dispute Settlement’-Verfahrens der WTO im Hormonstreit zwischen der EU und den USA - Implikationen für den zukünftigen Umgang mit dem SPS-Abkommen," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 50(03), pages 1-5.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:98861
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.98861
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/98861/files/5_Kramb.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.98861?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kinsey, Jean, 1993. "GATT and the economics of food safety," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 163-176, April.
    2. Bureau, Jean-Christophe & Marette, Stephan & Schiavina, Alessandra, 1998. "Non-tariff Trade Barriers and Consumers' Information: The Case of the EU-US Trade Dispute over Beef," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 25(4), pages 437-462.
    3. Kinsey, Jean, 1993. "GATT and the Economics of Food Safety," Working Papers 257282, University of Minnesota, The Food Industry Center.
    4. Neal H. Hooker & Julie A. Caswell, 1999. "A Framework for Evaluating Non‐Tariff Barriers to Trade Related to Sanitary and Phytosanitary Regulation," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 234-246, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kramb, Marc Christopher, 2001. "Die Entscheidungen des Dispute Settlement-Verfahrens der WTO im Hormonstreit zwischen der EU und den USA: Implikationen für den zukünftigen Umgang mit dem SPS-Abkommen," Discussion Papers 3, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Center for international Development and Environmental Research (ZEU).
    2. Christophe Charlier & Michel Rainelli, 2002. "Hormones, Risk Management, Precaution and Protectionism: An Analysis of the Dispute on Hormone-Treated Beef between the European Union and the United States," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 83-97, September.
    3. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    4. Adrián Rabadán & Ángela Triguero, 2021. "Influence of food safety standards on trade: Evidence from the pistachio sector," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(3), pages 489-514, July.
    5. Neal H. HOOKER & Julie A. CASWELL, "undated". "Regulatory Targets And Regimes For Food Safety: A Comparison Of North American And European Approaches," Department of Resource Economics Regional Research Project 9511, University of Massachusetts.
    6. Caswell, Julie A. & Wang, Joanne, 2001. "Quantifying Regulatory Barriers To Asian-U.S. Food Trade," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 19(2), pages 1-8.
    7. Kinsey, Jean D., 2004. "Does Food Safety Conflict With Food Security? The Safe Consumption Of Food," Working Papers 14326, University of Minnesota, The Food Industry Center.
    8. Julie A. Caswell & Eliza M. Mojduszka, 1996. "Using Informational Labeling to Influence the Market for Quality in Food Products," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(5), pages 1248-1253.
    9. John C. Beghin & Heidi Schweizer, 2021. "Agricultural Trade Costs," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 500-530, June.
    10. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2008. "Contingent valuation of consumers' willingness-to-pay for organic food in Argentina," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1022, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    11. Swinbank, Alan, 1996. "Capping the CAP? Implementation of the Uruguay round agreement by the European union," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(4-5), pages 393-407.
    12. Goldberg, Isabell & Roosen, Jutta, 2005. "Measuring Consumer Willingness to Pay for a Health Risk Reduction of Salmonellosis and Campylobacteriosis," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24512, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Caswell, Julie A., 1998. "Valuing the benefits and costs of improved food safety and nutrition," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(4), pages 1-16.
    14. Barreira, Maria Madalena & Brandao, A.R.W. & Lemos, Jose Pedro Cardoso & Fontes, Magda Aguiar, 2009. "Quality perception of PDO beef producers," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 1-14, July.
    15. Prema‐Chandra Athukorala & Sisira Jayasuriya, 2003. "Food Safety Issues, Trade and WTO Rules: A Developing Country Perspective," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(9), pages 1395-1416, September.
    16. Neal H. Hooker & Julie A. Caswell, 1999. "A Framework for Evaluating Non‐Tariff Barriers to Trade Related to Sanitary and Phytosanitary Regulation," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 234-246, May.
    17. Annalisa Zezza & Federica Demaria & Maria Rosaria Pupo d'Andrea & Jo Swinnen & Giulia Meloni & Senne Vandevelde & Alessandro Olper & Daniele Curzi & Valentina Raimondi & Sophie Drogue, 2018. "Research for AGRI Committee - Agricultural trade: assessing reciprocity of standards," Working Papers hal-02787948, HAL.
    18. Kinsey, Jean D., 0. "Agricultural Trade Liberalization-- Impacts On Consumers," Increasing Understanding of Public Problems and Policies, Farm Foundation.
    19. Kevin J. Fox & Ulrich Kohli & Alice Shiu, 2010. "Trade Agreements and Trade Opportunities: A Flexible Approach for Modeling Australian Export and Import Elasticities," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(3), pages 513-530, August.
    20. Kontoleon Andreas & Yabe Mitsuyasu, 2006. "Market Segmentation Analysis of Preferences for GM Derived Animal Foods in the UK," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-38, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:98861. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iahubde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.