IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jieclw/v21y2018i1p123-149..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Potency of the SPS Agreement’s Excessivity Test

Author

Listed:
  • Hanna Schebesta
  • Dominique Sinopoli

Abstract

The article investigates the current and potential relevance of Article 5.6 SPS in deciding SPS disputes, and its impact on trade liberalization and WTO Members’ power to take sanitary and phytosanitary measures.Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement states that SPS measures may not be more trade restrictive than required to achieve a Member's appropriate level of protection. This obligation is self-standing and separate (in Article 5.6) from the necessity test (Article 2.2). We argue that its autonomous nature makes Article 5.6 SPS a distinct type of trade-off instrument (‘excessivity test’).Using the software ATLAS.ti, we conducted a systematic content analysis of all SPS disputes invoking Article 5.6. In particular, we surveyed the jurisprudential development of the provision (outcomes of 5.6 SPS cases over time, DSB application of the three cumulative conditions and their respective outcome determinacy).Our findings show that the importance of Article 5.6 has significantly increased over time, and holds immense potential for challenges to WTO Members domestic SPS measures for being excessively trade restrictive.

Suggested Citation

  • Hanna Schebesta & Dominique Sinopoli, 2018. "The Potency of the SPS Agreement’s Excessivity Test," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(1), pages 123-149.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jieclw:v:21:y:2018:i:1:p:123-149.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jiel/jgy003
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:jieclw:v:21:y:2018:i:1:p:123-149.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jiel .

    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.