IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jieclw/v2y1999i4p603-39.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Has the Appellate Body Erred? An Appraisal and Criticism of the Ruling in the WTO Hormones Case

Author

Listed:
  • Quick, Reinhard
  • Bluthner, Andreas

Abstract

In the Hormones case the Appellate Body has sharply criticized the legal analysis of the lower panels, upholding seven findings, reversing six and modifying four. This article looks critically at the Appellate Body's interpretation of certain issues and concludes that its ruling contains a number of legal weaknesses. Not only does the Appellate Body creatively interpret the law without giving a clear reasoning for such interpretation (burden of proof), but also leaves certain issues undecided (the relationship between general and specific obligations of the SPS Agreement as well as the relationship between the GATT 1994 and the SPS Agreement). With its broad interpretation of risk assessment and its insistence on the notion of judicial economy, the Appellate Body fails to serve its fundamental role in assisting the DSB to achieve a satisfactory settlement of the matter. Copyright 1999 by Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Quick, Reinhard & Bluthner, Andreas, 1999. "Has the Appellate Body Erred? An Appraisal and Criticism of the Ruling in the WTO Hormones Case," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 2(4), pages 603-639, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jieclw:v:2:y:1999:i:4:p:603-39
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andy Thorpe & Catherine Robinson, 2004. "When goliaths clash: US and EU differences over the labeling of food products derived from genetically modified organisms," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 21(4), pages 287-298, January.
    2. Heinz Hauser & Alexander Roitinger, 2002. "A Renegotiation Perspective on Transatlantic Trade Disputes," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2002 2002-09, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.

    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:2:y:1999:i:4:p:603-39. 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.