SUMMARY OF KEY PANEL/AB FINDINGS. TBT Annex 1.1 (definition of technical regulation): The Appellate Body found that “the US measure establishes a single and legally mandated set of requirements for making any statement with respect to the broad subject of ‘dolphin-safety’ of tuna products in the United States”. Thus, it upheld the Panel’s ruling characterizing the measure at issue as a “technical regulation” within the meaning of TBT Annex 1. • TBT Art. 2.1 (national treatment – technical regulations): According to the Appellate Body, the measure at issue modified the competitive conditions in the US market to the detriment of Mexican tuna products and the United States did not demonstrate that this stemmed solely from “legitimate regulatory distinctions”. The Appellate Body, therefore found that the US “’dolphin-safe” labelling measure was inconsistent with Art. 2.1 and reversed the Panel’s contrary finding. • TBT Art. 2.2 (not more trade-restrictive than necessary): The Appellate Body disagreed with the Panel’s ruling that the measure at issue was more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil US legitimate objectives, and found instead that “the alternative measure proposed by Mexico [AIDCP ‘dolphin safe’ labelling combined with the existing US standard] would contribute to both the consumer information objective and the dolphin protection objective to a lesser degree than the measure at issue”. The Appellate Body thus reversed the Panel’s finding that the measure was inconsistent with Art. 2.2.
Appears in 2 contracts