Do you think the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) rulings on the U.S. efforts to reduce the number of dolphin mortalities and the World Trade Organization (WTO) rulings on U.S. insistence that foreign shrimpers use turtle excluder devices to protect sea turtles were justified? In your answer be sure to explain the rulings and the reasons behind these rulings. How might the United States have pursued its objectives so that it did not violate GATT and WTO rules?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

POSSIBLE RESPONSE: The GATT panel ruled that the United States cannot restrict imports based on production methods used by firms in other countries. Such policies are protectionist measures. The rulings by the WTO were that protection of sea turtles was a legitimate environmental purpose, but that the actual U.S. policies violated WTO rules because they did not apply equally to all exporting countries. The U.S. policies were also unacceptable because they required specific actions by foreign countries and did not recognize alternative ways to protect sea turtles. Trade policies should not be used as a tool to impose environmental policies beyond the boundary of a country. Instead of imposing unilateral policies that violate GATT and WTO rules, the United States should negotiate (perhaps offering benefits in exchange) with other countries to get them to alter the methods they use to catch tuna and shrimp. A multilateral agreement of this kind was reached on tuna fishing by a number of countries in 1995.