Decisions of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization Current Survey United States--Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products 5. Conclusions The Appellate Body’s decision is careful and conservative, in addition to being politically sensitive. The Appellate Body, very importantly, held open the possibility that unilateral measures may be crafted in such a way, and developed in particular contexts, in which they might satisfy the requirements of art. XX. While the Appellate Body declined to reach a number of important issues, and did not explicitly accept that a multilateral environmental agreement would be a sound basis for an exception under art. XX, it welcomed environmental measures, and recommended those that are not unilateral. As the WTO addresses the problem of the intersection between international environmental law and international trade law, it will be interesting to observe the extent to which the Appellate Body determines this intersection. For now, the Appellate Body has retained jurisdiction to address these relationships, and has formulated a balancing test that gives the Appellate Body itself wide flexibility in responding to these problems. In addition, it will be worth observing the extent to which the Appellate Body must transform itself from a “trade court” to a general international court in order to deal with intersections between trade values and other values. This decision shows a measured, analytical approach to teleological interpretation, helping to develop the jurisprudential tools of international law. The Appellate Body recognizes that the unidimensional teleology of the panel is too blunt an instrument for accurate adjudication. The Appellate Body also refines its interpretative tools by rejecting a strict “original intent” interpretation of art. XX(g) in favor of a more dynamic interpretation to fit modern circumstances. It may be worth pointing out a contradiction in the reasoning of the Appellate Body. The Appellate Body criticized the panel for failing to evaluate whether the specific exceptions of art. XX are available before analyzing the applicability of the chapeau. The Appellate Body argues that it is impossible to analyze compliance with the chapeau without knowing how the measure qualifies for an exception, and which exception. However, the Appellate Body never addresses the potential application of art. XX(b), confining itself to art. XX(g). Under the Appellate Body’s reasoning, this leaves open the possibility that if an exception were available under art. XX(b), a different analysis of the applicability of the chapeau might pertain.
	© 1990-2004 European Journal of International Law All comments and suggestions should be sent to webmaster This site is part of the Academy of European Law online, a joint partnership of the Jean Monnet Center at NYU School of Law and the Academy of European Law at the European University Institute. This file was last modified: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 01:14PM