GATT Sample Clauses

GATT. After a detailed ex- amination of the issues raised by both parties, the panel came to the conclusion that Section 337 of the U.S. Tariff Act of 1930 was in fact inconsistent with Article III:4 GATT (national treatment) and that this inconsistency could not be justified under Article XX (d)

GATT. See General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Gene Fund, 412–13 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), 2, 35–9 Uruguay Round of, 26–7, 38–9. 347–8, 402–4, 453–4, 500, 514 Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual Property Organization, 44–6 genetically modified organisms. geographical indications (GIs), 18 Global Alliance for TB Drug Development (TB Alliance), 168 “global drug gap,” 140–71 Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, 97, 148 GMOs, 236 Group of 7 (G7), 31 Group of 8 (G8), 96–7, 460–1 Group of 77 (G77), 27–8 Guidelines for the Protection of the Heritage of Indigenous Peoples, 50, 450–2 Habitat International Coalition, 401 health, right to, 2, 9, 54, 56, 58–9, 66, 83, 99–102, 105–12, 114, 190, 439 High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), 15, 54, 73–6, 84 High Level Conference on World Food Security, 403–4 HIV/AIDS, 41, 53–4, 56, 91–8 housing, right to, 54, 107, 439 human rights, passim. See also International Covenants on Human Rights; specific rights; United Nations Charter; United Nations Treaty System; Universal Declaration on Human Rights Human Rights Commission, 59, 114–15, 365 Human Rights Committee, 10, 15, 449 Human Rights Council, 1, 5, 15, 60, 365 Human Rights Guidelines for Pharmaceutical Companies in Relation to Access to Medicines, 55, 60–1, 117 hunger, freedom from. See food, right to IAASTD. See International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development ICCPR. See International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ICESCR. See International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights IFPRI. See International Food Policy Research Institute IGC. See Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore ILO Convention No. 169. See International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries India, 14, 25, 29, 79, 120, 138, 140, 143, 158, 185, 321, 334, 369–70, 374, 407–28, 458, 469 genetically-modified seeds in, 409–28 Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers Rights Act (PPVFA), 409–31 Seeds Bill of, 409–10, 414–31 indigenous peoples, 3, 49–52, 75, 79, 193, 196–7, 331–2, 432–502. Indigenous Peoples Summit on Sustainable Development, 460 information, right to, 107, 190, 226–8, 231–2. See also scientific advances, right to benefit from “intellectual commons,” 454 intellectual property, passim. See also copyright; patents; trademarks; plant var...

GATT. Note that a Member has broad discretion in deciding to bring a case against another Member under the DSU, as is made clear by the Appellate Body in EC – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas [hereinafter EC – bananas] WTO document WT/DS27/AB/R, para. 135, basing its argumentation on the language in Article XXIII GATT 1994 (“If any Contracting Party should consider that any benefit [...] is being nullified or impaired [... ]”) and Article 3.7

GATT. In other words, non-violation typically comes into play when the negotiated balance of tariff concessions between Members is upset by one Member’s domestic measures, as confirmed by the Appellate Body in India – Patent Protection, paragraphs 36–42. For a detailed survey of GATT case law on non-violation complaints, see ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, pp. 150 ff. 116 According to ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇/▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, p. 151, the introduction to international trade relations of non-violation complaints as an expression of equity (protection of legitimate expec- tations) was necessitated by two factors: First, trade agreements of the 1920s were exclusively concerned with tariff reductions and quantitative restrictions and did not address domestic mea- sures such as taxes, subsidies and technical regulations, which could thus easily be employed to undermine binding tariff concessions. Second, legal positivism prevailing before World War II rendered impossible any attempts to integrate equity into international trade law: states could do anything which was not expressly ruled out in the text of an agreement, even if such action frustrated other parties’ legitimate expectations as to the competitive situation of their products in foreign markets. Since the frustration of legitimate expectations could thus not be addressed as a violation of international law, a specific remedy for state action that did not violate the law had to be introduced. 117 This qualification has been emphasized by a number of GATT panels, see ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇/ Nadakavukaren ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, p. 162, quoting the Australian Ammonium Sulphate case. 118 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇/Nadakavukaren ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, p. 163. The same authors note on p. 160 that non-violation complaints are a means of protecting a balanced competitive relationship, but never a Member’s expectation of a concrete amount of trade flows. 119 Idem (p. 162), quoting, inter alia, the panel in Japan – Trade in Semi-Conductors, BISD 35S/116 (1989).

GATT. As to the different sorts of complaints under Article XXIII GATT, over 90 percent of the actual disputes during the era of the GATT 1947 were violation complaints over nullification and impairment, whereas the number of non-violation com- plaints over nullification and impairment as well as of situation complaints was negligible.84

GATT. The Arbitration Panel further notes that Article 112 EPA, entitled “Relations with the WTO Agreement”, recorded the parties’ agreement that “nothing in this Agreement requires them to act in a manner inconsistent with their WTO obligations.” coincidence if it tracks or substantially follows that of the multilateral trade regime; when this is the case, the harmonious development and coherence of international (economic) law require the Arbitration Panel to give special care and consideration to the examples and findings of earlier decisions by international trade panels. As these decisions, in turn, frequently draw from the law and practice of other international courts and tribunals, the Arbitration Panel considers that its approach also encompasses this broader range of law and practice, notably with respect to issues that are common to international law adjudication.404

GATT referred to in Annex XVI; however, with a view to setting up an efficient and timely of translation and publication, the EFTA States take note that they are recommended up standardized notices for each of their States along the lines of those recommended each of the 12 Member States in Recommendation 91/561/EEC of 24 October 1991 (f) the contracts signed in 1988 and 1989 by the EC Commission acting through the OPOCE and the respective designated contractors of Sweden, Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Austria on the publication of EFTA supply contracts covered by the Agreement on Government Procurement shall be terminated by the time the EEA Agreement enters into force;

GATT. The 2004 Canadian Model BIT, for example, starts with a chapeau that prevents the application of the general exceptions clause when measures are (1) “applied in a manner that would constitute arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between investments or between investors,” and (2) when they constitute “a disguised restriction on international trade or investment.”212 The list of policy areas includes

GATT. 3.1.1. The impact of Art III GATT 3.1.2. Art II (2) first sentence GATT »Article III:2, first sentence, is not concerned with taxes or changes as such or the policy purposes Members pursue with them, but with their economic impact on the competitive opportunities of imported and like domestic product”. 3.1.3. Art III (2) second sentence GATT