GD/110
United States - Prohibition of Imports of Tuna and Tuna Products from Canada
Other titles
US Canadian Tuna (Source: GATT Analytical Index)
Products at Issue
| Products at issue |
Tuna products
|
| Type of product |
Non-agricultural
|
| Product sub-type |
Fish and fish products
|
Related disputes
| GATT | |
| WTO |
Key legal aspects
| Legal basis |
|
| Claims raised |
|
| Defences raised |
|
Adjudicators
| Type | Panel |
| Chairperson | Annette Auguste (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Other members | J. D. Gerber (Switzerland), T. H. Chau, Williams (United Kingdom) |
| Type | Panel |
| Legal basis at issue |
|
| Claims at issue |
|
| Defences at issue |
|
| No of Pages (total / legal reasoning) | 27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timeline
| Request for consultations |
|
| Request for establishment | |
| Establishment | |
| Composition | |
| Report | |
| Adoption of report |
Outcome
| Outcome of the proceedings |
Report adopted
|
| Additional Info | L/5198 (22/12/1981) United States – Prohibition of Imports of Tuna and Tuna Products from Canada – Report of the Panel: The Panel examined the complaint by Canada that the United States import prohibition on tuna and tuna products from Canada was contrary to Article XI. The Panel found that even if an import restriction could, at least partly, have been necessary to the enforcement of measures taken to restrict the catches of certain tuna species, an import prohibition on all tuna and tuna products from Canada would not sufficiently meet the requirements of Article XI:2, firstly because the measure applied to species for which the catch had not so far been restricted in the United States (such as albacore and skipjack) and secondly because it was maintained when restrictions on the catch were no longer maintained (e.g. Pacific yellowfin tuna in 1980). Furthermore, the Panel noted the difference in language between Article XI:2(a) and (b) and Article XI:2(c), and it felt that the provisions of Article XI:2(c) could not justify the application of an import prohibition. The Panel noted that the representative of the United States based his arguments concerning the justification for the action taken against imports of tuna and tuna products from Canada entirely on Article XX(g). The Panel noted the United States action had been taken exclusively against imports of tuna and tuna products from Canada, but similar actions had been taken against imports from Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico and Peru and then for similar reasons. The Panel felt that the discrimination of Canada in this case might not necessarily have been arbitrary or unjustifiable. It furthermore felt that the United States action should not be considered to be a disguised restriction on international trade, noting that the United States prohibition of imports of tuna and tuna products from Canada had been taken as a trade measures and publicly announced as such. The Panel furthermore noted that both parties considered tuna stocks, including albacore tuna, to be an exhaustible natural resource in need of conservation management and that both parties were participating in international conventions aimed, inter alia, at a better conservation of such stocks. However, attention was drawn to the fact that Article XX(g) contained a qualification on measures relating to the conservation if they were to be justified under that Article, namely that such measures were made effective in conjunction with restrictions on domestic production or consumption. The Panel noted that the action taken by the United States applied to imports from Canada of all tuna and tuna products, and that the United States could at various times apply restrictions to species of tuna covered by the IATTC and the ICCAT. However, restrictions on domestic production (catch) had so far been applied only to certain species of tuna but not to other species of tuna, such as for instance albacore. The Panel also noted that the United States representative had provided no evidence that domestic consumption of tuna and tuna products had been restricted in the United States. The Panel could therefore not accept it to be justified that the United States prohibition of imports of all tuna and tuna products from Canada had been made effective in conjunction with restrictions on United States domestic production or consumption on all tuna and tuna products. The Panel concluded that the United States embargo on imports of tuna and tuna products from Canada was not consistent with the provisions of Article XI, and that the United States had not established that it complied with the requirements of Article XX and notably sub-paragraph (g) of that article. |