Die Entscheidungen des â€™Dispute Settlementâ€™-Verfahrens der WTO im Hormonstreit zwischen der EU und den USA - Implikationen fÃ¼r den zukÃ¼nftigen Umgang mit dem SPS-Abkommen
Institutions should reduce uncertainty and the costs of transaction with their regulating activities. This target was pursued at an international level with the foundation of the WTO. With an extensive treaty and a new dispute settlement procedure, the WTO was founded as the institutional platform for international co-operation. In view of the growing conflicts in international trade, the hope to create with this institution an international trade order, in which legally comprehensible decisions dominate and power-oriented politics are deterred, is fading. The case of the hormone dispute shows that the target of a fast harmonization of international standards cannot be reached in critical trade disputes. A solo effort in the area of trade measures that is introduced with the reason to protect consumers is still possible.
Volume (Year): 50 (2001)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: +49 (0)30 2093 6305
Fax: +49 (0)30 2093 6497
Web page: http://www.gjae-online.de/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Neal H. Hooker & Julie A. Caswell, 1999. "A Framework for Evaluating Non-Tariff Barriers to Trade Related to Sanitary and Phytosanitary Regulation," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 234-246.
- Bureau, Jean-Christophe & Marette, Stephan & Schiavina, Alessandra, 1998. "Non-tariff Trade Barriers and Consumers' Information: The Case of the EU-US Trade Dispute over Beef," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 25(4), pages 437-62.
- Kinsey, Jean, 1993. "GATT and the economics of food safety," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 163-176, April.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:98861. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.