IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Autonomy in Setting Appropriate Level of Protection under the WTO Law: Rhetoric or Reality?


  • Michael Ming Du


In the World Trade Organization (WTO) jurisprudence, the Appellate Body (AB) has repeatedly affirmed that WTO Members have the prerogative right in setting any level of protection that they deem appropriate (ALOP). At the same time, WTO Agreements provide for disciplines that a WTO Member must respect when it selects regulatory measures to fulfill its ALOP. Thus, a WTO Member's autonomy in setting its ALOP, on the one hand, and the full force of other disciplines, on the other hand, are in a constant state of tension. Then, exactly how does a panel balance a Member's right of setting its ALOP with a myriad of other trade obligations? To what extent is this right respected in the WTO dispute settlement processes? This article argues that the case law has confirmed that a Member's obligations under the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) must be read in light of the Member's chosen ALOP, and that the AB has also demonstrated sensitivity and deference to a Member's ALOP under the SPS Agreement. The same conclusion, however, cannot be easily applied to Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994). Indeed, the case law under Article XX has demonstrated inconsistencies as to when WTO Members' right to set their ALOP will be respected. I argue that such inconsistencies may be explained by a value-based, pragmatic approach adopted by the AB. Oxford University Press 2010, all rights reserved, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Ming Du, 2010. "Autonomy in Setting Appropriate Level of Protection under the WTO Law: Rhetoric or Reality?," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 1077-1102, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jieclw:v:13:y:2010:i:4:p:1077-1102

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jieclw:v:13:y:2010:i:4:p:1077-1102. 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: (Oxford University Press) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.