IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Risk and Regulatory Calibration: WTO Compliance Review of the U.S. Dolphin-Safe Tuna Labeling Regime


  • Cary Coglianese
  • André Sapir


In a series of recent disputes arising under the TBT Agreement, the Appellate Body has interpreted Article 2.1 to provide that discriminatory and trade-distortive regulation could be permissible if based upon a “legitimate regulatory distinction.” In its recent compliance decision in the US-Tuna II dispute, the AB reaffirmed its view that regulatory distinctions embedded in the U.S. dolphin-safe tuna labeling regime were not legitimate because they were not sufficiently calibrated to the risks to dolphins associated with different tuna fishing conditions. This paper analyzes the AB’s application of the notion of risk-based regulation in the US-Tuna II dispute and finds the AB’s reasoning lacking in coherence. Although risk analysis and calibration can in principle play useful roles in TBT cases, the AB needs to provide more explicit and careful guidance to WTO members and to panels to avoid the kind of ad hoc decision-making exhibited throughout the US-Tuna II dispute.

Suggested Citation

  • Cary Coglianese & André Sapir, 2016. "Risk and Regulatory Calibration: WTO Compliance Review of the U.S. Dolphin-Safe Tuna Labeling Regime," RSCAS Working Papers 2016/66, European University Institute.
  • Handle: RePEc:rsc:rsceui:2016/66

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Coglianese, Cary, 2002. "Bounded Evaluation: Cognition, Incoherence, and Regulatory Policy," Working Paper Series rwp02-040, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    WTO; TBT; regulation; risk;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    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:rsc:rsceui:2016/66. 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: (RSCAS web unit). 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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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.