GLOBALIZATION AND TRADE

» Alternatives To Corporate Globalization

» Democracy, Sovereignty and Federalism

» Deregulation and Access to Services

» Import Safety, Environment and Health

» Jobs, Wages and Economic Outcomes

» NAFTA, WTO, Other Trade Pacts

» Other Issues

Trade Data Center

One-stop shop for searchable
trade databases, case lists & more

Eyes on Trade

Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch blog on globalization and trade. Subscribe to RSS.

Connect with GTW

What's New - Global Trade Watch


Buy our book: The Rise and Fall of Fast Track Trade Authority - Updated and Expanded Edition

View 'What's New' Archives

WTO Rules Against U.S. in Turtle Case

 

March 14, 1998
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A U.S. trade ban designed to protect endangered sea turtles violates global trade rules, the World Trade Organization determined in a preliminary ruling.

The draft decision by a three-member WTO hearing panel, if not changed, would represent a victory for several Asian nations who challenged a U.S. ban on shrimp imports from nations not adequately protecting sea turtles.

While the decision has not been made public, a consumer group reported the finding Friday and U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that the preliminary ruling had gone against the United States.

These officials said the three-member WTO panel had ruled on very narrow grounds and the United States planned to challenge the decision.

"We simply disagree with the reasoning applied in the case," one of the officials said. "We are going to fight the panel decision to gain an outcome that we feel better represents the facts."

The dispute involves a ban imposed by the United States on sale of shrimp caught without special devices designed to protect endangered sea turtles.

Shrimp fishermen in the United States are required to use the turtle-excluder devices on their trawl nets to prevent turtle drownings, the largest cause of sea-turtle deaths. Environmentalists have contended that failure to equip shrimp nets with the turtle-excluder devices results in the death of 150,000 turtles a year worldwide.

Thailand, Malaysia, India and Pakistan challenged the U.S. ban in a case before the Geneva-based WTO, the referee for global trade disputes. The four countries claimed that the U.S. ban was being applied in a discriminatory manner and really represented an unfair trade barrier.

Chris McGinn, Deputy Director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, said the turtle ruling is just the latest WTO decision that has gone against environmental interests.

"This is one more attack by the WTO on environmental law. The WTO favors trade over all other values," McGinn said. "This puts the United States in the position of changing U.S. law or facing economic sanctions."

In its case, the United States argued that the trade embargo was necessary to protect the turtles because they are threatened with extinction and other measures do not provide sufficient protection.

The United States in 1996 lost another environmental fight before the WTO over the issue of whether a U.S. regulation unfairly discriminated against imported gasoline. In that dispute, brought by Venezuela and Brazil, the Environmental Protection Agency ended up changing its regulations to end what the two countries claimed was the discriminatory treatment.

Copyright © 2014 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.


Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation

 

Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.

Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.

You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.

 

To become a member of Public Citizen, click here.
To become a member and make an additional tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen Foundation, click here.