Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Meaning Of 'Necessary' In Gatt Article Xx And Gats Article Xiv: The Myth Of Cost-Benefit Balancing, Donald H. Regan
Conventional wisdom tells us that in Korea–Beef, the Appellate Body interpreted the word ‘necessary’ in GATT Article XX to require a cost–benefit balancing test. The Appellate Body is supposed to have applied this test also in EC–Asbestos, US–Gambling (involving GATS Article XIV), and Dominican Republic–Cigarettes. In this article I demonstrate, by detailed analysis of the opinions, that the Appellate Body has never engaged in such balancing. They have stated the balancing test, but in every case they have also stated the principle that Members get to choose their own level of protection, which is logically ...
A Gambling Paradox: Why An Origin-Neutral 'Zero-Quota' Is Not A Quota Under Gats Article Xvi, Donald H. Regan
In US-Gambling, the Appellate Body held that an origin-neutral prohibition on remote gambling (which is how they mostly viewed the United States law) was "in effect" a "zero-quota", and that such a "zero-quota" violated GATS Article XVI:2. That holding has been widely criticized, especially for what critics refer to as the Appellate Body's "effects test". This article argues that the Appellate Body's "in effect" analysis is not an "effects test" and is not the real problem. The real mistake is regarding a so-called "zero-quota" as a quota under Article XVI. That is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning ...