Trade law Part 53

Adjudicating the GM Food Wars: Science, Risk, and Democracy in World Trade law
Sheila Jasanoff, Lawrence Busch, Robin Grove-White, Brian Wynne
Yale Journal of International Law
Volume 30, Number 1, Winter 2005

Review: The World Trade Organization – Law, Practice and Policy
G. A. Zonnekeyn
Journal of International Economic Law
Volume 7, Number 4, 2004 p.928-931

Brands, Dilution, and Parody: An Indigestible Dish?
Matthew Sumpter
New Zealand Business Law Quarterly
Volume 11, Number 1, February 2005 p.29

The anti-dilution measures of the Trade Marks Act 2002 protect the allure of well-known brands for the first time in New Zealand. In doing so, New Zealand joins jurisdictions like Australia and Britain which are grappling with just how far the dilution doctrine is to extend the traditional trade mark monopoly. This article records some of the difficulties dilution presents in theory and practice and foresees particular problems for parody. In the result, the author finds the alleged benefits of anti-dilution law to fall short of the harm to the public domain that full-blown brand protection can bring.

Trade Secrets, the First Amendment, and Patent Law: A Collision on the Information Superhighway
Stanford Journal of Law, Business & Finance
Volume 10, Number 1, Autumn 2004

Guns and Tobacco. The Effect of Interstate Trade Case Law on the Vertical Division of Powers
Allard Knook
Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law
Volume 11, Number 4, 2004 p.347

The North American Free Trade Agreement’s Impact on the Development of Mexican Environmental Law
HUMBERTO CELIS AGUILAR ALVAREZ
University of Detroit Mercy Law Review
Volume 81, Issue 4, Summer 2004 p.411

Privately Subsidized Recycling Schemes and Their Potential Harm to the Environment of Developing Countries: Does International trade law Have a Solution?
Arie Reich
Virginia Environmental Law Journal
Volume 23, Number 2, 2004 p.203

[Articles] STANDARD OF REVIEW IN WTO LAW
Ehlermann, C.-D.
Journal of International Economic Law
Volume 7, Number 3, 2004

There is no escaping standard of review in WTO dispute settlement. While the contested national measure and the claims made change from case to case, standard of review is a constant feature. In every case, panels and the Appellate Body must decide how intensively a measure should be reviewed and how much deference should be granted to national decision makers. Standard of review, therefore, plays a central role in defining the powers of national authorities in the trade field. In recent years, perhaps the most frequent criticism made of panels and the Appellate Body is that they have been overly intrusive in their review of national measures. This article explores the role and operation of standard of review in WTO law. It begins with the basic requirement that panels must make an ‘objective assessment of the matter’ and argues that this requirement does not specify the precise nature or intensity of review that panels undertake. The article goes on to consider how panels and the Appellate Body have approached the review of legal and factual determinations, as well as of different types of national measure. In particular, the article examines the review of trade remedy measures, SPS and TBT measures, and measures covered by the GATT 1994. The case-law indicates that the character of review changes with the nature of the determination at issue and also with the obligations in the covered agreement in consideration. The article suggests that the differing approaches to review reflect differences in the covered agreements themselves regarding the respective roles of panels and national authorities.

Author: international

Mentioned in these Entries

International trade law, Trade law.