European Union introduced regulation no. 793/2013 to enforce the measurement with respect to Faroe Island on 20 August 2013. EU states that this regulation is made in response to the non-sustainable actions conducted by Faroe Island. Article 5 para 1 and 2 of the regulation set that Atlanto-Scandian Herring or mackerel caught or produced by Faroe Island are prohibited in EU regions; and shippings with the Faroe Island flag or shippings from other country contain any goods specified in paragraph 1 are prohibited to use Union ports. Not surprisingly, a dispute in relation to the economical measurement implemented by European Union (EU) has been requested a consultation by ...view middle of the document...
Based on the US — Poultry (China), the physical characters need to be tested when determine the likeness of products. It can be reasonably infer that there are herring and mackerel products imported from other countries in the fishery market of EU. And the unsustainable fishing method cannot cause a difference in the end usage and customer’s habit. Consequently, the herring and mackerel form Faroe Island are alike with those in the market thereby the first criteria can be satisfied. Element (b) is clearly satisfied due to the imports from Faroe Island are completely banned by EU. In summary, EU breached Art:1 due to fails to offer Faroe Island and any other country with same advantages in respect of like products.
The intention of Art III:4 is to ensure that the imported and domestic “like products” are treated equally under internal regulations or laws. When determine whether Art III.4 has been violated by EU, if any inequitable regulations imply protectionism to the products produce domestically by EU need to be discussed. Art III.4 can only be breached when all the following three elements are satisfied: (a) relevant products are alike; (b) the measurements of unfair need to be a law or regulation, (c) the imported products are treated less favourable than domestic products(Korea — Various Measures on Beef). The last two elements can be clearly satisfied as the regulation forced by EU restricted any Atlanto-Scandian Herring or mackerel related Faroe Island, consequently, products from Faroe Island are treated with less favourite than domestic alike products. However, whether the products are alike can be controversial. The discussion can share same process as Art:1 covered. Nonetheless, As the intention of III:4 is to eliminate protectionism of local products, more attention should be given to the analysis competitiveness of the market rather than physical character. However, the discussion about substantial and competitive products needs a greater amount of hypothesis and market research. Therefore, it is insufficient to conclude that EU breach III:3 unless the evidence of protectionism of its own herring and mackerel can be found.
Art XI would be breached by EU if the quantity of imported products from Faore Island are restricted or prohibited. As in Japan — Trade in Semiconductors, the scope of Art XI is aboard as it applies that any measurements restrict or prohibit import or export goods form other country. However, in its Regulation, EU clearly set prohibitions on importation of herring and mackerel from Faroe Island. Apparently, EU breached ArtXI:1 by violating the concept of non-quantitative restriction of WTO. Also the exceptions from para 2 cannot be applied due to lack of relevancy.
The objective of Art V:2 is to reduce discriminations caused by refusing the usage or access of territory based on the nation of the flag of the ships and goods contained in the ship. It seems apparent that EU breach this...