Revisiting US – Shrimp: Unveiling the Ambiguity Surrounding Evolutionary Interpretation and the Complexity of Unilateralism
Downloads
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55662/SALER.2025.1002Abstract
In the complex world of international trade, decisions rendered by adjudicatory bodies, including the Appellate Body (“AB”) of the World Trade Organization (“WTO”), hold a significant position in ensuring a balance between the competing interests of Member-states. Among these decisions, the case of US – Shrimp has been celebrated as an achievement in recognizing environmental protection alongside free-trade objectives of the WTO. However, it comes with its shortcomings. This paper embarks on a critique of the judgement on two grounds. First, it questions the application of evolutionary interpretation and its implications using the oversight of the AB as a starting point to highlight the flaws inherent in its use of the tool. Second, it explores the controversial aspect of allowing extraterritorial unilateral measures, the intrinsic element of coercion, which is often glossed over, and how such measures disproportionately affect Southern countries. By dissecting these issues, the paper sheds light on the complexities of the concepts referred to in the judgement that require to be addressed, lest they shall have untoward ramifications in WTO jurisprudence, and invites scholarship to sufficiently address or potentially rectify the fallacies by considering the broader implications of the judgement on the balance between unencumbered international trade and environmental conservation.
External References to this Article
Loading reference data...
Readership Data
Refreshing Cached Analytics Data
The cached analytics data has become stale and journal.thelawbrigade.com is making a fresh request to fetch the latest data from Google Analytics. This may take 20-30 seconds depending on the server response time from Google Analytics. Please do not close the browser during this time. We appreciate your patience.
References
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 2, 1869 U.N.T.S. 401 [hereinafter DSU].
Appellate Body Report, United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WTO Doc. WT/DS2/AB/R (adopted May 20, 1996); Appellate Body Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WTO Doc. WT/DS8-10/AB/R (adopted Nov. 1, 1996); Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, art. 31 and 32, May 23, 1969, 1155 UNTS 331.
Raj Bhala & Eric Witmer, Interpreting Interpretation: Textual, Contextual, and Pragmatic Interpretative Methods for International Trade Law, 35 Conn. J. Int’l L. 58, 70-72 (2019).
Id.
Mariana Clara De Andrade, Evolutionary Interpretation and the Appellate Body’s Existential Crisis, in EVOLUTIONARY INTERPRETATION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW 229, 231 (Georges Abi-Saab et al. eds., 2019). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509929917.ch-021
Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, ¶ 130, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/AB/R (adopted Nov. 6, 1998) [hereinafter US – Shrimp (AB)]; Isabelle Van Damme, Treaty Interpretation by the WTO Appellate Body, 21 Eur. J. Int’l L. 605, 607-608 (2010).
Robert Kolb, Evolutionary Interpretation in International Law: Some Short and Less than Trail-Blazing Reflections, in EVOLUTIONARY INTERPRETATION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW 15, 15-16 (Georges Abi-Saab et al. eds., 2019). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509929917.ch-003
ULF LINDERFALK, Using Conventional Language (“The Ordinary Meaning”), in ON THE INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES: THE MODERN INTERNATIONAL LAW AS EXPRESSED IN THE 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES 61, 78 (2007). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6362-6_3
Id.
Id.
Vinitika Vij, Changing Realities: Evolution and Extraterritoriality Within Article XX(G) of GATT for Global Environmental Concerns, 14 Trade L. Dev. 195, 225 (2022) (citing Sondre Torp Helmersen, Evolutive Treaty Interpretation: Legality, Semantics and Distinctions, 6 Eur. J. Legal Stud. 161 (2013).
Id. at 227.
US – Shrimp (AB), supra note 6; Isabelle Van Damme, Treaty Interpretation by the WTO Appellate Body, 21 Eur. J. Int’l L. 605, 607-608 (2010); Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, preamble, Apr. 15, 1994, 1867 U.N.T.S. 154 [hereinafter Marrakesh Agreement].
H. Lauterpacht, Restrictive Interpretation and the Principle of Effectiveness in the Interpretation of Treaties, 26 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 48, 67 (1949).
Id. at 68.
Id. at 73; Eirik Bjorge, The Vienna Rules, Evolutionary Interpretation, and the Intentions of the Parties, in INTERPRETATION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 189, 198 (Andrea Bianchi et al. eds., 2015).
Lauterpacht, supra note 14, at 83.
Eirik Bjorge, The Vienna Rules, Evolutionary Interpretation, and the Intentions of the Parties, in INTERPRETATION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 189, 201-202 (Andrea Bianchi et al. eds., 2015). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198725749.003.0009
LINDERFALK, supra note 8.
Steve Charnovitz, Exploring the Environmental Exceptions in GATT Article XX, 25 J. World Trade 37, 43 (1991). DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/TRAD1991028
Id. at 45; U.N., Econ. & Soc. Council, Preparatory Committee of the International Conference on Trade and Employment, Summary Report of the Ninth Meeting of the Technical Sub-committee of Committee II, U.N. Doc. E/PC/T.CII/50, 4 (Nov. 13, 1946); U.N., Econ. & Soc. Council, Preparatory Committee of the International Conference on Trade and Employment, Verbatim Report of the Fifth Meeting of the Sub-committee of Committee II, U.N. Doc. E/PC/T.CII/QR/PV/5, 79 (Nov. 18, 1946); U.N., Econ. & Soc. Council, Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the International Conference on Trade and Employment, Verbatim Report of the Twenty-Fifth Meeting of Commission A, U.N. Doc. E/PC/T/A/PV/25, 30 (Jul. 3, 1947).
Charnovitz, supra note 20 at 45.
US – Shrimp (AB), supra note 6 at ¶ 127; Panel Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, ¶ 3.238, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/R (circulated May 15, 1998).
World Trade Organization, Minutes of Meeting Held in the Centre William Rappard on 6 November 1998, 5 WTO Doc. WT/DSB/M/50.
De Andrade, supra note 5 at 235-236.
De Andrade, supra note 5 at 232.
US – Shrimp (AB), supra note 6 at ¶ 153.
World Trade Organization, Implementation Conference on the Transnational Co-existence of the GATT 1947 and the WTO Agreement, cl. 3, WTO Doc. L/7583 (Dec 8, 1994).
Report of the Panel, United States – Prohibitions of Imports of Tuna and Tuna Products from Canada, L/5198 (Dec. 22, 1981), GATT BISD 29S/91; Report of the Panel, Canada – Measures Affecting Exports of Unprocessed Herring and Salmon, L/6268 (Nov. 20, 1987), BISD 35S/98.
Isabelle Van Damme, Understanding the Choice for Evolutionary Interpretation, in EVOLUTIONARY INTERPRETATION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW 171, 175 (Georges Abi-Saab et al. eds., 2019). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509929917.ch-016
Id. (citing Gabrielle Marceau, Evolutive Interpretation by the WTO Adjudicator: Sophism or Necessity?, 21 J. Int’l Econ. L. 791, 792 (2018)). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgy042
Max H. Hulme, Preambles in Treaty Interpretation, 164 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1281 (2016); see generally Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicar. v. Colom.), 2012 I.C.J. 624 (Nov 19), Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indon. v. Malay.), 2002 I.C.J. 625 (Dec. 7) and Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989 (Guinea-Bissau v. Sen.), 1991 I.C.J. 53 (Nov. 12) (highlighting the fact that the use of the preamble in treaty interpretation to the extent that it changes rights and duties of a party provided in the treaty is itself not completely undisputed).
Pierre-Marie Dupuy, The Place and Role of Unilateralism in Contemporary International Law, 11 Eur. J. Int’l L. 19, 20 (2000). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/11.1.19
Daniel Bodansky, What’s So Bad about Unilateral Action to Protect the Environment?, 11 Eur. J. Int’l L. 339, 341 (2000). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/11.2.339
Richard B. Bilder, The Role of Unilateral State Action in Preventing International Environmental Injury, 14 VAND. J. Transnat’l L. 51, 53 (1981).
Id. at 68-69.
Marieke Koekkoek, In Search of the Final Frontier – An Analysis of the Extraterritorial Effect of International Trade Measures from a Jurisdictional Perspective, 10 Trade L. Dev. 65, 80-82 (2018).
Bodansky, supra note 35.
Robert Howse & Donald Regan, The Product/Process Distinction - An Illusory Basis for Disciplining 'Unilateralism' in Trade Policy, 11 Eur. J. Int’l L. 249, 274 (2000). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/11.2.249
Id.
Bilder, supra note 36 at 83.
Bilder, supra note 36 at 84.
Bilder, supra note 36 at 85.
Ilona Cheyne, Environmental Unilateralism and the WTO/GATT System, 24 Ga. J. Int’l Compar. L. 433, 460 (1995); Report of the Panel, United States – Restrictions on Imports of Tuna, ¶ 5.27, WTO Doc. DS21/R (Sept. 3, 1991, unadopted); Report of the Panel, United States – Restrictions on Imports of Tuna, ¶ 5.26, WTO Doc. DS29/R (Jun. 16, 1994, unadopted).
Donald H. Regan, How to Think About PPMs (and Climate Change), in INTERNATIONAL TRADE REGULATION AND THE MITIGATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE 97, 112-113 (Thomas Cottier et al. eds., 2009). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511757396.006
Id. at 114.
Gregory Shaffer & Daniel Bodansky, Transnationalism, Unilateralism and International Law, 1 Transnat’l Env’t L. 31, 34 (2012). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102511000033
Yasuo Fukuda, WTO Regime as a New Stage for Imperialism: Decaying Capitalism and Its Alternative, 1 World Rev. Pol. Econ. 485, 488 (2010).
Shaffer & Bodansky, supra note 49.
Fukuda, supra note 50 at 487.
Joanne Scott, Extraterritoriality and Territorial Extension in EU Law, 62 Am. J. Compar. L. 87, 88 (2014). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5131/AJCL.2013.0009
Tania Voon, Sizing up the WTO: Trade-Environment Conflict and the Kyoto Protocol, 10 J. Transant’l L. Pol’y 71, 99-101 (2000).
Andrew Chambers, The fight against eco-imperialism, GUARDIAN (Apr. 11, 2010), https://www.legalbluebook.com/bluebook/v21/rules/18-the-internet-electronic-media-and-other-nonprint-resources/18-2-the-internet#b-320154.
Frank Biermann, The Rising Tide of Green Unilateralism, 35 J. World Trade 421, 439 (2001); Voon, supra note 54 at 101-102; World Trade Organization, Ministerial Declaration of 14 November 2001, arts. 32-33, WTO Doc. WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1, 41 ILM 746 (2002); B.S. Chimni, WTO and Environment: Shrimp-Turtle and EC-Hormones Cases, 35 Econ. Pol. Wkly. 1752, 1760 (2000).
Hugh Dyer, Eco-imperialism: governance, resistance, hierarchy, 14 J. Int’l Rel. Dev. 186, 190 (2011); Frank Biermann, The Rising Tide of Green Unilateralism, 35 J. World Trade 421, 433-434 (2001).
Chimni, supra note 56.
See generally, Paris Agreement, preamble and arts. 2 (2), 4(3), 4(4) and 4 (19), Dec. 12, 2015, 3156 UNTS 79 (recognizing the principle of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities as resulting from different national circumstance and as pivotal in establishing responsibility for environmental action).
John Tierney, ‘Apocalypse Never’ Review: False Gods for Lost Souls, WALL STREET JOURNAL (Jun. 21, 2020), https://www.wsj.com/articles/apocalypse-never-review-false-gods-for-lost-souls-11592770585.
US – Shrimp (AB), supra note 6 at ¶ 131.
License Terms
Ownership and Licensing:
Authors of research papers submitted to any journal published by The Law Brigade Publishers retain the copyright of their work while granting the journal specific rights. Authors maintain ownership of the copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication. Simultaneously, authors agree to license their research papers under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) License.
License Permissions:
Under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License, others are permitted to share and adapt the work, even for commercial purposes, provided that appropriate attribution is given to the authors, and acknowledgment is made of the initial publication by The Law Brigade Publishers. This license encourages the broad dissemination and reuse of research papers while ensuring that the original work is properly credited.
Additional Distribution Arrangements:
Authors are free to enter into separate, non-exclusive contractual arrangements for distributing the published version of the work (e.g., posting it to institutional repositories or publishing it in books), provided that the original publication by The Law Brigade Publishers is acknowledged.
Online Posting:
Authors are encouraged to share their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on personal websites) both prior to submission and after publication. This practice can facilitate productive exchanges and increase the visibility and citation of the work.
Responsibility and Liability:
Authors are responsible for ensuring that their submitted research papers do not infringe on the copyright, privacy, or other rights of third parties. The Law Brigade Publishers disclaims any liability for any copyright infringement or violation of third-party rights within the submitted research papers.
Citation Metrics
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright © 2026 by Siddharth Gokhale
The copyright and license terms mentioned on this page take precedence over any other license terms mentioned on the article full text PDF or any other material associated with the article.
How to Cite
Citations List
