A water footprint is a concept that measures the total volume of freshwater used to produce a product, measured over the full supply chain. This article discusses one idea that has been mooted to ameliorate impending freshwater shortages -namely to encourage consumers to purchase products with a low water footprint by using a water footprint label. A label may provide sufficient incentive for consumers, and governments may impose measures such as taxes or import restrictions based on the water footprint. The article explores the international trade law implications of such measures and finds that, as with other areas of environmental regulation, international trade liberalization and the protection of sustainable freshwater resources are not incompatible goals. However, water footprint labelling, and other associated measures, could have inadvertent trade law implications, meaning that it will be important for governments to give careful thought to their design and application.

No abstract

A critical issue in World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement is what standard of review dispute panels ought to apply to questions of fact when assessing the consistency of a country’s measures with trade rules. This question has arisen most acutely in the context of the SPS Agreement which requires countries to ensure that any SPS measure not based on international standards is not maintained without scientific evidence and is based on a risk assessment. This article explores how WTO dispute panels and the Appellate Body can strike a balance between a standard of review that, on the one hand, affords countries a degree of deference or flexibility and, on the other, ensures that they do not have open rein to justify any trade-restrictive measure on health-related grounds. Looking at recent cases, it finds that the Appellate Body has moved towards a balanced approach that requires panels to undertake a primarily procedural review and scrutinize the method by which the member reaches the decision in question, rather than focusing on the outcome of the decision.

The WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the SPS Agreement) allows Members to enact SPS measures necessary to protect health so long as they are based on scientific evidence. This scientific evidence requirement has attracted controversy among academics, policy-makers, and civil society. The argument has been advanced that the requirement inappropriately excludes the consideration of public opinion in the domestic risk regulatory decision-making process. The article addresses the question of whether it is possible to reconcile the SPS Agreement's requirement for scientific evidence with concerns regarding exclusion of the public voice in the domestic regulatory process. It responds positively to this query, subject to certain caveats to ensure that trade liberalization goals are not undermined. It argues that the scientific evidence requirement is not only the most appropriate means available for advancing the SPS Agreement's objectives, but that it provides countries with more flexibility than critics contend, including to respond to public sentiment in cases of scientific uncertainty. Recommendations are made as to how panels and the Appellate Body should proceed in disputes under the SPS Agreement, and how governments can comply with their trade obligations while remaining responsive to public concerns.

No abstract