Bird Flu, the OIE, and National Regulation: The WTO's India Agricultural Products Dispute

Abstract

published by Cambridge University Press. It is posted here by agreement between them. Changes resulting from the publishing process-such as editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms-may not be reflected in this version of the text.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease and Argentina's Beef Exports: The WTO's US–Animals Dispute

“…For an introduction to and discussion of the OIE's general, global public good-provider role related to trade in animal products impacted by infectious diseases, seeBown and Hillman (2016).270 C H A D P . B O W N A N D J E N N I F E R A .…”

“…This is also an issue in the ongoing Russia-Pigs (EU) dispute. Several legal-economic issues concerning regionalization are illustrated in the India-Agricultural Products dispute(Bown and Hillman, 2016).19 The Panel specifically noted that after the 2009 site visit APHIS did not request any additional information from SENASA about the FMD situation in Patagonia; that on 27 April 2009, APHIS sent a letter to SENASA stating that no additional information was required; and that in June and October 2011 the United States stated in meetings of the SPS Committee that APHIS had concluded that imports from Patagonia presented a negligible risk of FMD.274 C H A D P . B O W N A N D J E N N I F E R A .…”

Trade and Agricultural Disease: Import Restrictions in the Wake of the India–Agricultural Products Dispute

“…Note that we cannot allow for δ = 1 since the level of imports cannot be pinned down by the model when one unit of imports reduces local supply by exactly one unit. In other words, for δ = 1, the level of imports is indeterminate.11 Actually, one can make a stronger claim: asBown and Hillman (2016) observe, as per the targeting principle ofBhagwati and Ramaswami (1963) trade measures are the first-best means of addressing tradeinduced externalities.…”