Tuna-Dolphin GATT Case (I and II)

The Tuna-Dolphin GATT Case (I and II) refers to a series of disputes brought before the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) regarding the United States' ban on tuna imports from Mexico and other countries. The ban was implemented under the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972, which aimed to reduce dolphin mortality associated with tuna fishing practices in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP). Dolphins often swim above schools of yellowfin tuna in the ETP, and some tuna fishing methods, particularly purse-seine nets, resulted in significant dolphin deaths.

Tuna-Dolphin I (1991):

Mexico challenged the U.S. ban, arguing that it violated GATT rules, specifically Article III (National Treatment) and Article XI (General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions). Mexico contended that the U.S. was discriminating against Mexican tuna, as it imposed trade restrictions based on production methods (i.e., how the tuna was caught) rather than the characteristics of the tuna itself.

The GATT panel ruled in favor of Mexico. The panel found that the U.S. ban was inconsistent with Article III because it applied different standards to imported and domestic tuna based on the fishing methods used. Furthermore, the panel determined that the ban was a quantitative restriction prohibited by Article XI because it effectively prohibited the import of tuna from countries that did not meet U.S. standards for dolphin protection. The panel acknowledged the U.S.'s environmental concerns but stated that Article XX (General Exceptions) did not justify the ban, as the provision concerning the conservation of exhaustible natural resources (Article XX(g)) could not be invoked to protect resources outside the jurisdiction of the importing country (i.e., dolphins in the ETP).

Tuna-Dolphin II (1994):

After the first ruling, the U.S. modified its regulations, imposing intermediary nation embargoes. These embargoes prevented countries from importing tuna from nations that did not meet U.S. dolphin protection standards and then re-exporting it to the U.S. This modified policy was challenged by the European Economic Community (EEC) and the Netherlands (acting on behalf of the Netherlands Antilles).

The GATT panel in Tuna-Dolphin II also ruled against the U.S. The panel reiterated the findings of Tuna-Dolphin I, stating that the intermediary nation embargoes were also inconsistent with Articles III and XI of GATT. It again emphasized that Article XX(g) could not be used to justify measures aimed at protecting resources outside U.S. jurisdiction.

Significance:

The Tuna-Dolphin cases are significant because they raised fundamental questions about the relationship between trade and the environment. They highlighted the potential conflict between national environmental laws and international trade obligations under GATT. The cases were controversial, with some arguing that the rulings undermined efforts to protect endangered species, while others maintained that they were necessary to prevent protectionist measures disguised as environmental regulation. The rulings contributed to the debate surrounding the need to incorporate environmental considerations into the multilateral trading system, which ultimately led to the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the inclusion of provisions addressing trade-related environmental measures.