NILS Law Review (Vol. II)
2015
government expenditure and this in turn leads to poverty, unemployment, etc.45 Sanctions do not encourage developing nations to undertake environment friendly decisions. Critics of the WTO opine that the organisation hinders legitimate attempts of some countries to phase out imports of products that violate the environment by upholding challenges to environmental protection. For instance in the tuna dolphin case, pre WTO panels had set aside the ban imposed by US on imports of tuna trapped by nets that unintentionally also trapped dolphins. Though this was not formally adopted and hence did not form legal precedent, environmentalists condemned this decision for threatening the environment. In another case, the WTO held that US was wrong in blocking imports of Venezuelan and Brazilian gasoline on grounds of it violating its clean air policies. This decision also attracted similar criticism from environmentalists although the appellate body had upheld the legitimacy of clean air law but only rejected the restriction since it subjected foreign suppliers of gasoline to harsher yardsticks than those applicable to domestic suppliers. In the famous shrimp turtle dispute as well, it was ruled that the US was wrong in blocking shrimp imports from countries that did not need fishing fleets to employ devices needed to protect sea turtles but when the US regulations were challenged later on by Malaysia, the WTO supported the US and reiterated the importance of sustainable development as one of its goals.46
45
Supra note 15, at 1252.
46
M.M. Weinstein and S. Charnovitz, The Greening of the WTO, 80(6), FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 147, 151-152 (2001)
151