Unilaterally-imposed trade restrictions have always been a major tool to
effect change in policy and some observers would claim that there cannot be
multilateralism without unilateralism because in a world where different members
of the international community hold alternative views, unilateral measures,
power-based measures are necessary to bring all parties to the negotiating
table. It is, for example, often stated that slavery only came to an end because
of unilateral action. The WTO, however, is designed to turn a power-based system
to one based on rules in which unilateralism is unwelcome - and this is clearly
to the benefit of the developing world.
Unilateral trade restrictions fall into one of three categories (Table 1).
They may be direct restrictions on trade (such as the U.S. ban on harp seal
products). In this case they run counter to Article XI unless they meet the
terms of the Article XX exemptions. They may relate to a characteristic of the
product, such as its packaging, which is termed a product standard. If the
restrictions discriminate against other producers then they are counter to
Article III. Even where they are not discriminatory, agreements such as that on
Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) may make them WTO illegal. Finally,
restrictions might be introduced, not because of a characteristic of the
product, but because of the way it was produced. This is termed a restriction
related to production and process method (PPM) standards. The majority of
objections to imports on environmental and animal welfare grounds are to do with
the way the item is produced.
Why would any country want to influence the process methods in another? In
general, the reasons are either environmental (in broad terms) or economic. In
the U.S. Shrimp-Turtle case, the U.S. Government was clearly influenced by both
considerations. It wanted to 'save' turtles, but it also wanted other fishing
nations to introduce the same fishing technology so that its own fishermen were
not put at an economic disadvantage.