¶ … Tuna-Dolphin case between Mexico and U.S. started in 1990s when Mexican fishing fleets were blamed for causing more dolphin killings than the U.S. fishing fleets. The United States imposed a trade embargo on the tuna imported from Mexico which had a negative impact on the economy of the latter. Mexico filed its complaint through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) which is based in Geneva. The GATT Panel ruled against the U.S. law of blocking out imports just because it was dissatisfied with the production techniques of its supplier. U.S. law stated that it had to block out imports of countries that bought from those countries which used dolphin-unsafe fishing methods. In response to that, the EU filed a complaint against the U.S. A second GATT Panel was formed which again ruled against the United States on the grounds that a country could not impose trade embargoes on its trading partners in an attempt to pressurize them into adopting the domestic laws of the U.S. Decades later, the struggle between U.S. And Mexico continues as both parties stick strongly to their opinions. This paper investigates into the past proceedings of this issue, analyses the current situation and the effect of this measure on both the parties and steps that can be implemented for healthy trading relations between the two countries as well as protection of the natural environment and its resources. US Mexico WTO Dolphin-Safe Tuna Labelling Dispute

Introduction

International economics studies the flow of products across international boundaries. Countries make policies for smooth execution of trade and establishment of healthy international relations with each other. The United States of America is one of the world's most important economic markets and its foreign trade consists of its imports and exports. The United States Congress has been granted the right by the constitution to make policies for the regulation of international trade.

"The core of the problem of foreign economic policy is the need to balance domestic and international concerns. Particular decisions inevitably affect both. But policy makers do not always address these concerns in a balanced way." (Destler 1)

The fight between United States and Mexico over dolphin-safe tuna started in 1990s and still has not settled down.

Background of the Tuna-Dolphin Case

In the past, fishermen used the technique of school fishing and log fishing to catch tuna. In school fishing, tuna were caught from among schools of fish that swam freely and in log fishing, tuna that had gathered beneath floating objects such as a log were caught. These are old school methods and the output was insufficient.

In eastern parts of the Pacific Ocean, schools of tuna swim beneath schools of dolphins. Fishermen had known since long that some species of dolphins were accompanied by schools of tuna. Soon, the purse seine technique was devised which let fishermen take advantage of the association between dolphin and tuna. The purse seine is a technique of fishing that is used to catch fish which are close to the surface, such as sardines, tuna, etc. The purse seine mode of fishing uses a net that is set around the tuna and dolphin. After they all are gathered, the dolphins are released and the tuna are caught but often, dolphins get stuck in the net and die as a result. In the early years of fishery, a large number of dolphins died in man's greed for commercial success. Fishermen often observe the dolphins to detect the location of the tuna. With this technique, dolphins get caught up in the net and often die unless they are released which is not possible without releasing much of the tuna as well.

Killing of dolphins is a by-product of catching tuna. At first, fishermen felt pleased at having found a useful technique to track down tuna the result of which was the death of several million dolphins since 1959 (Joseph, 1994). As time passed, fishermen began to realize that their method would work only if dolphins existed and was of no use if dolphins became extinct. Therefore, they started to devise methods to protect dolphins from getting killed while catching tuna.

The U.S. Congress passed the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) (E. Kruis) to establish a system whereby mammals would be protected from human activities except in cases where proper authorization has been received. Amendments were made in the act over the years and the goal is...

The MMPA sets dolphin protection standards for American fishermen as well as other countries fishing in the eastern parts of the Pacific Ocean. The MMPA set a limit on the number of dolphins that could be taken while catching tuna; it also set the Direct Embargo Provision which prohibited the import of tuna from countries that bought tuna from other countries whose fishing standards were not in accordance with MMPA.
A number of measures were introduced by Congress in the MMPA:

1. Intermediary Nation Provision

Countries that did not catch tuna but were involved in the exporting of tuna to U.S. had to prove that they did not buy the tuna from countries that did not catch tuna according to U.S. standards.

2. Pelly Amendment

Congress gave the President of the U.S. The power to impose an embargo on fish imports for a period of time determined by him/her.

3. Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act

The 'dolphin-safe' label could be put only on that tuna which was caught using dolphin-safe techniques.

The concerned exporting country is Mexico whose tuna exports to U.S. were banned by the U.S. In 1991 on the basis of the fact that a large number of dolphins were killed in the process of catching tuna. U.S. imposed embargo on the imports from Venezuela, Panama and Vanuatu as well for not complying with U.S. standards.

In response to the embargo imposed on Mexican exports of tuna to the United States, Mexico filed its complaint through GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), based in Geneva. The United States of America based its argument on Article XX of GATT which is 'Allowance of trade restrictions when deemed necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health or relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources.' But GATT did not accept this argument and concluded that the United States could not impose its domestic laws in another country or on the trade techniques of another country. It concluded that the U.S. could not ban Mexican imports of tuna to enforce its domestic laws in that country; U.S. could complain about the quality of tuna but not about the technique used to catch tuna. GATT rules did not allow one country to take actions to enforce its domestic laws in another country even if it was for the protection of animals, environment, natural resources, etc. The reason behind this ruling was that if U.S. arguments were accepted then any country could ban exports from another country and try to impose its domestic laws there. Every country has its own environmental, health, social, economic laws and a foreign country has no right to interfere in those laws.

"Environmentalists in the United States and Europe have been trying to promote conservation elsewhere by putting their concerns into trade laws and negotiations." (Bradsher)

Along with Mexico, 6 other countries protested to GATT about the U.S. embargo on their tuna imports. They protested that the U.S. was trying to exercise extraterritorial power by banning the imports of tuna from those countries. In 1991, Javier Trevino, minister for Press and Public Affairs at the Mexican Embassy in Washington, said that Mexico had reduced its dolphin killing by 70% in the last five years. Mexico declared the embargo on its tuna imports by U.S. As GATT-illegal. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade has a rule that no country has the right to instruct other countries on the production of goods for export. However, the rulings of the GATT were never adopted and the two countries settled their case out of court.

The Tuna-Dolphin Case 1 of 1991 dealt with a primary embargo on tuna exports of Mexico. The first GATT Panel ruled against U.S. trade embargo on the grounds that U.S. was attempting to protect resources that lay outside its jurisdiction and over which it had no right. The Tuna-Dolphin Case 2 of 1994 dealt with an intermediary nation embargo on the tuna exports of countries that bought from countries which did not use dolphin-safe technique for catching tuna. The second panel gathered by GATT for this issue rejected U.S. arguments on the grounds that a country could only impose trade restrictions if it was dissatisfied with the product of the exporting country and it could not interfere with the process in which the product was produced; a country could not impose trade restrictions in an attempt to pressurize foreign countries to change their policies.. A country's internal regulations cannot be applied in foreign territories.

Analysis of the Tuna-Dolphin Case

After decades, the struggle between the two countries continues as U.S. refuses to allow…