Canada vs. Australia: A Case Study on Salmon Importation Dispute

Desklib provides solved assignments and past papers to help students succeed.

LEGAL ASPECT
GROUP ASSIGNMENT
CANADA vs. AUSTRALIA- MEASURES
AFFECTING IMPOTATION OF SALMON

Introduction
• A trade disagreement between Australia
and Canada arose in the 1990s over the
imports of fresh salmon.
• This case study deals with the trade
disagreement between the two countries
Australia and Canada.
• Australia was ordered to lift the ban and the
dispute between both countries was settled
in 2000.

Background of Dispute
• In the year of 1990 a trade problem has
been arises between Canada and Australia
• According to Matsushita et al. (2015) in the
1990 there are some major exporters of
salmon fishes.
• It includes Canada, Norway, Chile,
Sweden, Denmark, Scotland, Australia and
New Zealand.
• Main intention behind it was to prevent
disease to enter in the fish market of
Australia.

Facts of Case
• This case was first challenged under the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures (SPS) under the agreement of 1994
[Canada v. Australia, 1995].
• As per the request of Canada to develop a
panel DSB had created that in April 1997. The
communities of Europe, India, US and
Norway was the third party in this legal
conflict.

• The jurisdiction of Appellate Body limited
the whole issue under the Article 17.6 of
DSU.
• According to the Article 17.13 Appellate
Body needed to withdrew, modify or
reverse various different findings related to
law.
• According to the panel Australia had acted
in contrary to Article 5.1 of SPS agreement.
• In addition to that it had been found out
they were also inconsistent with the
Articles 2.2 (Marks, 2016).
Legal Issues

Australian Arguments
• Whether the panel had used its reference
terms in a wrong sense in case of
measuring the products.
• Whether the whole panel had crossed its
reference terms through extension of its
evaluation of Article 5 to Article 6 of the
Agreement of SPS.
• Panel had work well to find the
inconsistency with the article 5.1 and its
implication in the trade of salmon
according to the Article 2.2 of SPS [Canada
v. Australia, 1995].

• The panel members applied the law in
proper manner in the economic judicial.
• It enhanced in case of claims of Canada
under the Article 5.5 and 5.6 of the
Agreement of SPS to other salmon belong
to Canadian authority.
• The panel found out that Australia had
violated the Article 2.3.
• However, still the country had worked in an
inconsistent manner with the Article 5 of
the SPS agreement
Canadian Arguments

• In the year of 1998, Appellate Body had
given the outcome of the present report on
this case
• This body had concluded that it has got an
issue that could create a problem in the
import prohibition of salmon that were
fresh and frozen which was set in QP86A.
• This was confirmed in the decision of 1996.
However heat treatment was set in the year
of 1988.
Decision of Tribunal

Significance in International Law
• Under the SPS agreement of 1994, the dispute
was first challenged.
• It was determined that the ban imposed by
Australia was inappropriate and violated Articles
2.3,2.2, 5.5, 5.6 and 5.1 of SPS agreement.
• It was later ruled out that Australia had to
comply with recommendations of DSB.
• It was also found that articles 2.2 and 5.1 of SPS
agreement was violated by Australia.

Conclusion
• Hence, it can be concluded that the
dispute between Canada and
Australia ended by the year 2000.
• It was informed from the Australian
side that Australia would implement
the rulings and recommendation of
DSB regarding the dispute.
• Australia was disappointed with the
conclusions made by the Appellate
Body Report,
• Australia stated that it would follow
article 3.5 of DSU.

Reference List
• Lima-Campos, A. and Gaviria, J., (2017). Introduction to Trade Policy. Routledge.
• Matsushita, M., Schoenbaum, T.J., Mavroidis, P.C. and Hahn, M., (2015). The World Trade Organization: law, practice, and policy. Oxford
University Press.
• Matsushita, M., Schoenbaum, T.J., Mavroidis, P.C. and Hahn, M., (2015). The World Trade Organization: law, practice, and policy. Oxford
University Press.
• Canada v. Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, [1995] DS18
• Hughes, V., (2018). Canada: A Key Player in WTO Dispute Settlement.
• Marks, A.B., (2016). The Right to Regulate (Cooperatively). U. Pa. J. Int'l L., 38, p.1.
• Peeler, E.J., Reese, R.A. and Thrush, M.A., (2015). Animal disease import risk analysis–a review of current methods and
practice. Transboundary and emerging diseases, 62(5), pp.480-490.
• Wagner, M., (2017). The Future of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Governance: SPS-Plus or SPS-Minus?. Journal of World Trade, 51(3), pp.445-
469.
• Sykes, A.O., (2017). Regulatory Consistency Requirements in International Trade. Ariz. St. LJ, 49, p.821.
• WTO | dispute settlement - the disputes - DS537 : https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds537_e.htm [Accessed on 20 May,
2019]
• World Trade Organization About: https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/thewto_e.htm [Accessed on 17 May, 2019]

Thank You
ANY QUESTIONS?