Question I.

1.1 Suppose that the foot and mouth disease for swine was reported in Canada 10 years ago and since then the import of Canadian swine meat was prohibited in Singapore. On the other hand, the foot and mouth disease for swine also occurred in Chile six years ago. The swine meat from Chile was permitted for importation in Singapore after Singapore and Chile established a free trade agreement (FTA) the last year, although an FTA does not justify a discriminatory treatment for SPS measures. In fact, the Singaporean government pointed out the fact that Chile was designated as a “control country” under the OIE criteria when Chile rapidly implemented all necessary measures to contain potential risks from distribution channels of the market.

Canada brought a case against Singapore to the WTO dispute settlement system. Canada argued that it was also recognized as a “control country” under the OIE criteria along with Chile. Explain major issues and conclusions in your opinion for this WTO dispute.

1.2 Suppose that Singapore found the packaging for swine meat to be hazardous when it contained too much chemicals for facilitating refrigeration. So, Singapore enacted a new law to prohibit any residue of such chemicals in swine meat packaging. Consequently, Canadian swine meat import was almost stopped in Singapore because packaging to use chemicals facilitating refrigeration was invented in Canada and their exportation heavily relies on this method. All other countries use typically plastic containers for swine meat transportation and thereby are not affected by this new law. On the other hand, a similar packaging method is allowed for chicken meats that are supplied mostly by domestic producers.

Canada brought a case against Singapore to the WTO dispute settlement system. Explain major issues and conclusions in your opinion for this WTO dispute.

 

Question II.

The panel in Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products (WT/DS114/R) ruled that the stockpiling provision of the Canada’s Patent Act is inconsistent with TRIPS Agreement Article 28.1 whereas the regulatory review provision is not inconsistent with TRIPS Agreement Article 28.1.

Suppose that the Patent Act of Nepal maintains the same provisions with the only difference of the mandatory 18 year review period. The Nepalese government explains this exceptionally long review period based on the less developed technical capacity and the lack of administrative resources, especially in pharmaceutical sectors.

Considering the WTO ruling in Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products (WT/DS114/R), can the regulatory review provision of Nepalese Patent Act be justified?

Question III.

Suppose that (South) Korea adopts a new preferential tariff system for developing countries, in which tariffs for tropical fruits are eliminated. The beneficiaries include Cambodia, Myanmar and Laos that have been cooperative in pursuing human right protection agenda against North Korea in the international communities. Since the implementation of this preferential treatment system, the three countries have significantly increased the exportation of various tropical fruits to Korea. That in turn could attract much investment from (South) Korea and other countries in manufacturing processed food products. Thailand – the country with the largest potential to export tropical fruits in the region has, however, lost substantial amounts of trade and investment in that sector since the introduction of the preferential tariff system.

(South) Korea announced that it would expand the scope of the current preferential treatment regime to add Vietnam when Vietnam joined the human right protection program pressuring North Korea.

Based on the rulings in EC- Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries (DS246), would Thailand be eligible for the tariff benefits from Korea? What would be required for Korea to defend its preferential tariff system?