Some experts argue the seal products import ban case not only revealed the limits of the WTO’s GATT general exceptions clause but was also a missed opportunity for introducing greater legal coherence. The connection between international economic law and the rights of indigenous peoples, historically disadvantaged groups, ethnic minorities, and other non-dominant groups – hereafter minority rights – is by no means new or unknown. Investment arbitrators and regional human rights courts, for example, have often been confronted with conflicts at this intersection. On the other hand, the relationship between minority rights and WTO law received considerably less attention; a fact now altered by the recent WTO dispute over the EU’s import ban on seal products, initiated by Canada and Norway. While the case involved a ban allegedly geared towards addressing concerns around animal welfare from the 28-member state bloc, much of the legal argumentation focused on one of its three exceptions, that is for “hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities [that] contribute to their subsistence.” The exception allows for the importation and marketing of seal products produced by Inuit communities specifically identified in the EU Seal Regime irrespective of the animal welfare standards observed during the...
Written by Marie Wilke
