General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and Rwanda Essay Example

there is consensus opposing panel appointment. Rwanda has multiple options for claiming against Australia's actions, with the initial claim falling under Article I (1) GATT 1994 involving the obligation to provide "Most Favoured Nation" status.

The text discusses the requirement for fair treatment of all foreign countries within a host country's borders, as outlined in WTO regulations. All member nations' goods must be given equal access to the target market, with some exceptions specified in Articles I (2), (3), (4), III, and XXIV of GATT 1994. Additionally, according to Article I (1) of GATT 1994, any benefit or advantage granted by one contracting party to a product originating from or destined for any other country must also be extended to equivalent products from all other contracting parties' territories. The term "like product" refers to items that are either identical or closely similar. This context is related to the Automobile Panel Report case.

The case concerns the classification of Rwanda's coffee and timber as 'like products' in relation to other countries' exports. Rwanda's coffee is considered comparable to that grown in other countries, and their timber is identical or similar to timber exported by other countries to Australia. According to Article I (1) GATT 1994, if Australia were to prohibit the import of Rwanda's coffee and timber, they would be breaching their obligation towards 'like products' originating from other contracting parties. Additionally, Rwanda may argue that Australia has breached Article III GATT 1994, which pertains to the obligation of 'National Treatment'.

Article III (1) GATT 1994 sets out the principle of national treatment, whereby a country agrees to treat the nationals and products of another country in the same

manner as its own. This includes recognizing that internal taxes, charges, laws, regulations, and quantitative measures should not be applied to domestic or imported products in a way that protects domestic production. For example, the Gasoline case could be cited in which Rwanda claims that Australia's prohibition on importing their coffee and timber breaches Article III of GATT 1994.

The reason for this prohibition is that it does not treat the foreign nationals and products in the same manner as it treats the domestic nationals and products. Furthermore, the Australian government's regulations on Rwanda's coffee and timber violate Article III (1) GATT 1994, which affects the sale and distribution of these products. Rwanda could also claim a breach of Article XI GATT 1994, which requires non-discrimination among contracting parties with regard to quantitative restrictions.

Article XI GATT 1994 prohibits any contracting party from implementing or maintaining prohibitions or restrictions on the importation of any product of another contracting party, other than duties, taxes, or other charges. This includes measures such as import/export licenses, quotas or other measures. The Measures Affecting Exports of Unprocessed Herring and Salmon case exemplifies this provision. In this case, Australia's restriction on Rwanda's exports was based on an act passed by the government, which is considered a restriction other than duties, taxes or charges. As a result, Australia breached Article XI GATT 1994. There are various options for Australia to defend its actions against Rwanda's claims.

Australia's first defence for not breaching Article I (1) GATT 1994 regarding 'like product' concerns the differences in growing methods and conditions of coffees from different countries. Australia argues that this results in different taste and quality, making

the coffee not similar or closely related and therefore not falling under the 'like product' category. For instance, coffee grown in Rwanda would differ from that grown in other countries. Similarly, Australia argues that timber grown in countries with different climates and environments also differs in quality and class. This means that Australia has not breached Article I (1) GATT 1994 and can rebut Rwanda's claims about the similarity or closeness of their coffee and timber to those from countries that are contracting parties to Australia.

Australia may use Article XX (b) of the GATT 1994 to defend its prohibition of Rwanda's coffee and timber exports, which allows measures necessary for protecting human, animal or plant life/health if they don't unjustifiably discriminate or restrict trade. The Measures concerning meat and meat products case can serve as a reference. Although Australia's act discriminates against Rwanda, it can be an exception since it protects gorillas from habitat destruction. Additionally, Australia may find support from Article 2 and Article 3 of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement).

Australia has the right to implement measures for safeguarding gorillas and forests in accordance with Article 2 of the SPS Agreement. However, the protection measures must be limited to scientific principles and comply with Article 3, which requires adherence to international scientific standards. The Gorilla and Forest Preservation Act 2005 (Cth) implemented by Australia can be defended under Article XX (g) of the GATT 1994, which allows restrictions on domestic production or consumption for conservation of exhaustible natural resources. This defense is applicable as gorillas are at risk of extinction and forests are an exhaustible natural resource, exemplified by the Shrimp Sea

Turtle case.

To sum up, Rwanda may cite Article I (1) GATT 1994, Article III GATT 1994, Article III (1) GATT 1994, and Article XI GATT 1994 to support claims against Australia's Gorillas and Forest Preservation Act 2005 (Cth). In contrast, Australia may rely on Article I (1) GATT 1994, Article XX (b) GATT 1994, and Article XX (g) GATT 1994 as a defense.