UNITED STATES – IMPORT PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN SHRIMP AND SHRIMP PRODUCTS
Document: Recourse to Article 21.5 by Malaysia Report of the Panel
Date: 15 June 2001
Document codes: WT/DS58/RW
Complainant: India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Thailand
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Australia, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, EU, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Philippines, Senegal, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Venezuela, Pakistan, Thailand
Dispute stage: Implementation & Compliance
Agreements cited: Art. I, XI, XIII, XX  GATT 1994

UNITED STATES – IMPORT PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN
SHRIMP AND SHRIMP PRODUCTS
Recourse to Article 21.5 by Malaysia
Report of the Panel
The report of the Panel on United States – Im port Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp
Products – Recourse to Article 21.5 by Malaysia – is being circulated to all Members, pursuant to the
DSU. The report is being circulated as an unrestricted document from 15 June 2001 pursuant to the
Procedures for the Circulation and Derestriction of WTO Documents (WT/L/160/Rev.1). Members are
reminded that in accordance with the DSU only partie s to the dispute may appeal a panel report. An
appeal shall be limited to issues of law covered in the Panel Report and legal interpretations developed
by the Panel. There shall be no ex parte communications with the Panel or Appellate Body concerning
matters under consideration by the Panel or Appellate Body.

I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 On 6 November 1998, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the Appellate Body
Report on United States – Import Prohibiti on of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products
() and the Panel Report (), as modified by the Appellate Body Report,
requesting that the United States bring its measure found to be inconsistent with Article XI of the
GATT 1994, and not justified under Article XX of the GATT 1994 into conformity with the
obligations of the United States under that Agreement.
1.2 On 21 January 1999, the United States and the other parties to the dispute agreed to
a 13-month reasonable period of time for the United States to comply with the recommendations and
rulings of the DSB.
1
1.3 In a communication dated 12 January 2000, Malaysia and the United States informed the
DSB of the understanding reached between Malaysia and the United States regarding possible
proceedings pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing
the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) concerning the implementation of the DSB recommendations and
rulings in this case . This communication confirms the understanding reached between Malaysia and
the United States, pursuant to an exchange of letters dated 22 December 1999, whereby they agreed
that if Malaysia at some future date decided that it may wish to initiate proceedings under Article 21.5
and Article 22 of the DSU, Malaysia would initiate proceedings under Article 21.5 prior to any
proceedings under Article 22; for this purpose Malaysia would provide the United States advance
notice of any proposal to initiate proceedings under Article 21.5 and hold consultations with the
United States before requesting the establishment of a panel under Article 21.5.
2
1.4 On 12 October 2000, Malaysia requested the DSB, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, to
establish a Panel to "find that by not lifting the import prohibition and not taking the necessary
measures to allow the importation of certain shrimp and shrimp products in an unrestrictive manner,
the United States has failed to comply with the 6 November 1998 recommendations and rulings of the
Dispute Settlement Body." Malaysia further requested that "the Panel suggest that the United States
should lift the import prohibition immediately and allow the importation of certain shrimp and shrimp
products in an unrestrictive manner in order to comp ly with the said recommendations and rulings of
the Dispute Settlement Body."
3
1.5 At its meeting on 23 October 2000, the DSB decided, in accordance with Article 21.5 of the
DSU, to refer to the original panel the matter raised by Malaysia in WT/DS58/17. Australia, Canada,
Ecuador, the European Communities, India, Japan, Mexico, Pakistan, Thailand and Hong Kong,
China reserved their third-party rights.
A. TERMS OF REFERENCE
1.6 At the meeting of the DSB on 23 October 2000, it was agreed that the Panel should have
standard terms of reference as follows:
"To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by
Malaysia in document WT/DS58/17, the matter referred to the DSB by Malaysia in that
document and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations
or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements."4

1 WT/DS58/15, 15 July 1999.
2 WT/DS58/16, 12 January 2000.
3 WT/DS58/17, 13 October 2000.
4 WT/DS58/18, 8 November 2000.

B. PANEL COMPOSITION
1.7 The Panel was composed of the original panellists as follows:
Chairperson: Mr. Michael Cartland
Members: Mr. Carlos Márcio Cozendey
Mr. Kilian Delbrück
1.8 The Panel met with the parties on 23 January 2001 and with the parties and third parties
on 24 January 2001. In a communication dated 15 February 2001, the Chairperson of the Panel
informed the DSB that the Panel would not be able to issue its report within 90 days after the date of
referral of the matter to it. The reasons for that delay are stated in WT/DS58/19. The Panel issued its
report to the parties on 16 May 20015 and circulated the report to Members on 15 June 2001.
II. FACTUAL ASPECTS
A. CONSERVATION ISSUES
2.1 As described during the consultations of the Original Panel with scientific experts 6, most
populations of sea turtles are considered to be threatened or endangered, due to human activity, either
directly (sea turtles have been exploited for their meat, shells and eggs), or indirectly (incidental
capture in fisheries, destruction of their habitats, pollution of the oceans). Seven species of sea turtles
have been identified
7 and are distributed mainly in subtropical or tropical areas of the world. Marine
turtles are highly migratory animals, which make use of resources available in different parts of the
globe only during part of the year or of their life cycles. Sea turtles migrate between their foraging
and nesting grounds, but come ashore to lay their eggs. After approximately two to three months of
incubation, the sea turtle hatchlings emerge and head for the sea. The survival rate of these hatchlings
is low, with few reaching the age of reproduction (10-50 years, depending on the species). As
confirmed by the scientific experts, during their lifetime, marine turtles migrate through a variety of
habitats and across or outside national jurisdictional boundaries.
2.2 The 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) recognizes all seven species of marine turtles as threatened with extinction and lists these
species in Appendix I of CITES.
8 All species except the Australian flatback are listed in Appendices I
and II of the 1979 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS or

5 It was agreed between the parties that the Panel would not issue an interim report.
6 Panel Report, , adopted on
6 November 1998, WT/DS58/R (hereafter the "Panel Report"), paras. 5.1-5.312 and Annex IV, Transcript of the
Meeting with the Experts. In its consultation with scientific experts, the Panel focused its questions on:
(i) approaches to sea turtle conservation in light of local conditions; and (ii) habitat and migratory patterns of
sea turtles.
7 Green turtle (Chelonia mydas), loggerhead (Caretta caretta), flatback (Natator depressus), hawksbill
(Eretmochelys imbricata ), leatherback ( Dermochelys coriacea ), olive ridley ( Lepidochelys olivacea ), and
Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempi).
8 Adopted on 3 March 1973 and entered into force on 1 July 1975, with 152 parties as of 15 May 2001.
CITES regulates trade in endangered species by defining conditions under which import and export permits may
be issued. The conditions are differentiated according to a classification system based on three appendices of
protected species. Appendix I includes all species thr eatened with extinction which are or may be affected by
trade. Trade in these species is subject to strict regulation through both import and export permits. See
www.cites.org.

the Bonn Convention). 9 These species are also included in the World Conservation Union (IUCN)
Red List of Threatened Species 2000.10
2.3 Given their highly migratory nature, the protection and conservation of threatened marine
turtles requires the concerted action of all States within the national jurisdictions in which such
species spend any part of their life cycle. An Inter-American Convention for the Protection and
Conservation of Sea Turtles was negotiated between 1993 and 1996 with countries of the Caribbean
and Western Atlantic region.
11 The Inter-American Convention entered into force on 2 May 2001,
90 days after the eighth instrument of ratification was deposited with the Government of Venezuela.12
2.4 Recent international cooperative efforts in the South-East Asian region include the following:
the adoption of the Sabah Declaration at the 2 nd ASEAN Symposium and Workshop on Sea Turtle
Biology and Conservation in Sabah, Malaysia in July 1999 13; a Resolution on Developing an Indian
Ocean and South-East Asian Regional Agreement on the Conservation and Management of Marine
Turtles and their Habitats at a workshop in Perth, Australia in October 1999 14; and the adoption of a
Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles and their
Habitats of the Indian Ocean and South-East Asia at an intergovernmental meeting of 24 States in
Kuantan, Malaysia in July 2000. 15 This Memorandum was concluded under the auspices of the
Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. Agreement was
reached to work towards finalizing a Conservation and Management Plan at the next
intergovernmental session scheduled to be held in 2001, at which time the Memorandum of
Understanding will be open for signature.
B. H
ISTORY OF THE CASE
1. Section 609: the 1996 Guidelines
2.5 Pursuant to the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, all sea turtles that
occur in US waters are listed as endangered or threatened species. In 1987, the United States issued
regulations pursuant to the ESA that required all United States shrimp trawlers to use Turtle Excluder
Devices ("TEDs") or tow-time restrictions in specified areas where there was a significant mortality of
sea turtles associated with shrimp harvesting.16 Developed over the past two decades in the southeast
shrimp fisheries of the United States, TEDs are considered to be an effective way in which to exclude

9 Adopted on 23 June 1979 and entered into force on 1 November 1983, with 74 parties as
of 1 March 2001. See www.unep-wcmc.org/cms.
10 Scientific criteria are used to classify species in to one of eight categories in this Red List system:
Extinct, Extinct in the Wild, Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable, Lower Risk, Data Deficient and
Not Evaluated. A species is classed as threatened if it falls in the Critically Endangered, Endangered or
Vulnerable categories. See www.iucn.org/redlist/2000/species.html.
11 Hereafter the "Inter-American Convention". The Latin American Fisheries Development
Organization (Oldepesca), an intergovernmental regional fisheries body, acts as the provisional secretariat for
the Convention. See the text of the Convention at www.seaturtle.org/iac/convention.shtml.
12 As of 15 May 2001, the Convention has nine parties: Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras,
Mexico, The Netherlands, Peru, Venezuela, and the United States.
13 Including concerned scientists and participants from the Indo-Pacific and Indian Ocean regions,
including South-East Asian member nations. See www.arbec.com.my/turtle.htm.
14 With participation from Australia, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Comoros, India, Iran, Kenya,
Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Mozambique, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Reunion (France),
Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Thailand, United Arab Emirates and Vietnam.
15 With representation from Australia, Bangladesh, Comores, Egypt, Reunion (France), India,
Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritius, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines,
South Africa, Sri Lanka, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, Tanzania, United States of America, Vietnam and
Yemen. See www.unep-wcmc.org/cms.
16 Hereafter the "1987 Regulations" (52 Federal Register 24244, 29 June 1987). TEDs are trapdoors
installed inside shrimp trawling nets that allow sea turtles and other unintentional, large by-catch to escape.

by-catch during shrimp trawling. The 1987 Regulations became fully effective in 1990 and were
modified to require the use of TEDs at all times and in all areas where shrimp trawling interacts in a
significant way with sea turtles.
2.6 As described in our Original Panel Report on 17, this case concerns Section 609 of the United States Public Law 101-
162 Relating to the Protection of Sea Turtles in Shrimp Trawl Fishing Operations enacted in 1989
pursuant to the ESA and its implementing measures.
18 Section 609 calls upon the US Secretary of
State, in consultation with the US Secretary of Commerce, inter alia, to initiate negotiations for the
development of bilateral or multilateral agreements for the protection and conservation of sea turtles, in
particular with governments of countries engaged in commercial fishing operations likely to have a
negative impact on sea turtles.
2.7 Section 609 further provides that shrimp harvested with technology that may adversely affect
certain species of sea turtles protected under US law may not be imported into the United States, unless
the President annually certifies to the Congress: (a) that the harvesting country concerned has a
regulatory programme governing the incidental taki ng of such sea turtles in the course of such
harvesting that is comparable to th at of the United States, and that the average rate of that incidental
taking by the vessels of the harvesting country is comparable to the average rate of incidental taking of
sea turtles by United States vessels in the course of such harvesting; or (b) that the fishing environment
of the harvesting country does not pose a threat of incidental taking to sea turtles in the course of such
harvesting.
2.8 The United States issued guidelines in 1991 and 1993 for the implementation of
Section 609.19 Pursuant to these guidelines, Section 609 was applied only to countries of the
Caribbean/Western Atlantic. In September 1996, the United States concluded the Inter-American
Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles with a number of countries of that
region. In December 1995, the US Court of International Trade ("CIT") found the 1991 and 1993
Guidelines inconsistent with Section 609 insofar as they limited the geographical scope of Section
609 to shrimp harvested in the wider Caribbean/Western Atlantic area. The CIT directed the US
Department of State to prohibit, no later than 1 May 1996, the importation of shrimp or products of
shrimp wherever harvested in the wild with commercial fishing technology which may affect
adversely those species of sea turtles the conservation of which is the subject of regulations of the
Secretary of Commerce.
2.9 In April 1996, the Department of State published revised guidelines to comply with the CIT
order of December 1995. The new guidelines extended the scope of Section 609 to shrimp harvested
in all countries. The Department of State further determined that, as of 1 May 1996, all shipments of
shrimp and shrimp products into the United States must be accompanied by a declaration attesting that
the shrimp or shrimp product in question has been harvested either under conditions that do not
adversely affect sea turtles or in waters subject to the jurisdiction of a nation currently certified
pursuant to Section 609.
20
2.10 The 1996 Guidelines define shrimp or shrimp products harvested in conditions that do not
affect sea turtles to include:
(a) Shrimp harvested in an aquaculture facility;

17 Panel Report, paras. 2.1–2.26.
18 Hereafter "Section 609", 16 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1537.
19 Hereafter the "1991 Guidelines" (56 Federal Register 1051, 10 January 1991); and the "1993
Guidelines" (58 Federal Register 9015, 18 February 1993).
20 Hereafter the "1996 Guidelines" (61 Federal Register 17342, 19 April 1996), Section 609(b)(2).

(b) shrimp harvested by commercial shrimp trawl vessels using TEDs comparable in
effectiveness to those required in the United States;
(c) shrimp harvested exclusively by means that do not involve the retrieval of fishing
nets by mechanical devices or by vessels using gear that, in accordance with the US
programme, would not require TEDs; and
(d) species of shrimp, such as the pandalid species, harvested in areas in which sea
turtles do not occur.21
2.11 The 1996 Guidelines provided that certification could be granted by 1 May 1996, and
annually thereafter to harvesting countries other than those where turtles do not occur or that
exclusively use means that do not pose a threat to sea turtles "only if the government of [each of those
countries] has provided documentary evidence of the adoption of a regulatory programme governing
the incidental taking of sea turtles in the cour se of commercial shrimp trawl harvesting that is
comparable to that of the United States and if the average take rate of that incidental taking by vessels
of the harvesting nation is comparable to the average rate of incidental taking of sea turtles by United
States vessels in the course of such harvesting." For the purpose of these certifications, a regulatory
programme must include, inter alia, a requirement that all commercial shrimp trawl vessels operating
in waters in which there is a likelihood of intercepting sea turtles use TEDs at all times. TEDs must
be comparable in effectiveness to those used by the United States. Moreover, the average incidental
take rate will be deemed comparable to that of the United States if the harvesting country requires the
use of TEDs in a manner comparable to that of the US programme.
2. Panel proceedings
2.12 Following a joint request for consultations by India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand on
8 October 1996
22, Malaysia and Thailand requested in a communication dated 9 January 1997 23, and
Pakistan asked in a communication dated 30 January 199724, that the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB)
establish a panel to examine their complaint regarding a prohibition imposed by the United States on
the importation of certain shrimp and shrimp products by Section 609 and associated regulations and
judicial rulings. On 25 February 1997, the DSB established two panels in accordance with these
requests and agreed that these panels would be consolidated into a single Panel, pursuant to Article 9
of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), with standard terms of reference.
25
2.13 On 10 April 1997, the DSB established another panel with standard terms of reference in
accordance with a request made by India in a communication dated 25 February 1997 26, and agreed
that this third panel, too, would be merged into the earlier Panel established on 25 February 1997. 27
The Report of the consolidated Panel, , was circulated to WTO Members on 15 May 1998. 28
2.14 On 13 July 1998, the United States appealed certain issues of law and legal interpretations in
the Original Panel Report. 29 The Appellate Body issued its Report on 12 October 1998. 30 T h e

21 Ibid., p. 17343.
22 WT/DS58/1, 14 October 1996.
23 WT/DS58/6, 10 January 1997.
24 WT/DS58/7, 7 February 1997.
25 WT/DSB/M/29, 26 March 1997.
26 WT/DS58/8, 4 March 1997.
27 WT/DSB/M/31, 12 May 1997.
28 Adopted on 6 November 1998, WT/DS58/R.
29 WT/DS58/11, 13 July 1998.
30 Appellate Body Report, ,
adopted on 6 November 1998, WT/DS58/AB/R (hereafter the "Appellate Body Report").

Appellate Body Report found that the United States measure at issue, Section 609, qualified for
provisional justification under Article XX(g), but that it failed to meet the requirements of the
chapeau of Article XX, as it was applied in a manner that constituted arbitrary and unjustifiable
discrimination.
2.15 On 8 October 1996, the US Court of International Trade ruled that the embargo on shrimp and
shrimp products enacted by Section 609 applies to "all shrimp and shrimp products harvested in the
wild by citizens or vessels of nations which have not been certified."
31 The CIT found the 1996
Guidelines to be contrary to Section 609 when a llowing, with a Shrimp E xporter's Declaration form,
imports of shrimp from non-certified countries, if the shrimp were harvested with commercial fishing
technology that did not adversely affect sea turtles.
2.16 On 25 November 1996, the CIT clarified that shrimp harvested by manual methods which do
not harm sea turtles, by aquaculture and in cold water, could continue to be imported from non-
certified countries.32
2.17 On 4 June 1998, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a ruling that vacated
the CIT decision of 8 October 1996 and 25 Nove mber 1996. On 28 August 1998, the Department of
State reinstated the policy of permitting importation of shrimp harvested with TEDs in countries not
certified under Section 609.33
2.18 On 19 July 2000, the CIT issued a decision that found that the current policy of the
Department of State to allow shipments of shrimp caught with TEDs from countries not formally
certified pursuant to Section 609 to be imported into the United States, violates that statute on its
face.34 In its ruling, however, the CIT refused to issue an injunction to reverse that policy as it
deemed that the evidence was insufficient to show th at the policy was harming sea turtles. This CIT
decision has been appealed and is currently under re view by the US Court of Appeals of the Federal
Circuit.
C. REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME
2.19 On 25 November 1998, the United States informed the DSB of its intention to implement the
recommendations and ruling of the DSB within a "reasonable period of time."
2.20 On 21 January 1999, the United States and the other parties to the original dispute agreed to a
13-month reasonable period of time for the United States to comply with the recommendations and
rulings of the DSB.35 This reasonable period of time expired on 6 December 1999.
D. IMPLEMENTATION
2.21 Pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU, the United States submitted regular status reports
regarding the implementation of the recommendatio ns and rulings of the DSB in this dispute,
on 15 July 1999, 8 September 1999, 15 October 1999, 9 November 1999 and 17 January 2000. 36
These reports set out that the intention of the revision of the 1996 Guidelines pursuant to Section 609
was "to: (1) introduce greater flexibility in considering the comparability of foreign programs and the

31 Earth Island Institute v. Warren Christopher, 942 Fed. Supp. 597 (CIT 1996).
32 Earth Island Institute v. Warren Christopher, 948 Fed. Supp. 1062 (CIT 1996).
33 Notice of Proposed Revisions the Guidelines for the Implementation of Section 609 of
Public Law 101-162, Relating to the Protection of Sea Turtles in Shrimp Trawl Fishing Operations, US
Department of State, Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 57, 25 March 1999, Public Notice 3013, pp. 14481-14485
(hereafter the "Proposed Revisions to the Guidelines").
34 Turtle Island Restoration Network v. Robert Mallett, 110 Fed. Supp. 2d 1005 (CIT 2000).
35 WT/DS58/16, 12 January 2000.
36 WT/DS58/15, 15 July 1999 and Addenda 1–4.

US programme and (2) elaborate a timetable and procedures for certification decisions, including an
expedited timetable to apply in 1999 only. These latter changes are designed to increase the
transparency and predictability of the certification process and to afford foreign governments seeking
certification a greater degree of due process." The reports also explained that the United States was
engaged in efforts to negotiate an agreement on the conservation of sea turtles with the Governments
of the Indian Ocean region, and that the United States had offered and was providing technical
assistance on the design, construction, installation and operation of TEDs.
1. Section 609: the 1999 Revised Guidelines
2.22 On 25 March 1999, the United States Department of State published a notice in the US
Federal Register that summarized the Appellate Body Report, proposed measures by which the
United States would implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, and sought comments
from interested parties.
37 On 8 July 1999, the United States Department of State issued Revised
Guidelines for the Implementation of Section 609 of Public Law 101-162 Relating to the Protection of
Sea Turtles in Shrimp Trawl Fishing Operations.
38 The Revised Guidelines summarize the comments
received and set forth the measures that the United States would take to implement the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB. For ease of reference, the Revised Guidelines in their
entirety are attached as the Annex to this report.
2.23 The Revised Guidelines issued pursuant to Section 609 set forth the criteria for certification.39
First, since certification decisions are based on comparability with the US regulatory programme
governing the incidental taking of sea turtles in the course of shrimp harvesting, there is an
explanation of the components of that programme. The stated goal of this programme is to protect sea
turtles populations from further decline by reducing their incidental mortality in commercial shrimp
trawling. The US programme requires that commercial shrimp trawlers use TEDs approved in
accordance with standards established by the US National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), in areas
and at times when there is a likelihood of intercepting sea turtles, with very limited exceptions.
40
2.24 Second, the Department of State determined that the import prohibitions imposed pursuant to
Section 609 do not apply to shrimp or products of shrimp harvested under the following conditions in
which harvesting does not adversely affect sea turtles:
(a) Shrimp harvested in aquaculture;
(b) shrimp harvested by trawlers using TEDs comparable in effectiveness to those
required in the United States;
(c) shrimp harvested exclusively by means that do not involve the retrieval of fishing
nets by mechanical devices, or by vessels using specified gear, in accordance with the
US programme; or
(d) shrimp harvested in any other manner or under any other circumstances that the
Department of State may determine, following consultation with the NMFS, does not
pose a threat of the incidental taking of sea turtles. In the latter case, the Department

37 Proposed Revisions to the Guidelines.
38 Revised Guidelines for the Implementation of Section 609 of Public Law 101-162 Relating to the
Protection of Sea Turtles in Shrimp Trawl Fishing Op erations, US Department of State, Federal Register
Vol. 64, No. 130, 8 July 1999, Public Notice 3086, pp. 36946-36952 (hereafter the "Revised Guidelines"). The
text of the Revised Guidelines (pp. 36949-36952) is reproduced as the Annex of this Report. For ease of
reference, the paragraphs of the Revised Guidelines have been numbered in the attached Annex.
39 Revised Guidelines, Annex to this Report: paras. 2-5.
40 Revised Guidelines, Annex to this Report: para. 2.

of State is to publish these determinations in the Federal Register and notify the
foreign governments and interested parties.41
2.25 Moreover, if the government of the harvesting nation seeks certification on the basis of
having adopted a TEDs programme, certification pursuant to Section 609(b)(2)(A) or (B) shall be
made if a programme includes:
(a) A requirement that all commercial shrimp trawl vessels operating in waters in which
there is a likelihood of intercepting sea turtles use TEDs at all times. TEDs must be
comparable in effectiveness to those used in the United States. Any exceptions to this
requirement must be comparable to those of the US programme described above; and
(b) a credible enforcement effort that includes monitoring for compliance.42
2.26 Third, the Revised Guidelines confirm the requirement, effective as of 1 May 1996, that all
shipments of shrimp and shrimp products imported into the United States must be accompanied by an
Exporter's/Importer's Declaration attesting that the shrimp accompanying the declaration were
harvested either under conditions that do not adversely affect sea turtles (as defined above) or in
waters subject to the jurisdiction of a nation currently certified pursuant to Section 609.
43
2.27 Fourth, provision is made for the government of any harvesting nation to request that the
Department of State review information regarding the shrimp fishing environment and conditions in
that nation in making decisions pursuant to Section 609. Information, based on empirical data
supported by objective scientific studies of sufficient duration and scope to provide the necessary
information for a reliable determination, may be presented to demonstrate, inter alia:
(a) That some portion of the shrimp intended for export to the United States is harvested
under one of the conditions identified above as not adversely affecting sea turtles;
(b) that the government of that nation has adopted a regulatory programme governing the
incidental taking of sea turtles during shrimp fishing that is comparable to the US
programme and, therefore, that the nation is eligible for certification; or
(c) that the fishing environment in that nation does not pose a threat of the incidental
taking of sea turtles and, therefore, that the nation is eligible for certification.
44
2.28 A country may be certified on the basis of having a regulatory programme not involving the
use of TEDs. The criteria used in comparing such a programme are "[i]f the government of a
harvesting nation demonstrates that it has implemented and is enforcing a comparably effective
regulatory program to protect sea turtles in the course of shrimp trawl fishing without the use of
TEDs, that nation will also be eligible for certification." Such a finding is to be based on empirical
data supported by objective scientific studies of sufficient duration and scope to provide the
information for a reliable determination. In reviewing this information, the Department of State is "to
take fully into account any demonstrated differen ces between the shrimp fishing conditions in the
United States and those in other nations, as well as information available from other sources."
45
2.29 As noted above, countries may seek to be certified on the basis of having a shrimp fishing
environment that does not pose a threat of the incidental taking of sea turtles. The Revised Guidelines

41 Revised Guidelines, Annex to this Report: para. 5
42 Revised Guidelines, Annex to this Report: paras. 18-19.
43 Revised Guidelines, Annex to this Report: para. 6.
44 Revised Guidelines, Annex to this Report: para. 10.
45 Revised Guidelines, Annex to this Report: Section II.B.(a)(2).

provide that the Department of State shall certify any harvesting nation pursuant to
Section 609(b)(2)(C) on this basis that meets any of the following criteria:
(a) Any harvesting nation without any of the relevant species of sea turtles occurring in
waters subject to its jurisdiction;
(b) any harvesting nation that harvests shrimp exclusively by means that do not pose a
threat to sea turtles; e.g., any nation that harvests shrimp exclusively by artisanal
means; or
(c) any nation whose commercial shrimp trawling operations take place exclusively in
waters subject to its jurisdiction in which sea turtles do not occur.
46
2.30 There is also recognition in the Revised Guidelines that sea turtles require protection
throughout their life cycle, not only when they ar e threatened during shrimp harvesting. Thus, in
certifying, the Department "shall also take fully into account other measures the harvesting nation
undertakes to protect sea turtles, including national programs to protect nesting beaches and other
habitat, prohibitions on the directed take of sea turtles, national enforcement and compliance
programs, and participation in any international agreement for the protection and conservation of sea
turtles." The Department of State is also to engage in consultations with harvesting nations.
47
2.31 Each year the Department of State considers for certification any nation that is currently
certified and any other harvesting nation who requests certification prior to 1 September of the
preceding year. In addition, "any harvesting nation that is not certified on 1 May of any year may be
certified prior to the following 1 May at such time as the harvesting nation meets the criteria
necessary for certification. Conversely, any harvesting nation that is certified on 1 May of any year
may have its certification revoked prior to the fo llowing 1 May at such time as the harvesting nation
no longer meets those criteria."
48
2.32 There is recognition that the Revised Guidelines may be revised in the future to take into
consideration additional information on the interaction between sea turtles and shrimp fisheries;
changes in the US programme; and considering the pending domestic litigation in the United States.
III. MAIN ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
A. PROCEDURAL ISSUES
1. Terms of reference
3.1 According to Malaysia, the mandate of the Panel is to examine the consistency with
Articles XI and XX of the GATT 1994 of measures taken by the United States to comply with the
recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). Such an approach is consistent
with the views expressed by the A ppellate Body with regard to the scope of an Article 21.5 dispute
settlement proceeding in Canada - Measures Affecting The Export of Civilian Aircraft. 49 Essentially,
the Article 21.5 Panel, in reviewing the "consistency" under Article 21.5 of the Dispute Settlement
Understanding (DSU), is entrusted with the task of determining that the "measures taken to comply
with the recommendations and ruling of the DSB wa s in "conformity with", "adhering to the same
principles" or "compatible" with the obligations of the implementing party under the relevant
provisions of the WTO Agreement. Malaysia thus argues that the steps taken by the United States did
not remove the elements of "unjustifiable discrimination" and "arbitrary discrimination". Therefore,

46 Revised Guidelines, Annex to this Report: para. 14.
47 Revised Guidelines, Annex to this Report: para. 23.
48 Revised Guidelines, Annex to this Report: para. 40.
49 Adopted on 4 August 2000, WT/DS70/AB/RW (hereafter " Canada – Aircraft – Recourse by Brazil
to Article 21.5 of the DSU"), paras. 36-37 and 40-41.

Malaysia argues that the measure of the United States remains inconsistent with Article XI and is not
justified under Article XX of the GATT 1994.
3.2 Malaysia further argues that it does not limit it self in this dispute to contesting whether the
United States has complied with the DSB recommendations and rulings. Malaysia is thus exercising
its rights under Article 21.5 of the DSU.
3.3 Malaysia also submits that the Panel should find that in order to comply with the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB, the import prohibition pursuant to Section 609 should be
removed. This is a component of Malaysia's request for the establishment of a panel.50
3.4 In the view of the United States, the issue in this proceeding is to determine whether the
United States has complied with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB by modifying the
application of Section 609 of Public Law 101-162 ("Section 609")51 in accordance with the findings in
the Appellate Body Report.
2. Submissions from non-governmental organizations
3.5 The Panel received two submissions from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in this
case. One was submitted on 12 November 2000 by Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund on behalf of the
Turtle Island Restoration Network, the Human Societ y of the United States, the American Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Fiscalia Del Medio Ambiente
(Chile) (hereafter "Earthjustice Submission").
3.6 The second was submitted on 13 December 2000 by the National Wildlife Federation on
behalf of the Center for Marine Conservation, Centro Ecoceanos, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of
the Earth, Kenya Sea Turtle Committee, Marine Turtle Preservation Group of India, National Wildlife
Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Operation Kachhapa, Project Swarajya, Visakha
Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (hereafter "National Wildlife Federation Submission").
3.7 These submissions were respectively communicated to the parties on 15
and 18 December 2000. In a letter accompanying these submissions, the Panel informed the parties
that they may comment in their submissions on the admissibility and relevance of these submissions.
The Panel also informed the parties that it would address this matter in its report.
3.8 Malaysia holds the view that the Panel does not have the right to accept, or consider any
unsolicited briefs. Moreover, Malaysia submits that the finding in the Original Panel that Article 13
of the DSU did not confer any right on a Panel to accept unsolicited briefs. Article 13 gives a panel
the right to "seek" information and technical advice from any individual or body that it deemed
appropriate. Articles 10 and 12 and Appendix 3 of the DSU provide that only Members who are
parties to a dispute, or who have notified the DSB of their interest in becoming third parties have the
legal right to make submissions to a panel and to have those submissions considered by a panel. To
the contrary, the Appellate Body's interpretation in
52 had the effect of providing greater rights to those who were not WTO
Members.

50 WT/DS58/17, 13 October 2000.
51 Revised Guidelines for the Implementation of Section 609 of Public Law 101-162 Relating to the
Protection of Sea Turtles in Shrimp Trawl Fishing Op erations, US Department of State, Federal Register
Vol. 64, No. 130, 8 July 1999, Public Notice 3086, pp. 36946-36952 (hereafter the "Revised Guidelines"). The
text of the Revised Guidelines (pp. 36949-36952) is reproduced as the Annex of this Report. For ease of
reference, the paragraphs of the Revised Guidelines have been numbered in the attached Annex.
52 Adopted on 6 November 1998, WT/DS58/AB/R, (hereafter the "Appellate Body Report").

3.9 Malaysia argues that, of prime importance for the Panel's consideration, is that the practice of
admission and acceptance of unsolicited submissions by panels and the Appellate Body has been the
subject of intense debate at a special meeting of the General Council on 22 November 2000. The
overwhelming view of the WTO Members at the meeting was that panels and the Appellate Body did
not have the authority to receive or consider unsolicited briefs. This view was conveyed to, and noted
by the Chairperson of the Appellate Body.
3.10 The United States argues that under the findings of the Appellate Body in this case, the Panel
has the discretion to consider either or both of the submissions from NGOs. The Appellate Body
wrote that: "[a] panel has the discretionary authority either to accept and consider or to reject
information and advice submitted to it, whether requested by a panel or not."53
3.11 According to the United States, the National Wildlife Federation Submission was directly
relevant to the issues in this dispute. It addresses the issue of US compliance with the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB. Moreover, it presents the views of the submitters on the
status under international environmental law of consensual versus unilateral environmental measures,
an issue raised to varying extents by Malaysia and certain third parties.
3.12 Accordingly, the United States submits that the Panel should exercise its discretion to
consider the National Wildlife Federation Submission. At the same time, however, the United States
decided to attach the National Wildlife Federati on brief to its submission in this case. The
United States submits that this ensures that a relevant and informative document is before the Panel,
regardless of whether the Panel decides to exercise its discretion to accept the National Wildlife
Federation Submission directly from the submitters. On the other hand, the United States argues that
the Earthjustice Submission does not appear to be as relevant to the issues in this dispute as it
addresses a hypothetical issue that is not before the Panel. The United States notes, however, that the
Panel does have the discretion to accept the Earthjustice Submission directly from the submitters
according to the Appellate Body's ruling.
54
3.13 In response to a question by the Panel 55, the United States argues that the " amicus" brief
attached to its rebuttal submission reflected the independent views of the organizations that signed on
to that brief. These organizations have a great interest, and specialized expertise, in sea turtle
conservation and related matters. The views of these organizations should be of value to the Panel in
resolving the matters at issue in this dispute. The United States notes, however, that the " amicus"
brief included certain procedural and substantive defenses not advanced in the submission of the
United States, and thus that these matters are not before the panel.
3.14 The United States also argues that Malaysia makes the rather extraordinary argument that the
Appellate Body was wrong and the Panel should ignore the Appellate Body finding. Nowhere does
the DSU grant dispute settlement panels the author ity to overrule the Appellate Body. In addition,
Malaysia’s only rationale for its position is that the Appellate Body finding gives greater rights to
"amici" than to WTO Member governments. This claim is demonstrably false. Under the DSU, any
WTO Member may preserve its third-party rights and have its views considered by a panel. In stark
contrast, the Appellate Body findings simply provide panels with the discretion to consider
unsolicited submissions. The differences between the rights afforded to third parties and " amici" is
dramatically illustrated by events in the recent proceedings in the case on European Communities –

53 Appellate Body Report, para. 108.
54 Appellate Body Report, paras. 108 and 110.
55 The question reads as follows: "The Panel takes note of the fact that the United States attached to its
rebuttals, as [an] exhibit, one of the " amicus briefs" submitted directly to the Panel. Having been submitted by
the United States, this document becomes part of the US submissions in this case. Could the United States
clarify whether, by doing so, it intends to fully endorse the content of the document contained in [this] Exhibit
or whether [this] Exhibit is submitted for the information of the Panel, without the United States endorsing part
or all of the views expressed in it?"

Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products .56 In that case, the Appellate Body
accepted and considered all submissions filed by third parties. By contrast, the Appellate Body
considered nearly twenty applications for leave to file unsolicited submissions, and rejected each one
of those applications.
3.15 Malaysia argues that it is not suggesting that the Panel should overturn the Appellate Body's
decision on this issue. However, in the light of the development in the special meeting of the
General Council on 22 November 2000, Malaysia submits that the Panel should exercise extreme
caution when dealing with unsolicited "amicus curiae" briefs.
3. Burden of proof
3.16 Malaysia submits that the burden of proof is on the United States, as the party invoking
Article XX, to justify its invocation.
57 This approach has been adopted by the Appellate Body in
Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft – Recourse by Canada To Article 21.5 of the
DSU.58 It was held in that case that since it was Brazil that asserted the "affirmative defence," the
burden of proof rested on Brazil. 59 The issue of the burden of proof also has been dealt with in the
Appellate Body's decision in United States – Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and
Blouses from India.60 The Appellate Body held that " [ … ] the burden of proof rests upon the party,
whether complaining or defending, who asserts the affirmative of the particular claim or defence."61
3.17 However, Malaysia argues, the pertinent point in the Appellate Body's decision is that it
acknowledges the fact that several GATT 1947 and WTO panels have required such proof of a party
invoking a defence, such as those found in Article XX. The Appellate Body clearly stated that the
sub-paragraphs in Article XX are " [ … ] limited exceptions from obligations under certain other
provisions of GATT 1994, not positive rules establishing obligations in themselves. They are in the
nature of affirmative defences. It is only reasonable that the burden of establishing such a defence
should rest on the party asserting it."
62
3.18 Hence, Malaysia submits that, as the party who is asserting the affirmative defence under
Article XX, the burden is on the United States to show that its measures are justified under Article
XX. In this respect, the United States has failed to show that the steps taken by the United States to
implement the DSB recommendations and rulings render Section 609 justified under Article XX. As
such, the United States has failed to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.
3.19 Malaysia argues that the United States has to prove to the Panel that the implementation
measures that have been undertaken fully satisfy the requirements of the chapeau of Article XX of the
GATT 1994 and that there is no longer any inconsistency with Article XI of the GATT 1994.
3.20 Malaysia substantiates this argument with reference to the Appellate Body's assessment that
the US measure has been "provisionally justified." This means that the United States has to prove that
this measure is now fully justified under Article XX. Accordingly, the United States has to address
each and every aspect stipulated by the Appellate Body in order to satisfy the elements of

56 Adopted on 5 April 2001, WT/DS135/AB/R (hereafter "EC – Asbestos").
57 Malaysia refers to United States – Restrictions on Imports of Tuna (DS21/R, not adopted, circulated
on 3 September 1991, BISD 39S/155) in which the panel held that "the practice of Panels has been to interpret
Article XX narrowly, to place the burden on the party invoking Article XX to justify its invocation [ ... ]"
58 Adopted on 4 August 2000, WT/DS46/AB/RW (hereafter " Brazil – Aircraft – Recourse by Canada
To Article 21.5 of the DSU").
59 Ibid. para. 65.
60 Adopted on 23 May 1997, WT/DS33/AB/R (hereafter "United States - Wool Shirts").
61 Ibid., p. 14.
62 Ibid., p. 16.

"unjustifiable discrimination" and "arbitrary discrimination" where the same conditions prevail. If the
United States does not fulfill these standards, the US measure would not qualify as an exception under
Article XX.
3.21 In its response to a question of the Panel, the United States agrees that it had the initial
burden of showing that the US measure falls within the scope of Article XX. In this proceeding,
Malaysia has the initial burden of showing that the US measure is inconsistent with one or more
obligations under a covered agreement. However, as Malaysia notes, the United States has not
contested that its measure is an import prohibition under GATT Article XI.
3.22 The United States claims that it is asserting as an affirmative defense that its measure falls, as
modified, within the scope of Article XX. As the Appellate Body explained in its Report on
United States - Wool Shirts, the burden of establishing such a defense rests on the party asserting it.
63
As the Appellate Body also explained in United States – Wool Shirts, "If [the party asserting a
particular claim or defense] adduces sufficient evidence to raise a presumption that what is claimed is
true, the burden then shifts to the other party, who will fail unless it adduces sufficient evidence to
rebut the presumption."
64 The United States submits that it has presented a prima facie case that its
measure, as modified, falls within the scope of Article XX, and that the burden has thus shifted to
Malaysia to present evidence and legal argument to the contrary. In particular, the United States has
fully explained the manner in which it has modified the aspects of the application of the measure that
the Appellate Body found to result in arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination. Therefore, the United
States has made a prima facie case that the US measure, as modified, indeed falls within the scope of
Article XX.
3.23 In the view of the United States, this burden sh ifting analysis is particularly pertinent to the
issue of whether the United States has modified the guidelines implementing Section 609 of the
United States Public Law 101-162 ("the Revised Guidelines") to make them more flexible and to take
account of local conditions. The United States contends it has shown that the Guidelines have been
modified to provide for more flexibility. The United States further submits that it has also shown
specific instances where these more flexible Guidelines have been applied in the cases of Pakistan and
Australia. The United States claims that these facts are more than sufficient to meet its burden of
establishing a prima facie case that it has complied with the aspects of the DSB recommendations and
rulings relating to flexibility in the application of the measure. Therefore, the United States argues
that the burden thus shifts to Malaysia to show that in fact the United States has not introduced such
flexibility.
3.24 The United States submits that Malaysia has not presented any valid reasons why, as it
claims, the Revised Guidelines do not provide the degree of flexibility envisioned in the DSB
recommendations. This point is reinforced, the United States argues, when one considers that, first,
under the Appellate Body’s burden-shifting analysis, the burden now resides with Malaysia to rebut
the prima facie case of the United States, and, second, that Malaysia has never even sought to test the
Revised Guidelines by applying for certification. In other words, where the Revised Guidelines on
their face provide for more flexibility, and where Malaysia has never tested these Guidelines and
simply asserts that the Guidelines are insufficiently flexible, Malaysia cannot be found to have
prevailed on this key issue in the proceeding.
3.25 A related issue in the view of the United States is that the Appellate Body finding was based
on certain aspects of the US measure "in their cumulative effect". The United States argues that this
issue should not arise because it has in fact responded to all aspects of the discrimination identified by
the Appellate Body. Thailand, as a third party, spent a great deal of time addressing this issue, and
claims that the United States would be in violation of its treaty obligations unless it addressed each

63 United States – Wool Shirts, p. 337.
64 Ibid., p. 335.

aspect of discrimination identified by the Appellate Body. According to the United States, Thailand’s
reasoning is circular and reflects a misunderstanding of the Appellate Body Report. The Appellate
Body did not find, as Thailand assumes, that each and every element of differential treatment among
Members rises to the level of a violation of the Article XX chapeau. To the contrary, the
Appellate Body carefully wrote that all five of the aspects of differential treatment, in their cumulative
effect – that is in the aggregate, when added together – amounted to a violation. The United States
thus argues that the Appellate Body, conservativ ely and properly, did not specify how it would have
decided the case if some, but not other, aspects of differential treatment were corrected.
3.26 The United States submits that it has addressed all aspects of differential treatment, and thus
that the Panel should not be presented with this issue. However, if the Panel finds otherwise, the
United States notes that the Appellate Body Repor t does provide some guidance. For example, "the
most conspicuous" flaw, the Appellate Body said, wa s the failure of the measure to be applied in a
flexible manner. On the other hand, it would be fair to say that the Appellate Body Report placed less
emphasis on the aspect of differential treatment arising from differing phase-in periods.
3.27 Malaysia agrees with the statement of the United States that the Appellate Body’s use of the
term "cumulative effect" is important in the Panel’s examination of United States compliance with the
Appellate Body’s findings. The term "cumulative" is defined as "forming an aggregate; the word
signifies that two things are to be added together, instead of one being a repetition or in substitution of
the other."
 65 However, Malaysia claims that it does not agree with the United States' contention that
it "need not necessarily address each one of those aspects [of the United States application of
Section 609 which constituted "unjustifiable discrimination"] in order to comply with the Appellate
Body’s findings." Neither can Malaysia agree with the United States that "it has addressed all of the
defects in the application of Section 609." Malaysia submits that the United States has to address
each and every aspect in satisfying the elements of "unjustifiable discrimination".
B. V
IOLATION OF ARTICLE XI
3.28 Malaysia argues that the prolonged enforcement of Section 609, which has the effect of an
import prohibition, continues to undermine the Malaysian shrimp export industry to the United States'
market. As submitted by Malaysia in the Original Panel 66, Malaysia's exports declined from
US$9.1 million in 1995 to US$4.86 million in 1996. Exports had declined by a significant 38 per cent
from US$2.87 million for the period (May – October 1995) to US$1.8 million for the corresponding
months of 1996. Since then, Malaysian companies have ceased exporting to the United States and
have had to develop other export markets in Europe, Hong Kong, Australia, Japan and China. As a
result, Malaysia argues that its exporters continue to suffer a loss of export opportunities and market
share in the United States for wild-harvested shrimp due to the prolonged import prohibition.
3.29 The United States claims that during the 13-month period agreed to by the parties to the
dispute, it proceeded to modify its application of the measure in order to address the specific problems
identified by the Appellate Body. The United States compliance includes: Revised Guidelines that
provide more flexibility in decision-making; enhanced due process protections for exporting
countries; efforts to negotiate a sea turtle conservation agreement in the Indian Ocean region; and
enhanced offers of technical assistance.
3.30 Nevertheless, with regard to Section 609, the United States does not claim that the import
prohibition is now compatible with Article XI of the GATT 1994, nor does it contend that the
prohibition in question is not in force. Furthermore, in its reply to a question by the Panel
67, the

65 Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., p. 380.
66 , adopted on
6 November 1998, WT/DS58/R (hereafter the "Panel Report"), paras. 3.120 and 3.126.
67 The question reads as follows: "Do you agree with Malaysia’s statement that the burden of proof lies

United States expressly states that, as noted by Malaysia, the United States does not contest that its
measure is an import prohibition under GATT Article XI.
C. JUSTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE XX
1. General comments
3.31 The United States mentions that in detailed and exhaustive findings, the Appellate Body
confirmed that the US measure which has the effect of an import prohibition was provisionally
justified under GATT Article XX(g) as a measure relating to the conservation of an exhaustible
natural resource. However, the Appellate Body Re port also found that certain specifically-identified
aspects of the application of the US measure amount ed to unjustifiable or arbitrary discrimination
under the chapeau of Article XX.
3.32 The United States claims that implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB
in this matter has several distinct elements. Thes e elements respond to the several distinct findings
contained in the Appellate Body Report relating to the way in which the United States formerly
applied Section 609.
3.33 According to the United States, compliance steps include:
(a) Revised Guidelines that provide more flexibility in decision-making;
(b) enhanced due process protections for exporting countries;
(c) efforts to negotiate a sea turtle conservation agreement in the Indian Ocean region;
and
(d) enhanced offers of technical assistance.
3.34 Malaysia argues that in its findings and conclusions, in paragraph 187, the Appellate Body:
"concludes that the United States measure, while qualifying for
provisional justification under Article XX(g), fails to meet the
requirements of the chapeau of Article XX, and, therefore, is not
justified under Article XX of the GATT 1994."
3.35 Malaysia submits that this explicitly means that the measure concerned, i.e. the import
prohibition contained in Section 609, although provisionally justified under the GATT Article XX (g),
is however not justified under Article XX because it fails to meet the requirements of the chapeau.
3.36 Malaysia submits that since the imposition of the import prohibition is not justified under
Article XX of the GATT 1994, it should be removed in order for the United States to bring the
measure into conformity with its obligations under that Agreement.
3.37 Thus, Malaysia claims that in order to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the
DSB, the import prohibition contained in Section 609 should be removed instead of being modified.

with the United States to demonstrate that the measures taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings
of the DSB are justified under Article XX of the GATT 1994?"

2. Article XX(g)
3.38 With regard to Section 609 and its consistency with paragraph (g) of Article XX of the
GATT 1994, the United States claims that the Appellate Body separately found that endangered sea
turtle species covered by Section 609 were "exhaustible natural resources" under Article XX(g)68, and
that the United States made Section 609 "effective in conjunction with restrictions on domestic
production or consumption" under Article XX(g).69
3.39 The United States claims that the Appellate Body clearly, and at length, explained that the
general design of the Section 609 import prohibition was provisionally justified under Article XX(g).
The United States quotes the relevant paragraphs of the Appellate Body Report:
"137. In the present case, we must examine the relationship between the general
structure and design of the measure here at stake, Section 609, and the policy goal it
purports to serve, that is, the conservation of sea turtles.
138. Section 609(b)(1) imposes an import ban on shrimp that have been harvested
with commercial fishing technology which may adversely affect sea turtles. This
provision is designed to influence countries to adopt national regulatory programs
requiring the use of TEDs by their shrimp fishermen. In this connection, it is
important to note that the general structure and design of Section 609 cum
implementing guidelines is fairly narrowly focused.
[ … ]
141. In its general design and structure, therefore, Section 609 is not a simple,
blanket prohibition of the importation of shrimp imposed without regard to the
consequences (or lack thereof) of the mode of harvesting employed upon the
incidental capture and mortality of sea turtles. Focusing on the design of the measure
here at stake, it appears to us that Section 609, cum implementing guidelines, is not
disproportionately wide in its scope and reach in relation to the policy objective of
protection and conservation of sea turtle species. The means are, in principle,
reasonably related to the ends. The means and ends relationship between Section 609
and the legitimate policy of conserving an exhaustible, and, in fact, endangered
species, is observably a close and real one, a relationship that is every bit as
substantial as that which we found in United States - Gasoline between the EPA
baseline establishment rules and the conservation of clean air in the United States.
142. In our view, therefore, Section 609 is a measure "relating to" the conservation
of an exhaustible natural resource within the meaning of Article XX(g) of the
GATT 1994."70
3.40 The United States also claims that the Appellate Body emphasized the distinction between the
issues of whether the general design of a measure is provisionally justified under one of the specific
Article XX paragraphs, and whether the application of the measure is consistent with the requirements
of the chapeau of Article XX.
3.41 Malaysia claims that in its findings and conclusi ons the Appellate Body modified the Panel
Report and, inter alia, found that the US measure, though provisionally justified under Article XX(g),

68 Appellate Body Report, paras. 127-134.
69 Appellate Body Report, paras. 143-145.
70 Emphasis added and footnotes omitted by the United States.

had failed to meet the requirements of the chapeau of Article XX, and, therefore, was not justified
under Article XX of the GATT 1994.71
3.42 Malaysia submits that this explicitly means that the measure concerned, i.e. the import
prohibition contained in Section 609, although provisionally justified under Article XX(g) is however
not justified under Article XX because it failed to meet the requirements of the chapeau.
3.43 Moreover, Malaysia notes that it does not dispute the finding of the Appellate Body Report
with regard to the provisional justification of Section 609 under Article XX(g).
3. Chapeau
(a) General compliance issues
3.44 The United States claims, as stated above, that the Appellate Body emphasized the
distinction between the issues of whether the general design of a measure is provisionally justified
under one of the specific Article XX sub-paragraphs, and whether the application of the measure is
consistent with the requirements of the chapeau of Article XX. In support of this, the United States
calls attention to the Appellate Body's citation to its earlier Report in United States – Standards for
Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, where it points out that the chapeau of Article XX "by its
express terms addresses, not so much the questioned measure or its specific contents as such, but
rather the manner in which that measure is applied."
72
3.45 The United States recalls that the Appellate Body Report, after finding that the US measure
was provisionally justified under Article XX(g), considered the criteria in the chapeau of Article XX.
The United States considers that the Appell ate Body's detailed findings under the chapeau of
Article XX are addressed not to the Section 609 statute itself, but to the United States' application of
the measure.
3.46 The United States claims that it has addressed all of the defects in the application of
Section 609 found and identified by the Appellat e Body: unjustifiable discrimination and arbitrary
discrimination. Thus, the United States claims that it has complied with the recommendations and
rulings of the DSB.
3.47 The United States observes that the Appellate Body found that while Section 609 requires as a
condition of certification that foreign programmes for the protection of sea turtles in the course of
shrimp trawl fishing be comparable to the United States' programme, the practice of the Department
of State in making certification decisions was to require foreign programmes to be essentially the
same as the United States' programme. In assessing foreign programmes, the Department of State
should have been more flexible in making such determinations and, in particular, should have taken
into consideration different conditions that may exist in the territories of those other nations.
3.48 The United States claims that, in response to this recommendation, the Department of State
now considers any evidence that another nation may pr esent that its programme to protect sea turtles
in the course of shrimp trawl fishing is comparable to the US programme.
73 In reviewing such
evidence, the Department of State takes into account any demonstrated differences in foreign shrimp

71 Appellate Body Report, para. 187.
72 Appellate Body Report, para. 115 (citing its report on United States – Standards for Reformulated
and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R (hereafter "United States – Gasoline"), p. 22.
73 Revised Guidelines.

fishing conditions, insofar as such differences may affect the extent to which sea turtles are subject to
capture and drowning in the commercial shrimp trawl fisheries.74
3.49 It is also the view of the United States that the DSB found that the certification process under
Section 609 was neither transparent nor predictable and denied to exporting nations basic fairness and
due process. There was no formal opportunity for an applicant nation to be heard or to respond to
arguments against it. There was no formal written, reasoned decision. But for notice in the
United States Federal Register, nations were not notified of decisions specifically. There was no
procedure for review of, or appeal from, a denial of certification.
3.50 In response to this finding, the United States claims that it has instituted a broad range of
procedural changes in the manner in which it makes certification decisions under Section 609. The
process is now transparent and predictable. Fo r example, the Department of State now notifies
governments of shrimp harvesting nations on a timely basis of all pending and final decisions and
provides them with a meaningful opportunity to be heard and to present any additional information
relevant to the certification decision. The Department of State also gives the governments of
harvesting nations that are not certified a full explanation of the reasons that the certification was
denied and clearly identifies steps that such gove rnments may take to receive a certification in the
future.
75
3.51 The United States considers that the Appellate Body found that at the time the WTO
complaint first arose, the United States did not permit imports of shrimp harvested by vessels using
Turtle Excluder Devices ("TEDs") that were comparable in effectiveness to those used in the
United States, unless the harvesting nation was certified pursuant to Section 609. In other words,
shrimp caught using methods identical to those employed in the United States were excluded from the
United States market solely because they had been caught in waters of uncertified nations.
3.52 In response the United States claims that even before the Appellate Body issued its Report,
the United States revised the policy at issue. Since August 1998, the United States has permitted the
importation of shrimp harvested by vessels using TEDs, even if the exporting nation is not certified
pursuant to Section 609.
3.53 With regard to this finding, the United States also argues that on 19 July 2000, the US Court
of International Trade ("CIT") issued a decision which found that the current policy of the United
States to permit the importation of shrimp harvested by TEDs from countries that are not certified
pursuant to Section 609 "violates that statute on its face." However, the Court also expressly refused
to issue an injunction to reverse that policy, findin g that there was insufficient evidence to show that
the policy was harming sea turtles. An appeal of this decision has been lodged with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Pending the outcome of this appeal, the current policy
remains in effect.
3.54 The United States therefore claims that during the 13-month implementation period it has
addressed all the recommendations and rulings of the DSB identified above.
3.55 Malaysia submits that the United States has mischaracterized the Appellate Body’s finding
and analysis by erroneously stating that the Appellate Body’s detailed findings under the Article XX
chapeau are addressed not to the Section 609 statute itself, but to the United States' application of the
measure.
3.56 Malaysia argues that the dichotomy proposed by the United States is fallacious in light of the
fact that the application of the measure by the United States in the context of satisfying the three

74 Revised Guidelines, Annex to this Report: paras. 10-13, 16-19 and Section II.B.(a)(2).
75 Revised Guidelines, Annex to this Report: paras. 27, 29, 30, 35, 37 and 38.

requirements of the chapeau is an integral part of the Section 609 statute, which had been found by the
Appellate Body to be only provisionally justified. Failure by the United States to fulfil the required
standards under the chapeau would render Section 609 unjustified under GATT Article XX.
3.57 Malaysia also argues that in determining whether the United States has fulfilled the chapeau
requirements of Article XX of the GATT 1994, the Appellate Body had examined the manner in
which Section 609 had been applied. The Appellate Body opined that there were three standards to be
fulfilled, namely arbitrary discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail;
unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail; and disguised
restriction on international trade. It should be noted that the Appellate Body, in its analysis of these
standards, had faulted the United States in the manner of its application of Section 609 on several
counts and had simultaneously made pertinent observations and comments.
3.58 Moreover, Malaysia considers that in order to give effect to the DSB recommendations and
rulings, the import prohibition contained in Section 609 instead of being modified should have been
removed to allow the importation of certain shrimp and shrimp products without any restriction.
Malaysia insists that the Appellate Body in its Report had instead amplified the discriminatory
elements of "unjustifiable discrimination" and "arbitrary discrimination" that need to be removed in
order to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.
3.59 It is the view of Malaysia that in spite of the steps taken by the United States, these
discriminatory elements still remain and the Unit ed States has to prove to the Panel that the
implementation it has undertaken has fully satisfied the requirements of the chapeau of Article XX of
the GATT 1994 and there is no longer any inconsistency with GATT Article XI. Thus, Malaysia
claims and insists that the United States has to address each and every aspect in satisfying the
elements of "unjustifiable discrimination" and "arbitrary discrimination" where the same conditions
prevail.
3.60 With regard to the chapeau, Malaysia submits that what is at issue here is not Article XX(g),
as claimed by the United States, but whether the requirements of the chapeau of Article XX have been
met, particularly whether the United States has de monstrated a justification to continue the import
prohibition based on unilateral and non-consensual measures sufficient to meet the requirements of
the chapeau of Article XX.
3.61 The United States claims that compliance with the DSB recommendations and rulings does
not require that the United States lift its import prohibition on shrimp and shrimp products harvested
in a manner harmful to endangered sea turtles.
3.62 The United States argues that the Appellate Body affirmatively found that the general design
and structure of Section 609 - a fundamental element of which is an import prohibition on certain
shrimp and shrimp products - is provisionally justified under Article XX(g) of the GATT 1994.
76 The
United States claims that the Appellate Body's detailed findings under the Article XX chapeau are
addressed not to the Section 609 statute itself, but to the United States' application of the measure.
The United States also argues that by its very terms, the chapeau of Article XX deals with the manner
in which a measure is applied.
3.63 Thus, in the view of the United States, Malaysia cannot be correct in asserting that the only
way to comply with the DSB recommendations and rulings is to lift the import prohibition under
Section 609. The United States also argues that the Appellate Body Report provided the United States
with the compliance option of modifying the United States' application of the measure and therefore
states that it chose this option, and proceeded to comply based on a careful consideration of the
Appellate Body Report. The United States recalls that the European Communities (EC), in its

76 Appellate Body Report, paras. 125-146.

third-party submission, agrees with the United States that Malaysia's position is inconsistent with the
findings of the Appellate Body.
(b) Unjustifiable discrimination
(i) Cumulative assessment of the aspects found to constitute unjustifiable discrimination
3.64 The United States notes that the Appellate Body found that the "cumulative effect" of certain
aspects of its application of Section 609 constituted "unjustifiable discrimination" between countries
where the same conditions prevail. The United Stat es considers that the Appellate Body's use of the
term "cumulative effect" is important in the Panel's examination of the United States' compliance with
the Appellate Body findings. This carefully c onsidered phrase means that the Appellate Body's
findings of unjustifiable discrimination depended on a combination of aspects of the application of
Section 609, and that the United States need not necessarily address each one of those aspects in order
to comply with the Appellate Body findings. However, the United States claims that it has addressed
all of the defects in the application of Section 609 identified by the Appellate Body and the Panel is
not required in this proceeding to consider and apply the Appellate Body's finding on "cumulative
effects".
3.65 The United States also notes that Hong Kong, China takes issue with its position that the
Appellate Body's use of the term "cumulative effect" was purposeful and potentially important; that
the Appellate Body's findings of unjustifiable discrimination depended on a combination of aspects of
the application of Section 609, and the United States need not necessarily address each one of those
aspects in order to comply with the Appellate Body findings. However, since none of the aspects of
unjustifiable discrimination identified by the Appellate Body remain under the modified US measure,
the Panel is not required in this proceeding to consider and apply the Appellate Body's finding on
"cumulative effects."
3.66 Malaysia agrees with the United States' statement that the Appellate Body's use of the term
"cumulative effect" is important in the Panel’s examination of United States compliance with the
Appellate Body’s findings. The term "cumulative" is defined as "forming an aggregate; the word
signifies that two things are to be added together, instead of one being a repetition or in substitution of
the other."
 77 However, Malaysia claims that it does not agree with the United States' contention that
it "need not necessarily address each one of those aspects [of the United States application of Section
609 which constituted "unjustifiable discrimination"] in order to comply w ith the Appellate Body’s
findings." Neither can Malaysia agree with the United States that "it has addressed all of the defects
in the application of Section 609." Malaysia submits that the United States has to address each and
every aspect in satisfying the elements of "unjustifiable discrimination".
(ii) Efforts to negotiate and whether a WTO Member is obliged to seek or obtain international
consensus
(a) Efforts to negotiate
3.67 The United States recalls that the Appellate Body found that the differences among exporting
nations in the extent of the United States' efforts to negotiate conservation agreements contributed to
the finding of unjustifiable discrimination. The Appellate Body found that the United States
negotiated seriously with some, but not with other Members (including the appellees) that export
shrimp to the United States and the Appellate Body stated that the effect is plainly discriminatory and
unjustifiable. In other words, according to the Appellate Body findings, the United States failed to
engage the other parties to this dispute, as well as other WTO Members exporting shrimp to the
United States, in serious across-the-board negotiations, apart from negotiations on the Inter-American

77 Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., p. 380.

Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles ("The Inter-American Convention"),
for the purpose of concluding agreements to conserve sea turtles.
3.68 With regard to this finding the United States cl arifies that it is true that it negotiated the
Inter-American Convention before embarking on negotiations toward the Memorandum of
Understanding on the Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles and their Habitats of the
Indian Ocean and South-East Asian Region ("MOU"), largely because Section 609 was originally
interpreted to apply to countries in the Inter- American region much earlier. Nevertheless, the
United States has since undertaken negotiations with countries in the Indian Ocean and South-East
Asian region that are as serious as the earlier negotiations.
3.69 The United States also recalls that seven nations have now ratified the Inter-American
Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles. That Convention will enter into force
90 days after the eighth instrument of ratification is deposited with the Government of Venezuela.
The United States also notes that the negotiation of that Convention took place from 1993 to 1996,
after nations in the Caribbean and Western Atlantic were first affected by the import restrictions of
Section 609.
3.70 The United States claims that as early as 1996, it proposed to governments in the
Indian Ocean region the negotiation of an agreement to protect sea turtles in that region, but received
no positive response. In 1998, even before the Appellate Body issued its Report, the United States
reiterated its desire to enter into such negotiatio ns with affected governments, including Malaysia.
During the summer of 1998, the United States in formally approached several governments in the
Indian Ocean region, as well as numerous non-govern mental organizations, in an effort to get such
negotiations under way.
3.71 The United States also recalls that on 14 October 1998, following the issuance of the
Appellate Body Report, but before its adoption by the DSB, it formally renewed this proposal to
representatives of the embassies of the four complainants in Washington, D.C. United States
embassies delivered the same message to a wide range of nations in the Indian Ocean region. In each
case, the United States presented a list of "elements" that the United States believed could form the
basis of such an agreement. The United States also made clear its willingness to support the
negotiating process in a number of ways.
78
3.72 The United States highlights in its submissions that, in a continuing effort to launch such
negotiations, the United States actively participated in a Symposium and Workshop on Sea Turtle
Conservation and Biology, held in Sabah, Malays ia on 15-17 July 1999. The Symposium concluded
with the adoption of the Sabah Declaration, which called for "the negotiation and implementation of a
wider regional agreement for the conservation and management of marine turtle populations and their
habitats throughout the Indo-Pacific and Indian Ocean region."
79
3.73 The United States also recalls that in October 1999, the Government of Australia hosted a
follow-up conference in Perth, Australia, to consider the conservation of sea turtles throughout the
Indian Ocean and South-East Asian region. The United States again participated actively and
contributed funding to defray the costs of the conference and to facilitate the participation of
representatives from developing countries. At the Perth Conference, participating governments
committed themselves to develop an international agreement on sea turtle conservation for that
region
80, and the Government of Malaysia subsequently hosted the first round of negotiations toward

78 US Department of State, Possible Elements of a Regional Convention for the Conservation of Sea
Turtles in the Indian Ocean.
79 Sabah Declaration, July 1999.
80 Resolution on Developing an Indian Ocean and South-East Asian Regional Agreement on the
Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles and their Habitats, October 1999.

such an agreement in Kuantan, Malaysia, from 11-14 July 2000. The United States again participated
actively and contributed significant funding to cove r the costs of the meeting and to facilitate the
participation of representatives from developing countries. In all, 24 countries participated in the
negotiations, along with a number of intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental
organizations.
3.74 The Kuantan meeting, the United States notes, adopted language for the non-binding
Memorandum of Understanding. The meeting also produced a Final Act, indicating that, before the
MOU can be finalized, a Conservation and Management Plan must first be negotiated and appended
as an annex to the MOU. Negotiations on the Conservation and Management Plan are anticipated to
take place in 2001.
3.75 Thus, the United States claims that it has, in fact, addressed this finding of the
Appellate Body, by engaging in negotiations not only with Malaysia but also with other nations of the
Indian Ocean region on a sea turtle conservation agreement and that those negotiations have achieved
considerable, and indeed remarkable, progress in the last two years.
3.76 Moreover, in response to a question of the Panel
81 concerning the efforts of the United States
to resort to international mechanisms to protect sea turtles to which the Appellate Body referred in its
Report, the United States replies that perhaps the primary international mechanism mentioned by the
Appellate Body is the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES). The United States is a party to CITES and plays a leading role in CITES bodies, in
particular the CITES Conferences of the Parties (COP).
3.77 For quite some time, the United States notes, all species of sea turtles covered by Section 609
have been listed in Appendix I to CITES. The United States fully supports these listings, which have
essentially banned international trade in sea turtles and sea turtle products. The United States has also
firmly and successfully resisted efforts at a recent CITES COP to "downlist" a particular population of
hawksbill sea turtles to Appendix II, which would reopen trade in the sea turtles in question.
3.78 The United States also explains that by listing all these sea turtle species in Appendix I and by
maintaining those listings, CITES has essentially done all it can to protect endangered sea turtles.
CITES has no explicit mandate to manage wildlife populations; it only regulates international trade in
the species themselves. In particular, CITES does not have responsibility for adopting measures to
protect sea turtles from other types of harm, including their incidental drowning in shrimp trawl nets.
3.79 With regard to sea turtle species, the United States submits that unfortunately their listing in
Appendix I to CITES has not secured their survival. Indeed, argues the United States, most species of
sea turtles, including most species in the Indian Ocean and South-East Asian region, have continued
to decline precipitously since their CITES listings, some to the brink of extinction.
3.80 Accordingly, while the United States has actively supported and promoted all CITES efforts
to protect sea turtles, both before and after the Appellate Body Report, the United States does not feel
that it can rely on those efforts alone to achieve its goal of effective sea turtle conservation.
3.81 The United States notes that another in ternational mechanism mentioned in the
Appellate Body Report is the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals

81 The question reads as follows: "With reference to the Appellate Body finding (WT/DS58/AB/R,
para. 171) that the United States did not attempt to have recourse to such international mechanisms as exist to
achieve cooperative efforts to protect and conserve sea turtles before imposing the import ban, could the
United States specify if, since the issuance of the Appellate Body Report, the United States had recourse to
those international mechanisms? If yes, please specify the agreements, the bodies and the procedures applied.
If no, please explain why it was found impossible, inappropriate or irrelevant."

(CMS), also known as the Bonn Convention. Sin ce the issuance of the Appellate Body Report, the
United States has successfully worked with the CMS Secretariat in advancing the negotiations toward
the MOU. CMS is contributing its recognized expertise in these negotiations and serves as the interim
secretariat for the MOU.
3.82 Finally, the United States argues that it has had considerable recourse to the World
Conservation Union (IUCN) since the issuance of the Appellate Body Report in furtherance of its goal
to conserve sea turtles. With financial support from the United States and like-minded members,
IUCN has adopted an active programme to support sea turtle conservation efforts in various regions.
IUCN is working with the United States and other countries in the Inter-American region to prepare
for the entry into force of the Inter-American C onvention. IUCN has also actively supported the
negotiating process toward the MOU. At the most recent IUCN Conservation Congress in Amman,
Jordan, the United States worked with other delegations to ensure passage of resolutions calling for
sea turtle conservation efforts worldwide.
3.83 Arguing that there was a lack of cooperative efforts by the United States prior to the
imposition of the unilateral ban, Malaysia submits that the Appellate Body Report emphasized the
"failure of the United States to engage [ … ] Members exporting shrimp to the United States in
serious across-the-board negotiations with the objective of concluding bilateral or multilateral
agreements for the protection and conservation of sea turtles before enforcing the import prohibition
against the shrimp exports of those Members" as bearing heavily on any appraisal of unjustifiable
discrimination.
82
3.84 Malaysia submits that with regard to this failure of the United States "to have prior consistent
recourse to diplomacy as an instrument of environmental protection policy, which produces
discriminatory impacts on countries exporting shrimp to the United States with which no international
agreements are reached or even seriously attempted," 83 the Appellate Body stressed three very
substantive points regarding the importance of international consensus for addressing environmental
measures rather than resorting to unilateral actions. The Appellate Body firstly noted that the
Congress of the United States expressly recognised the importance of securing international
agreements for the protection and conservation of the sea turtles species in enacting Section 609, but
apart from the negotiation of the Inter-American Convention, the United States did not indicate any
serious substantial efforts to carry out the express directions of Congress.
3.85 Secondly the Appellate Body opined that the pr otection and conservation of highly migratory
species of sea turtles demands concerted and cooperative efforts on the part of the many countries
whose waters are traversed in the course of recurrent sea turtle migrations. It noted that the need for
such efforts have been recognised in the WTO itself and in a significant number of other international
instruments and declarations, such as Principle 12 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development, paragraph 2.22(i) of Agenda 21, Article 5 of the Convention on Biological Diversity,
the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, and in the Report of the
WTO Committee on Trade and Environment on the occasion of the Singapore Ministerial
Conference.84
3.86 Thirdly, the Appellate Body found that successful negotiation of the Inter-American
Convention provides "convincing demonstration that an alternative course of action was reasonably
open to the United States for securing the legitimate policy goal of its measure, a course of action
other than the unilateral and non-consensual procedures of the import prohibition under
Section 609".85 According to Malaysia, the well advanced state of negotiations in the Indian Ocean

82 Appellate Body Report, para. 166.
83 Appellate Body Report, para. 167 (emphasis added by Malaysia).
84 Appellate Body Report, para. 168.
85 Appellate Body Report, para. 171.

and South-East Asian Region, and the recognition of the effectiveness of Malaysia's sea turtle
conservation programme also show that there are alternative courses of action reasonably open to the
United States to protect sea turtles in Malaysia. Thus, Malaysia reiterates that as the country invoking
the "exceptions" of Article XX, the United States bears the burden of proving otherwise.
3.87 Malaysia notes that the Original Panel Report concluded that "the best way for the parties to
this dispute to contribute effectively to the protection of sea turtles in a manner consistent with WTO
objectives, including sustainable development, would be to reach cooperative agreements on
integrated conservation strategies,"
86 and notes that this finding by the Panel was not overruled by the
Appellate Body.
3.88 With regard to Malaysia's cooperation efforts, Malaysia claims that, since 1999, it has
participated in discussions with the United States and other Asian countries and has agreed, as stated
in the Sabah Declaration of July 1999 as well as in the Perth Resolution of October 1999, to develop
an MOU. At the Kuantan conference hosted by Malaysia in July 2000, Malaysia, the United States
and 22 other countries adopted a Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and
Management of Marine Turtles and their Habitats of the Indian Ocean and South-East Asian Region
("MOU") and, in the Final Act, agreed to hold negotiations in 2001 on a Conservation and
Management Plan to be appended to this MOU.
3.89 Malaysia refers to the Conservation and Management Plan (CMP) under the MOU, the details
of which have yet to be finalized. It is believed that the United States volunteered to prepare a draft of
the CMP. This draft is expected to be discussed during the next negotiations scheduled to be held in
the first quarter of 2001. Malaysia believes that the Philippines has indicated its interest in hosting
this meeting. The CMP is expected to cover, inter alia, protection of sea turtles, sale and trade in sea
turtles, reducing the threats to sea turtles, research and education, exchange of information, capacity
building and harmonization of domestic laws on the pr otection of sea turtles. The two main issues
that remain unresolved are funding and the setting up of a Secretariat. Of particular concern is where
the Secretariat should be based.
3.90 Malaysia does not agree with the United States that the MOU will not be legally binding even
when the Conservation and Management Plan has been adopted. Malaysia states that signatories to
the MOU had expressed their willingness to make it legally binding in Clause 4 of the Basic
Principles of the MOU, where signatory States expressly demonstrated that they "[w]hen appropriate
[ ... ]will consider amending this MOU to make it legally binding" (emphasis added). The fact that
the signatory States will rather than may consider making the MOU legally binding is a manifestation
of their intention to make it legally binding. This illustrates that there is a real likelihood that the
MOU will be made legally binding. It is ironic that the United States makes this assumption when the
clause was actually inserted at its request.
3.91 Malaysia notes that the MOU also recognises the importance of involving all States in
cooperative conservation and management of marine turtles and their habitats. Therefore the
continuous unilateral action by the United States in the imposition of the import prohibition and the
application of unilaterally determined standards is an act contrary to its obligation to refrain from acts
which would defeat the object and purpose of the MOU, as per Article 18 of the Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties.
3.92 Malaysia also argues that the MOU is attached to the Final Act of the Negotiation meeting to
adopt the text of the MOU, signed on 14 July 2000; that it is an international agreement signed by the
representatives of several countries, including the United Sates. Article 2 of the Vienna Convention
defines a "treaty" as "an international agreement concluded between States in written form and
governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related

86 Panel Report, para. 9.1.

instruments." Further, there is also a direct reference to the Convention on Migratory Species and
other international instruments in the Final Act and the MOU.
3.93 Malaysia's intentions with respect to the MOU are reflected in the fact that Malaysia is a
signatory to the Final Act of the Negotiation Meeting to adopt the text of the MOU in which Clause 4
of the Basic Principles of the MOU states that the signatory States, when appropriate, will consider
amending the MOU to make it legally binding.
3.94 It is the view of Malaysia that, even though the MOU will become legally binding only after
the Conservation and Management Plan has been finalized and annexed to the MOU in 2001, there is
a good faith obligation of the United States to refrain from unilateral acts that would defeat the
purpose of this MOU to recognize the right of exporting countries, including Malaysia, to continue its
conservation programme for sea turtles. Malaysia's turtle conservation programme has been
confirmed as "one of the best conservation programmes for marine turtles anywhere in the world". 87
The unilateral import prohibition of the United States, by ignoring the internationally recognised
effectiveness of Malaysia's existing conservation programme for sea turtles and by acting contrary to
the declared United States' commitment to finalize the multilateral agreement on the conservation of
marine turtles in 2001, continues to constitute "arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between
countries" as prohibited by Article XX of the GATT 1994.
3.95 In the view of the United States , the application of the US measure does not defeat the
purpose of the MOU. By its own terms, the objective of the MOU is "to protect, conserve, replenish
and recover marine turtles and their habitats, based on the best scientific evidence, taking into account
the environmental, socio-economic and cultural characteristics of the signatory States." Section 609
does not in any way undermine this objective. Indeed, Section 609 has the same basic objective as
the MOU – to conserve sea turtles. Moreover, since the MOU does not regulate international trade in
shrimp and shrimp products, the maintenance of the trade restrictions at issue in this dispute cannot be
said to conflict with the provisions of the MOU in any way. The United States recalls that at its
request, a clause was added to paragraph 4 of the "Basic Principles" section of the MOU, providing
that "[w]hen appropriate, the signatory States will consider amending this Memorandum of
Understanding to make it legally binding".
3.96 Malaysia submits that its efforts to reach a negotiated solution in relation to the issue of
conservation of sea turtles in its region encompass participation in various negotiations and related
activities on the conservation of nature, natural resources and environment. In this respect, Malaysia:
(a) Is a party to the ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources signed in 1985;
(b) participated in the 1
st ASEAN Symposium and Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and
Conservation;
(c) is a party to the ASEAN Memorandum of Understanding on Sea Turtle Conservation
and Protection;
(d) is a signatory to the Langkawi Declaration on the Environment, 1989;
(e) participated in bilateral and regional turtle conservation programmes through the
ASEAN Working Group for Nature Conservation; and
(f) is a party to the Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

87 Panel Report, Annex IV, Transcript of the Meeting with the Experts held on 21-22 January 1998,
para. 69.

3.97 With regard to its multilateral and bilateral negotiations since 1996, Malaysia submits that
those include the following:
(a) In 1996, Malaysia launched the Turtle Island Heritage Protected Area in cooperation
with the Philippines to develop uniform conservation measures for turtles on the
islands;
(b) in the same year Malaysia hosted the first South-East Asian Fisheries Development
Centre (SEAFDEC) workshop on marine turtle research and conservation;
(c) Malaysia participated in discussions with the United States and other Asian countries
to develop the Indian Ocean and South-East Asian Region Agreement on the
Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles and their Habitats as per the
Sabah Declaration of July 1999 and the Perth Resolution of October 1999;
(d) in July 2000, Malaysia hosted negotiations on an Indian Ocean and South-East Asian
Regional Agreement on the Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles and
their Habitats, where a Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and
Management of Marine Turtles and their Habitats of the Indian Ocean and South-East
Asian Region was adopted (the Conservation and Management Plan is expected to be
finalised soon);
(e) Malaysia agreed to host jointly with Thailand the Regional Millennium Conference
on Sustainable Fisheries Development under ASEAN and SEAFDEC, scheduled for
November 2001. Topics to be covered are fisheries management, aquaculture, and
post harvest and fisheries trade;
(f) in April 2001, Malaysia will hold a national conference on fisheries management and
conservation. Among the topics to be covered is conservation of endangered species
which includes marine turtles;
(g) Malaysia is in the process of acceding to the Convention on the Conservation of
Migratory Species of Wild Animals; and
(h) Malaysia has bilateral and regional turtle conservation programmes through the
ASEAN Working Group for Nature Conservation.
3.98 The above elements, Malaysia submits, reflect the efforts of Malaysia to act to conserve and
protect sea turtles.
(b) Whether a WTO Member is obliged to seek or obtain international consensus before
resorting to the measure at issue
3.99 Malaysia submits that in order to comply with the Appellate Body's recommendations and
rulings, on the expiry of the reasonable time period, the United States should lift the import
prohibition whilst it engages in negotiations for the conservation of marine turtles. As mentioned
earlier, the United States participation in the deve lopment of an Indian Ocean and South-East Asian
Regional Agreement on the Conservation and their Habitats provides concrete evidence that an
alternative course of action was reasonably open to the United States for securing the policy goal of
its measure rather than imposing an import prohibition.
3.100 When arguing that cooperative efforts to protect and conserve sea turtles must be undertaken
prior to the imposition of the import ban, Malaysia submits that the efforts made by the United States,
set out in its Status Reports to the DSB
88 cannot be deemed to have any retrospective effect in
eliminating the existence of the import prohibition which was present even before the actions taken by
the United States.

88 WT/DS58/15 and Add. 1-4.

3.101 In support of its claims, Malaysia recalls the following finding and conclusion in the Original
Panel Report:
"9.1. In our view, and based on the information provided by the experts, the
protection of sea turtles throughout their life stages is important and TEDs are one of
the recommended means of protection within an integrated conservation strategy. We
consider that the best way for the parties to this dispute to contribute effectively to the
protection of sea turtles in a manner consistent with WTO objectives, including
sustainable development, would be to reach cooperative agreements on integrated
conservation strategies, covering, inter alia , the design, implementation and use of
TEDs while taking into account the specific conditions in the different geographical
areas concerned."
89
3.102 The United States claims that Malaysia's argument in the sense that "cooperative efforts to
protect and conserve sea turtles must be undertaken prior to the imposition of the import ban", is
incorrect for three reasons:
(a) First, the issue in this proceeding is not what steps the United States should have
taken during the past decade to ensure comparable treatment between exporting
nations, but whether or not the United States has taken appropriate steps to address
the aspects of the application of Section 609 that the Appellate Body found
inconsistent with the Article XX chapeau. The United States could not travel back in
time and conduct negotiations with the complaining countries. Rather, the
United States appropriately used the reasonable period of time to engage in serious
sea turtle conservation negotiations with Malaysia and the other complaining
countries. As a result, by the end of the reasonable period of time the United States
had complied with the recommendations and rulings relating to discrimination in the
level of negotiations. Moreover, by the present time - one year after the
December 1999 end of the reasonable period of time - even further progress has been
made in those negotiations.
(b) Second, if Malaysia is arguing that the Panel must ignore the negotiations conducted
during the reasonable period of time because the import restrictions remained in
effect, such an argument is inconsistent with the Dispute Settlement Understanding.
In particular, Article 21.3 provides that "if it is impracticable to comply immediately
with the recommendations and rulings, the Member concerned shall have a
reasonable period of time to do so." In this case, the United States and the four
complainants agreed on a 13-month reasonable period of time. The United States
was within its rights under the DSU to ma intain the import restrictions during the
reasonable period of time, and the United States complied with its obligations under
the DSU by using this period to amend the Revised Guidelines, to offer and provide
technical assistance, and to engage in serious, good faith negotiations on sea turtle
conservation. Thus, the measure as modified by the end of the reasonable period of
time complies with the DSB recommendations and rulings.
(c) Third, nowhere in the Appellate Body Re port does the Appellate Body indicate that
the United States should lift its import prohibition. In fact, the import prohibition on
shrimp harvested in a manner harmful to endangered species of sea turtles is part of
the general design and structure of the US measure, which the Appellate Body found
to be provisionally justified under Article XX(g). As noted, the Appellate Body
instead expressed concerns with respect to the application of Section 609, one
element of which was the extent of efforts to negotiate with differing countries. By

89 Panel Report, para. 9.1.

addressing this aspect of the application of Section 609, without removing the ban on
certain shrimp imports, the United States has directly and fairly complied with the
DSB recommendations and rulings.
3.103 The United States also notes that in its third-party submission, the European Communities
agrees [with the United States] that it would be un reasonable to interpret the finding of the Appellate
Body to require the United States "to travel back in time" and hold negotiations some time in the past.
3.104 As a "corollary" to its submissions on the need for preliminary international consensus,
Malaysia claims that no unilateral actions to deal with environmental measures may be imposed
before any international consensus is reached. This is, according to Malaysia, particularly borne out
by the references cited by the Appellate Body to the various international instruments and
declarations. In the absence of any mutually agreed international standard to conserve and protect sea
turtles, recognition of each country’s sovereign right to manage and maintain its own conservation
programme for sea turtles should be respected. This is consonant with the principle of national
sovereignty which is accorded recognition in several multilateral environmental treaties, in particular,
Articles XIII and XIV of the Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES), Articles 3 and 5 and the Preamble of the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD), and Article 3 and the Preamble of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC).
90
3.105 The United States argues that the rule proposed by Malaysia is most definitely not a corollary
of any Appellate Body findings. To the contrary, such a rule is flatly inconsistent with the Appellate
Body Report and would effectively eviscerate the Article XX(g) exception. In fact, Malaysia
presented this very same argument to the Appellate Body, and the Appellate Body declined to adopt
it.91
3.106 The United States recalls that the Appellate Body found that the general design and structure
of Section 609 was provisionally justified under Article XX(g), but that certain aspects of the
application of Section 609 were inconsistent with the chapeau of Article XX. Part of the general
design and structure of Section 609 was for the United States to initiate sea turtle conservation
negotiations with affected countries. The United States argues that the law, however, does not
contemplate the completion of such negotiations before the effective date of the selective import
prohibition. And, in fact, the import prohibition under Section 609 went into effect before such
negotiations were completed with any exporting country. The Appellate Body found no defect with
this fundamental aspect of the US measure. The Appellate Body thus approved of a measure that, by
its general design and structure, was inconsistent with the purported "corollary" proposed by
Malaysia.
3.107 With regard to Malaysia's argument on this particular issue, the United States finds that such a
"corollary" in the Appellate Body Report would amount to grave legal error. The United States argues
that Malaysia's "corollary" is inconsistent with the Appellate Body's reasoning with respect to
negotiations. The unjustifiable discrimination found by the Appellate Body was that the
United States' efforts to negotiate with Western Hemisphere nations were more extensive than the
negotiations with the complaining, Indian Ocean nations. Since the United States did not complete
negotiations with Western Hemisphere nations before imposing the import prohibition, the fact that
the United States has similarly not yet completed negotiations with Indian Ocean countries is not an
instance of "unjustifiable discrimination." To the contrary, this aspect of Section 609 results in the
same treatment for both Indian Ocean nations and Western Hemisphere nations.

90 Panel Report, para. 3.99.
91 Panel Report, para. 3.275 (summarizing Malaysia's argument that conservation measures may only
be adopted on a cooperative basis); Appellate Body Report, para. 52 (incorporating by reference Malaysia's
argument to the Panel on this issue).

3.108 The United States also argues that in comparing the length of time it took to negotiate the
Inter-American Convention with the time it is taking to negotiate the MOU, one must also keep in
mind that the former is a legally binding instrument, while the latter is not. Legally binding
instruments almost always take longer time to negotiate and conclude than non-legally binding
instruments, if only because the former are subject to higher levels of scrutiny. Governments often
tend to take greater care in crafting provisions of legally binding instruments, which must be approved
at the highest levels, than they take in crafting provisions of non-legally binding instruments. This
heightened degree of care usually translates into longer negotiating periods.
3.109 Malaysia submits that the United States has misunderstood the Malaysian submission. The
"corollary" that no unilateral actions to deal with environmental measures may be imposed before
any international consensus is reached is premised on Malaysia's submission that cooperative efforts
to protect sea turtles must be undertaken prior to the imposition of the import ban, after an analysis of
the Appellate Body's examination of the standard of "unjustifiable discrimination". It is significant to
note that the words "may be" have been used and not "shall". The elements of "cooperative efforts",
"international mechanisms" and "international consensus" with the objective concluding bilateral or
multilateral agreements for the protection and conservation of sea turtles before imposing the import
prohibition has been considered vital by the Appellate Body whilst examining the standard of
"unjustifiable discrimination." This deduction is made based on the Appellate Body's decision
wherein it had acknowledged that the WTO itself and a host of international instruments and
declarations essentially state that environmental measures addressing transboundary or global
environmental problems should as far as possible be based on an international consensus and
unilateral actions to deal with environmental challenges outside the jurisdiction of the importing
country should be avoided.
92 Based on the reasoning above, it is not correct for the United States to
state that Malaysia seems to step back from this argument. Malaysia submits that the statement that
the Appellate Body Report did not exclude the legal justifiability of unilateral import restrictions
based on Article XX if international agreements for the protection of sea turtles cannot be secured, is
consistent with the aforesaid reasoning.
3.110 The United States notes that Australia, in its third-party submission, is concerned about the
continuation of an import ban based on a unilaterally determined conservation standard to address a
transboundary or global environmental issue. Australia presents a legal argument to support its policy
concern. The United States submits that this argument, however, is based on an unsupported leap
from a description of the Appellate Body findings to the flawed premise that the United States must
show that its import ban is now based on "consensual and multilateral procedures". Australia does not
cite any Appellate Body finding that environmental measures must be based on "consensual and
multilateral procedures," and, in fact, the Appellate Body made no such finding.
3.111 The United States argues that the Appellate Body uses the phrase "consensual and multilateral
procedures" only once, in a discussion of the Inter-American Convention on Sea Turtle Conservation.
Specifically, the Appellate Body notes that: "[t]he Inter-American Convention demonstrates the
conviction of its signatories, including the United States, that consensual and multilateral procedures
are available and feasible for the establishment of programs for the conservation of sea turtles." 93
From this observation, claims the United States, the Appellate Body does not jump, as Australia does,
to the conclusion that all environmental measures must be based on "consensual and multilateral
procedures," nor that all countries that participated in similar negotiations would share such
convictions. Indeed, such conclusions would be illogical and untenable, since, depending on the
positions of the Parties to the negotiation, it may not be possible to reach consensus.
3.112 The United States notes that Australia also makes a related argument that the progress in the
ongoing Indian Ocean and South-East Asian regional negotiations proves that the United States has an

92 Appellate Body Report, para. 168.
93 Appellate Body Report, para. 170 (emphasis added by the United States).

alternative avenue for addressing its sea turtle conservation concerns. In the opinion of the
United States, this argument is based on two flawed premises. First, Australia implies that prior to
invoking the Article XX(g) exception, a WTO Member must exhaust all possibilities for achieving its
goals in other ways. The WTO Agreement contains no such requirement, and the Appellate Body
made no such finding in this regard. In fact, the Appellate Body affirmatively found that the means of
the US measure were reasonably related to its ends (i.e., sea turtle conservation).
3.113 Second, continues the United States, the progress made in multilateral negotiations in the
Indian Ocean and South-East Asian region will not necessarily translate into the achievement of the
environmental goal of the US measure. In other words, the negotiations may, or may not, result in
multilaterally-agreed steps that will save sea turtles from extinction. One fact, however, is more
certain: if insufficient steps are taken to reduce incidental sea turtle mortality in shrimp trawling
operations, sea turtles will be subject to irrevocable and permanent extinction. In short, the fact that
the United States has engaged in multilateral negotiations cannot, as Australia suggests, be used as a
basis for finding that the United States has not complied with the DSB recommendations and rulings.
3.114 Third, the United States also recalls that the Appellate Body uses this observation to support
its finding that the failure of the United States to negotiate seriously with some countries but not with
other Members that export shrimp to the United States, resulted in unjustifiable discrimination under
the chapeau of Article XX(g). The United States claims that the Appellate Body repeatedly mentions
that the issue was whether or not the United States pursued negotiations with the appellees; nowhere
did the Appellate Body purport to impose a require ment that the parties to such negotiations must
reach an agreement. Indeed, such an a priori requirement, as the Appellate Body wrote, would render
Article XX " inutile." If the importing and exporting nation reach agreement on a particular
conservation measure, neither WTO Member would likely need recourse to WTO dispute settlement
procedures. The Appellate Body Report expressly rejected the creation of such a priori tests for the
application of Article XX exceptions, and did so in the strongest possible terms:
94
"The Panel, in effect, constructed an a priori test that purports to define a category of
measures which, ratione materiae , fall outside the justifying protection of
Article XX's chapeau. In the present case, the Panel found that the US measure at
stake fell within that class of excluded measures because Section 609 conditions
access to the domestic shrimp market of the United States on the adoption by
exporting countries of certain conservation policies prescribed by the United States.
It appears to us, however, that conditioning access to a Member's domestic market on
whether exporting Members comply with, or adopt, a policy or policies unilaterally
prescribed by the importing Member may, to some degree, be a common aspect of
measures falling within the scope of one or another of the exceptions (a) to (j) of
Article XX. Paragraphs (a) to (j) comprise measures that are recognized as
exceptions to substantive obligations established in the GATT 1994, because the
domestic policies embodied in such measures have been recognized as important and
legitimate in character. It is not nece ssary to assume that requiring from exporting
countries compliance with, or adoption of, certain policies (although covered in
principle by one or another of the exceptions) prescribed by the importing country,
renders a measure a priori incapable of justification under Article XX. Such an
interpretation renders most, if not all, of the specific exceptions of Article XX inutile,
a result abhorrent to the principles of interpretation we are bound to apply."
3.115 In response to Malaysia's disagreement with the unilateral determinations of the United States
under Section 609, the United States explains that neither the Appellate Body Report nor the terms of
the Article XX chapeau exclude the possibility that an importing Member may make certain
determinations regarding imported goods. The test of the Article XX chapeau is whether a measure is

94 Appellate Body Report, para. 121 (emphasis added by the United States).

applied in a manner that results in arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination, not whether
determinations are made by a Member itself or in conjunction with other Members. Individual
Members have the capacity to act fairly and without discrimination; conversely, multilateral action is
no guarantee against discrimination.
3.116 Moreover, the chapeau of Article XX makes clear that any single Member of the WTO may
invoke its provision. In that regard, it is worth recalling the precise words of the chapeau of
Article XX:
"Subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner which
would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between
countries where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on
international trade, nothing in this Agr eement shall be construed to prevent the
adoption or enforcement ba any Member of measures [described in paragraphs (a)
through (j)]." (Emphasis added by the United States).
3.117 Finally, the United States explains that the Panel is to examine whether the measure – that is
the actions of the United States – is consistent with the chapeau of Article XX. The United States can
control, and is responsible, for its actions. Thus, the United States can take steps to meet the
requirements of the chapeau by expending efforts to negotiate. However, the United States cannot
control, and cannot be held responsible, for the actions of its negotiating partners. It would not make
sense if the issue of US compliance turned on the actions of other WTO Members, including the
complaining parties. This would be the precise result if, as Malaysia suggests, the United States must
reach agreement with other parties before applying the measure.
(iii) Other aspects
(a) Consideration of the situation of exporting countries in the Revised Guidelines
3.118 The United States claims that, in order to comply with the recommendations and rulings of
the DSB, it introduced modifications to the 1996 Guidelines governing the application of Section 609.
For that purpose, on 25 March 1999, the US Department of State published a notice in the US Federal
Register that summarized the Appellate Body Report, proposed measures by which the United States
would implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, and sought comments from any
interested parties.
95 On July 8, 1999, the Department of State published a second notice in the
US Federal Register that summarized the comments received and set forth the measures that the
United States would take to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, taking into
account those comments.96
3.119 The United States also mentions that the Appellate Body found that the most conspicuous
flaw in the application of Section 609 is an apparent requirement that "all other exporting Members
[ … ] adopt essentially the same policy (together with an approved enforcement programme) as that
applied to, and enforced on, United States domestic shrimp trawlers."97
3.120 The United States claims that it directly addressed this "most conspicuous flaw" through the
adoption of Revised Guidelines governing the application of Section 609. Those Revised Guidelines
introduce added flexibility in a wide variety of ways. Notably, a country may be certified as having a
comparable sea turtle conservation programme even if such country does not adopt a TEDs

95 Notice of Proposed Revisions to the Guidelines for the Implementation of Section 609 of
Public Law 101-162, Relating to the Protection of Sea Turtles in Shrimp Trawl Fishing Operations, US
Department of State, Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 57, 25 March 1999, Public Notice 3013, pp. 14481-14485
96 Revised Guidelines, Annex to this Report.
97 Appellate Body Report, para. 161.

programme, and that the United States "will take fully into account any demonstrated differences
between the shrimp fishing conditions in the United States and those in other nations."98
3.121 The United States also recalls that another aspect of the application of Section 609 which
contributed to the Appellate Body's finding of unjustifiable discrimination was that "when this dispute
was before the Panel and before us, the United States did not permit imports of shrimp harvested by
commercial shrimp trawl vessels using TEDs comparable in effectiveness to those required in the
United States if those shrimp originated in waters of countries not certified under Section 609."
99 The
United States, however, modified this aspect of the application of Section 609 even prior to the
release of the Appellate Body Report. Specifically, since August 1998, the United States has
permitted the importation of shrimp harvested by TEDs, even if the exporting nation is not certified
pursuant to Section 609.
3.122 Malaysia submits that an examination of the Revised Guidelines reveals they are still very
biased towards meeting the United States’ shrimping conditions even in cases where the fishing
environment of a harvesting nation does not pose a threat to sea turtles or the harvesting nation adopts
a regulatory programme bearing the common feature of "incidental taking of sea turtles in the course
of commercial shrimp trawl harvesting" (emphasis added by Malaysia). This is evident from the part
entitled "Guidelines for Making Certification Decisions."
3.123 Malaysia claims that the United States has failed to address other aspects of the application of
the United States' measure which constitutes the unjustifiable discrimination faulted by the
Appellate Body. The Appellate Body held that Se ction 609 is "in effect an economic embargo which
requires all other exporting Members, if they wish to exercise their GATT rights, to adopt essentially
the same policy (together with an approved enforcement programme) as that applied to, and enforced
on United States domestic shrimp trawlers."100 Malaysia claims that this element requiring " all other
exporting Members" to adopt "essentially the same" policy is still present in the Revised Guidelines.
In spite of the Revised Guidelines, Section 609 only allows import of shrimp harvested by
commercial shrimp trawl vessels using TEDs compar able in effectiveness to those required in the
United States. 101 Therefore Malaysia insists that this only allows import of shrimps harvested
exclusively by means in accordance with the United States programme.102
3.124 Malaysia also claims that by setting out this condition, the United States is subjecting
exporting nations to its own unilaterally determined st andard as to what constitute "means that do not
pose a threat to sea turtles". Therefore, in order to enable its shrimp to enter into the United States, a
harvesting nation will have to adopt a means of harvesting shrimps that the United States will
consider as not posing "a threat to sea turtles". Hence, the harvesting nations will have to adopt
"essentially the same policy" as that of the United States if they wish to exercise their GATT rights.
This, Malaysia submits, is the "intended and actual coercive effect on the specific policy decisions
made by foreign governments" which the Appellate Body has ruled to be the "most conspicuous
flaw"
103 of the US measure.
3.125 Malaysia submits that what Malaysia is complaining about is the fact that the
Revised Guidelines require harvesting nations to have conservation measures comparable to that of
the United States before the product can be exported into the United States. In other words, before it
can be brought into the United States, the harvesting nation must have a turtle conservation
programme that is comparable to that of the United States. The effect is, sovereign harvesting nations

98 Revised Guidelines, Annex to this Report: Section II.B.(a)(2).
99 Appellate Body Report, para. 165.
100 Appellate Body Report, para. 161.
101 Revised Guidelines, Annex to this Report: para. 2.
102 Ibid.
103 Appellate Body Report, para. 161.

are coerced into adopting sea turtle conservation measures comparable to the one that has been
unilaterally determined by the United States.
3.126 Moreover, Malaysia submits that there is no compliance by virtue of the fact that it is
Malaysia’s sovereign right to monitor its own co nservation programme for protection of sea turtles
and it is not for the United States to examine the effectiveness of Malaysia’s programme vis-à-vis its
own in the absence of any mutually agreed sta ndards to govern the effectiveness of such a
conservation programme. Furthermore, the heavy burden imposed on Malaysia to demonstrate to the
United States that it is enforcing a "comparably effective regulatory program" (even though without
the use of TEDs) through empirical data supported by objective scientific studies of sufficient
duration and scope is "[an] abuse and misuse of an exception of Article XX [as] the detailed operating
provisions of the measure [the Revised Guidelines] prescribe the arbitrary or unjustifiable activity."104
3.127 In response to the question from the Panel concerning a situation where Malaysia would
apply for certification to the United States 105, Malaysia contends that it should not be subjected to the
application of provisions that have been determined to be flawed. The flaw in these provisions has
been maintained in spite of the modifications made to Section 609. Further, Malaysia maintains that
no sovereign nation should be subjected to the United States' own unilaterally determined standard on
how conservation of sea turtles is to be carried out, the very element that has been faulted by the
Appellate Body.
3.128 Since the Original Panel, Malaysia has submitted that it does not have the same shrimp
harvesting conditions as those in the United States. The fact that the Revised Guidelines address
"incidental taking of sea turtles in the course of commercial shrimp trawl harvesting" (emphasis
added) completely ignores the fact that other harvesting nations, like Malaysia, do not practise
commercial shrimp trawl harvesting like the United States. From the outset, therefore, Malaysia is
already at a disadvantage as a result of this fact. Since Malaysia does not practise shrimp trawling, it
does not have recourse to the Revised Guidelines as the Guidelines deal only with commercial shrimp
trawl harvesting, whereas in Malaysia shrimp is a by-catch from fish trawling activities. Therefore,
the incidental capture of sea turtles in Malaysia is due to fish trawling. That is why Malaysia claims
that it is clear that Malaysia's programme for turtle conservation would never be comparable to the
United States. Malaysia’s turtle conservation measures have been found to be one of the best in the
world, but it would never be comparable to the United States programme as it is tailored to address
the conditions unique and peculiar to Malaysia.
3.129 Malaysia notes the claim of the United States that it has yet to have the opportunity to take
into account the peculiar and unique circumstances of Malaysia because Malaysia has not sought
certification, hence these unique and peculiar circumstances have not been presented to them.
Malaysia submits that it is not for to the United States to unilaterally examine the conditions
prevailing in Malaysia, and then make a unilateral decision as to whether Malaysia’s programme is
comparable to the United States' unilaterally dete rmined programme. No sovereign nation should be
subjected to such scrutiny. This is also one of the reasons why Malaysia has not chosen to seek
certification.

104 Appellate Body Report, para. 160.
105 The question reads as follows: "Should Malaysia apply for certification to the United States, would
there be elements in the Malaysian programme [for sea turtle conservation] [ … ] which would make it
impossible for the United States to certify it? Why?" In response to this question, the United States replies that
"there are no elements in the Malaysian program [ … ] that would make it impossible for the United States to
certify Malaysia pursuant to Section 609. As set forth in the implementing guidelines for Section 609 [the
Revised Guidelines] [ … ], the United States would review any documentary evidence that Malaysia may wish
to provide to demonstrate that its regulatory program to protect sea turtles in the course of shrimp fishing is
comparable to the US program. The fact that Malaysia is choosing to protect sea turtles through means that do
not involve the use of TEDs is not a bar to certification, in light of the modifications made to the guidelines in
implementation of the DSB recommendations and rulings."

3.130 Clarifying this point in its response to a question from the Panel as to whether there are any
turtles caught as incidental by-catch in the course of shrimp trawling, Malaysia responds that in
Malaysia, turtles caught as incidental by-catch are only in fish trawling. Malaysia does not practise
shrimp trawling. Further, in Malaysia, sea turtle mortality is not due to fishery activities, but is
attributed to other causes, for instance pollution. Some incidents of death result from choking due to
the consumption by turtles of plastic materials, whic h have been thrown into the sea, that the turtles
mistake for food.
3.131 In short, Malaysia recalls the unilateral imposition by the United States of a ban on imports of
certain shrimp and shrimp products from Malaysia, and the unilateral imposition by the United States
of a certification system that does not take into account the internationally recognized effectiveness of
Malaysia's conservation programme for marine turtles without the use of TEDs, nor the particular
circumstances that prevail in Malaysia. Malaysia claims that this results in continued "unjustifiable
discrimination between countries" prohibited by the chapeau of Article XX.
3.132 In the view of the United States, Malaysia argues that the Revised Guidelines are not more
flexible because they still require "comparability" with the United States' TEDs programme. This
argument, however, reflects a fundamental misreading of the Appellate Body Report. Section 609, as
part of its essential structure noted by the Appellate Body, requires a comparison between the
programmes of the United States and those of other countries. The Appellate Body, claims the
United States, found that this aspect of Section 609 was reasonably related to sea turtle conservation
and provisionally within the scope of Article XX(g). The flaw found by the Appellate Body was that
the US Guidelines appeared to require exporting nations to adopt a specific policy to achieve a
particular take rate of sea turtles in shrimp fisher ies. And this flaw has been explicitly addressed in
the Revised Guidelines. The Revised Guidelines are very clear that countries seeking certification
may select any policy, so long as the result is comparable to the US programme in terms of sea turtle
conservation.
3.133 To explain the particularities of the Revised Guidelines and its compliance with the
recommendations and ruling of the DSB, the United States, in its answer to a question
106by the Panel,
highlights the manner in which the Revised Guidelines are applied and how the different policies are
compared, granting enough flexibility to the applicants.
3.134 The United States explains that with respect to any country that expresses interest in this
matter (i.e. applies for certification), the Department of State solicits any information that a country
may have to indicate it has adopted a regulatory programme for the protection of sea turtles in its
commercial shrimp fisheries comparable to the US programme. The Department of State closely
reviews such information in consultation with the United States National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) in light of the provisions of Section 609 and the attendant Revised Guidelines
3.135 The United States claims that it not only considers the regulatory programme for the
conservation of sea turtles; it also takes into consideration all other available information about the
fishing environment and sea turtle populations of the country, as provided by the country in question,
and as may be produced by other reputable sources, including established scientific, fishery, industrial
and environmental organizations.
3.136 The United States clarifies that officials of the Department of State and NMFS also travel to
the country in question to engage in a face-to-face dialogue with its governmental counterparts. The
purpose of these visits is to discuss the regulatory programme of the country, answer questions about

106 The text of the question reads: "Could the United States describe the methodology used to assess
the comparability of foreign regulatory programmes with the US programme? For instance, could the
United States provide the Panel with materials describing how this assessment was made in the cases of
Australia and Pakistan?"

its comparison to the US programme, and to review aspects of the former programme in practice. For
example, if a country’s programme requires the use of TEDs, US officials work with foreign officials
to review the design and installation of those TEDs, as well as the efforts made to ensure at least
adequate enforcement. The visits almost always include the provision of hands-on technical
assistance with fishermen and fisheries managers.
3.137 The United States gives two particular examples of countries whose shrimp and shrimp
products are exported to the United States after having applied for certification since the adoption of
the Revised Guidelines: Australia and Pakistan. With regard to Australia, the United States mentions
that Australia has not sought certification pursuant to Section 609, but has rather sought to export
shrimp harvested in two areas of Australia (the Spencer Gulf and the Northern Prawn Fisheries), on
grounds that the harvesting of those shrimp does not harm endangered sea turtles. In the case of the
Spencer Gulf, Australia provided comprehensive information indicating that there was virtually no
interaction between sea turtles and shrimp fisheries in that cold-water area. Following careful review
of that information by the Department of State and NMFS, the United States readily agreed to permit
the importation of shrimp from the Spencer Gulf. Si milarly, Australia sought to export shrimp from
its Northern Prawn Fishery following its imposition of a mandatory use of TEDs in that area. The
Department of State and the NMFS reviewed inform ation provided by Australia demonstrating that
the TEDs were comparable to those required for use in the United States. United States' officials from
these agencies also visited the shrimp fishing grounds in the Northern Prawn Fishery and engaged in a
cordial and informative exchange of information with their Australian counterparts. As a result of
these undertakings, the United States agreed to permit the importation of this shrimp as well. Australia
in its third-party submission acknowledges that the United States has made changes in the application
of its measure. In particular, Australia confirms that under the Revised Guidelines, the United States
now permits imports from Australia's Spencer Gulf region and Northern Prawn Fishery.
3.138 Pakistan, in contrast, explains the United States, sought to be certified pursuant to Section 609
on the grounds that it had implemented a comprehensive programme that was comparable to the
US programme. The process followed by the United States to review this request was nevertheless
similar to the process followed in reviewing the Au stralian requests. The Department of State and
NMFS reviewed information provided by Pakistan, which showed that, in one of its two coastal
provinces it had banned trawl fishing outright, while in the other it had begun requiring TEDs.
Following a visit by US officials to Pakistan and further exchanges of information, the Department of
State certified that Pakistan had indeed adopted a programme that was comparable to the
US programme.
3.139 Furthermore, the United States' answer to the complementary question of the Panel on the
description of the precise criteria used in the comparison of the regulatory programmes provides a
clear and better comprehension of the passages from the Revised Guidelines that set forth the criteria
for certification on the basis of having a comparable regulatory programme.
107
3.140 The United States, when referring to the pr ecise criteria used in comparing a foreign
regulatory programme based on TEDs usage, explains that if the government of the harvesting nation
seeks certification on the basis of having adopted a TEDs programme, certification shall be made if a
programme includes the following:
(a) Required use of TEDs – a requirement that all commercial shrimp trawl vessels
operating in waters in which there is a likelihood of intercepting sea turtles use TEDs
at all times. TEDs must be comparable in effectiveness to those used in the

107 The question reads as follows: "[ … ] can [the Un ited States] give a clear description of the precise
criteria used in the comparison of regulatory progra mmes of the applicant countries with the United States
programme?"

United States. Any exceptions to this requirement must be comparable to those of the
US programme described above; and
(b) Enforcement – a credible enforcement effort that includes monitoring for compliance
and appropriate sanctions.
3.141 The United States adds that a country may also be certified on the basis of having a regulatory
programme not involving the use of TEDs. If the government of a harvesting nation demonstrates
that it has implemented and is enforcing a comparably effective regulatory programme to protect sea
turtles in the course of shrimp trawl fishing without the use of TEDs, that nation will also be eligible
for certification. Such a demonstration, explains the United States, would need to be based on
empirical data supported by objective scientific studies of sufficient duration and scope to provide the
information for a reliable determination. In review ing any such information, the Department of State
will take fully into account any demonstrated differences between the shrimp fishing conditions in the
United States and those in other nations, as well as information available from other sources.
3.142 In addition, explains the United States, countries may also seek to be certified on the basis of
having a shrimp fishing environment that does not pose a threat of incidental taking of sea turtles.
The Revised Guidelines provide that the Department of State shall certify any harvesting nation on
this basis that meets any of the following precise criteria:
(a) Any harvesting nation without any of the relevant species of sea turtles occurring in
waters subject to its jurisdiction;
(b) any harvesting nation that harvests shrimp exclusively by means that do not pose a
threat to sea turtles; e.g., any nation that harvests shrimp exclusively by artisanal
means; or
(c) any nation whose commercial shrimp trawling operations take place exclusively in
waters subject to its jurisdiction in which sea turtles do not occur.
3.143 The United States also refers to the particular situation of uncertified countries that may also
export shrimp to the United States if such shrimp is harvested in a manner that does not pose a threat
to sea turtles. According to the Revised Guidelines, the import prohibitions imposed pursuant to
Section 609 do not apply to shrimp or products of shrimp harvested under the following conditions,
since such harvesting does not adversely affect sea turtles:
(a) Shrimp harvested in an aquaculture facility in which the shrimp spend at least 30 days
in pond prior to being harvested.
(b) Shrimp harvested by commercial shrimp trawl vessels using TEDs comparable in
effectiveness to those required in the United States.
(c) Shrimp harvested exclusively by means that do not involve the retrieval of fishing
nets by mechanical devices, such as winches, pulleys, power blocks or other devices
providing mechanical advantage, or by vessels using gear that, in accordance with the
US programme described above, would not require TEDs.
(d) Shrimp harvested by any other means or under any other circumstances that the
Department of State may determine, following consultation with the NMFS, does not
pose a threat of the incidental taking of sea turtles. The Department of State shall
publish any such determinations in the Federal Register and shall notify affected
foreign governments and other interested parties directly.

3.144 The United States also mentions that in accordance with the current policy, shrimp harvested
in the northern shrimp fishery in Brazil, where the Government of Brazil is enforcing a requirement to
use TEDs, is being imported into the United States, even though Brazil does not qualify for
certification due to the lack of TEDs use in the southern Brazilian fishery.
3.145 Finally, the United States argues that with regard to Malaysia's concerns with the implications
of the US measure for Malaysian sovereignty, such issues of sovereignty were fully discussed during
the Original Panel proceeding. At that time, the United States pointed out that the US measure did not
affect Malaysia's sovereignty - the United States could not force any nation to adopt any particular
environmental policy. In contrast, claims the Un ited States, control of a nation's borders is a
fundamental aspect of sovereignty, and the US measure is simply an application of its sovereign right
to exclude certain products from importation. Whether or not the United States, in acceding to the
WTO Agreement, agreed to refrain from such actions is the subject of this dispute. And, in any event,
the Appellate Body Report addresses and resolves these issues. The Appellate Body found that the
United States has a jurisdictional nexus with resp ect to the sea turtles found in the complainants'
waters, and the Appellate Body found that the general design and structure of Section 609 falls within
the scope of Article XX(g).
(b) The ruling of the United States Court of International Trade
3.146 Malaysia submits that since the United States Court of International Trade ("CIT") in the case
of Turtle Island Restoration Network and Anor. v. Robert L. Mallett, Acting Secretary of Commerce
and Anor. and National Fisheries Institute Inc . ruled that the United States Administration is ordered
immediately from relying on the part of the Revised Guidelines which violates Section 609, it would
appear that the relevant part of the revision made to the Revised Guidelines is null and void since the
Revised Guidelines are ultra vires Public Law 101–162, in particular Section 609. Since a part of the
Revised Guidelines which the United States seeks to rely upon as an element of its implementation
process is being rendered a nullity vis-à-vis its parent legislation, Malaysia submits that there is
therefore no compliance of the recommendation and rulings of the DSB by the United States.
3.147 Malaysia argues that the CIT held that the United States Administration determination(s) to
grant United States entry to shrimp or products from shrimp which have been harvested with trawls
equipped with US-comparable TEDs in waters of nations not duly certified by the President to the
US Congress pursuant to Section 609 (on a shipment-b y-shipment basis) violate that statute on its
face.
108 On page 44 of its judgement, the CIT also held that the United States Administration
"[defendants] be enjoined immediately from relying on that part of their guidelines which is violative
of Section 609 on its face [ … ]".
3.148 Malaysia claims that according to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties, "A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification of its failure to
perform a treaty". This was also the legal position adopted by the Appellate Body when it opined that
"the United States bears responsibility for acts of all its departments of government, including its
judiciary"109. On this score Malaysia submits that the United States bears responsibility for the CIT
decision. Neither can the United States excuse itself that just because the CIT did not restrain it by
the non-issuance of an injunctive relief, it is in a position to maintain its current policy. Malaysia
submits that pending the outcome of the appeal the CIT decision stands.
3.149 The United States notes that the Appellate Body explained that another aspect of the
application of Section 609 which contributed to the finding of unjustifiable discrimination was that
"when this dispute was before the Panel and be fore us" - that is, the Appellate Body - "the
United States did not permit imports of shrimp harvested by commercial shrimp trawl vessels using

108 Turtle Island Restoration Network, v. Robert Mallett, 110 Fed. Supp. 2d 1005 (CIT 2000).
109 Appellate Body Report, para. 173.

TEDs comparable in effectiveness to those required in the United States if those shrimp originated in
waters of countries not certified under Section 609." The United States, however, modified this
aspect of the application of Section 609 even prior to the release of the Appellate Body Report.
Specifically, since August 1998, the United States has permitted the importation of shrimp harvested
by TEDs, even if the exporting nation is not certified pursuant to Section 609.
3.150 With regard to the Malaysian submission re ferring to the judgement of the CIT, the
United States claims that Malaysia's argument, however, is incorrect, and is based on a
misunderstanding of the ruling. The CIT did find, as Malaysia notes, that in its view Section 609 did
not allow the importation from non-certified nations of shrimp harvested by TEDs. The court did not,
however, order the US Department of State to change its current policy. The US Executive Branch
does not agree with the court's interpretation, and the issue is currently under review by an appellate
court. This appellate process will take considerable time to reach any conclusion. In the meantime,
the United States plans to maintain its current policy. Thus, the ongoing legal proceedings have not
resulted in any change in the US measure which is at issue and within the Panel’s terms of reference.
In short, the United States permits the importation of shrimp harvested by TEDs, even if the exporting
nation is not certified pursuant to Section 609, in accordance with the recommendations and rulings of
the DSB.
3.151 The United States mentions that it does not expect a decision in that case for at least eight
months or more, as the parties are still in the process of exchanging written briefs. In addition, there
is always the possibility that the dates for submitting briefs may be extended. After the parties have
completed exchanging written briefs, the court must set a date for oral arguments. Usually the court
sets an oral argument date at least three months ahead of time. Its best estimate is that a date for the
oral hearing would be set at the end of June or early July 2001, at the earliest. Following the oral
hearing, the court may issue its decision. The court is not required by law to issue its decision by any
particular date. Normally decisions are issued within three to nine months after argument, but it could
be longer. Furthermore, there remains the possibility of another round of review within the court of
appeals itself (i.e. either party may request a review by all of the judges on the court of appeals rather
than a review by a subgroup of judges). In addition, notes the United States, there remains the
possibility that the case could be appealed to the US Supreme Court. As a result, it may take
considerable time before the Turtle Island Restoration Network case finishes working its way through
the US judicial system.
3.152 With regard to the possible outcome of the appeal, the United States is of the opinion that the
outcome of this litigation will likely be one of two possibilities. First, the Court of Appeals could
reverse the decision by the CIT that the determination of the Department of State to permit the
importation of TED-caught shrimp from countries not certified pursuant to Section 609 violates that
law. If this were the case, the United States w ould be able to continue to import TED-caught shrimp
from uncertified nations, as long as the shipments were accompanied by the appropriate customs
documentation.
3.153 The second possible outcome, explains the United States, would be for the US Court of
Appeals to affirm the lower court’s decision, in which case the Court of Appeals probably also would
enforce the prohibition against importing any shrimp or shrimp products from non-certified countries.
Such a prohibition might not be enforced until after all appellate options had been exhausted. Such
options would include consideration of whether to request review by the US Supreme Court.
3.154 The United States considers that the Court of Appeals may render any number of other
decisions that it cannot predict at this point. But these two outcomes are the most likely at this time.
3.155 The United States also argues that it is also worth noting that it was precisely this aspect of
the US measure upon which the Panel Report was based. In particular, this Panel reasoned that the
country-wide application of the import prohibitio n, including with respect to TED-caught shrimp,

raised the possibility that exporting nations might be subject to inconsistent requirements, resulting in
a threat to the multilateral trading system. Since the US import prohibition no longer applies to
TED-caught shrimp, the reason why this Panel originally found the US measure outside the scope of
Article XX would no longer apply.
3.156 Finally, the United States argues that the Mexican submission notes Mexico's view that a
definitive court ruling regarding TED-harvested shrimp imported from non-certified countries would
be a "serious setback" to US implementation. However, the US measure at issue in this proceeding
does allow the importation of TED-caught shrimp from non-certified countries. In any proceeding, it
would be possible for one or more parties to specu late on future changes in the measure at issue.
However, such hypothetical scenarios are not before the Panel. Rather, the issue here is whether the
US measure currently in effect is consistent with the obligations of the United States under the
WTO Agreement.
(c) Technical assistance
3.157 The United States mentions that the Appellate Body also found that differences in levels of
available technical assistance contributed to its finding of unjustifiable discrimination, because far
greater efforts to transfer TEDs technology successfully were made to certain exporting countries than
to others. The United States provided less technical assistance to those nations that first became
affected by the law at the end of 1995 as a result of the decision of the US Court of International
Trade.
3.158 The United States argues that it has reiterated many times its offer of technical assistance and
training in the design, construction, installation and operation of TEDs to any government that
requests it. The United States has made clear that any government wanting to receive such training
need only make a formal request to the United States.
3.159 The United States also submits that it has provided such assistance and training to a number
of governments and other organizations in the I ndian Ocean and South-East Asian region since the
DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report in this ma tter. For example, in July 1999, the US National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) presented a paper on TEDs and technology transfer at the sea turtle
symposium in Sabah, Malaysia, discussed above. In September 1999, NMFS officials travelled to
Bahrain to assist that government in the development of its TEDs programme. In July 2000, the
NMFS hosted a visit to the United States by the Bahrain Director of Fisheries for discussions on
TEDs and other fishery management subjects. The NMFS also conducted a TEDs workshop in
Karachi, Pakistan in January 2000, focusing on evaluation and training issues. The United States
believes that this workshop assisted the Government of Pakistan in its adoption of a successful TEDs
programme. The NMFS conducted similar training in three places in Australia in July 2000
(Karumba, Cairns and Darwin) relating to the Austra lian Northern Prawn Fishery. In April 2000, the
NMFS hosted a training seminar relating to TEDs for technical experts from the South-East Asian
Fisheries Development Center.
3.160 The United States recalls that one of the complaining countries, Pakistan, accepted this offer,
and Pakistan now has been certified under Section 609. The United States claims that Malaysia does
not contest that the United States has made such good faith offers of technical assistance, nor the fact
that Malaysia has not availed itself of such assistance.
3.161 Malaysia submits that the offer of technical assist ance to the complaining parties, including
Malaysia, does not eliminate the unjustifiable discrimination because it is not incumbent on Malaysia
to use TEDs as a means of conserving turtles, in the absence of any multilaterally agreed standard on
the use of TEDs and besides TEDs is not the sole measure to protect sea turtles. Furthermore
Malaysia claims that it has been reported to have one of the best conservation programmes for marine
turtles anywhere in the world and this programme has been maintained without the need to use TEDs.

3.162 Thus, with respect to the claim of the United St ates of its offer of technical training in the
design, construction, installation and operation of TEDs to any government that requests it, Malaysia
submits that it is of no consequence to Malaysia because, as in the words of Dr. Eckert, one of the
scientific experts called by the Panel:110 "[Malaysia] has one of the best conservation programmes for
marine turtles anywhere in the world. They have really taken hold of the situation relative to the
conservation of their nesting stocks, and done very, very well. It’s been a very admirable effort". 111
The conservation programmes in Malaysia have been sustained at such a remarkable level even
without resorting to the use of TEDs. 112 Nevertheless, Malaysia argues, its turtle conservation
measures would never be comparable to the United States' programme as they are tailored to address
the conditions unique and peculiar to Malaysia. Although the United States claims that it has yet to
have the opportunity to take into account the peculiar and unique circumstances because Malaysia has
not sought certification, Malaysia submits that it is not for the United States to unilaterally examine
the conditions prevailing in Malaysia, and then make a unilateral decision on whether Malaysia's
programme is comparable to the United States' unilaterally determined programme. No sovereign
nation should be subjected to such scrutiny. This is also one of the reasons why Malaysia has chosen
not to seek certification.
3.163 The United States claims that Malaysia's only comment on the offers of technical assistance
by the United States is that Malaysia needs no such assistance because it has already established
certain sea turtle conservation programmes. However, the programmes to which Malaysia refers
relate to the protection of sea turtle eggs, while the US conservation measure is aimed at reducing the
mortality of juvenile and adult sea turtles in shrimp trawling operations. The expert quoted by
Malaysia, Dr. Scott Eckert, was very clear in stating that programmes to protect sea turtle eggs are not
sufficient to conserve sea turtles. The United States notes that Dr. Eckert stated that "there are quite a
few different possible threats faced by sea turtle populations but the most significant ones are the
incidental take of sea turtles by fishing industries" and that "I do not believe that it is possible to
mitigate incidental take in fisheries if that is your problem by simply trying to enhance production on
a nesting beach. The data we have so far to date suggests that this is simply not a valid mitigation
measure. You must take a multifaceted approach to all of your conservation."
113
3.164 Malaysia further submits that evidence accepted by the Original Panel shows that the threats
faced by sea turtles in Malaysia are different from those in the United States. As such, Malaysia
addresses the situation differently. The extinction of sea turtles is not solely due to incidental take. In
Malaysia, commercial exploitation of turtle eggs is a major problem; hence Malaysia's emphasis on
the protection of turtle eggs as a conservation strategy. Malaysia notes that there is no evidence that
the use of TEDs is the only way to address incidental take. Thus, insisting on the use of TEDs when
the situation does not warrant it shows the inflexibility of the US measure. Malaysia also reiterates its
stand that the Panel should not dwell on facts that were accepted in the Original Panel deliberations.
114
At this stage, the focus is on whether the United States has complied with the recommendations and
rulings of the DSB. Malaysia's turtle conservation programme has been found to be one of the best in
the world. However, Malaysia has been compelled to prove to the United States that its turtle
conservation programme is comparable to that of the United States in order to be certified, so that its
shrimp could gain entry into the United States. This has served to amplify the non-compliance of the
United States with the DSB rulings and recommendations.

110 Panel Report, Annex IV, Transcript of the Meeting with the Experts held on 21-22 January 1998.
112 Panel Report, para. 3.7.
113 Panel Report, Annex IV, Transcript of the Meeting with the Experts held on 21-22 January 1998,
paras. 12-13.
114 Panel Report, para. 3.73.

(d) Phase-in period
3.165 Malaysia argues that the unilateral import prohibition of the United States, by ignoring the
internationally recognized effectiveness of Malaysia's existing conservation programme for sea turtles
and by acting contrary to the declared commitment of the United States to finalize the multilateral
agreement on the conservation of marine turtles in 2001, continues to constitute arbitrary and
unjustifiable discrimination between countries as prohibited by Article XX of the GATT 1994. This
discrimination, continues Malaysia, also becomes evident when one compares the more than
five years of US negotiations, in the early 1990s, for the Inter-American Convention for the Protection
and Conservation of Sea Turtles of 1996, with a corresponding Indian Ocean and South-East Asian
Regional Agreement on the Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles and their Habitats.
3.166 The United States, in response to Malaysia's claim and Australia's comment, in its third-party
submission, argues that the difference in phase-in periods has been corrected by the passage of time.
The Appellate Body noted that Western Hemisphere countries had a three-year phase-in period before
the import prohibition went into effect, while other nations - due to a domestic court ruling - only had
a four-month period. By this point, however, Malaysia has had more than sufficient time to adopt a
TEDs or comparable conservation programme. The United States argues that the Appellate Body
started counting the phase-in period from December 1995, when the domestic court first ruled on the
geographic scope of the measure. The reasonable period of time ended in December 1999 - four years
after the domestic court ruling. And, by this time, more than five years have elapsed.
3.167 It is the view of the United States that these periods provide more than sufficient time for
Malaysia to have adopted a TEDs or comparable programme, had it chosen to do so. For example,
Thailand adopted a TEDs programme, and was certified by the US Department of State, in less than
one year after the December 1995 domestic court ruling. Similarly, Pakistan made use of the Revised
Guidelines adopted during the reasonable period of time, as well as the enhanced US offers of
technical assistance, and has now also been certified.
3.168 Finally, the United States argues that since Malaysia has indicated no intention of adopting
TEDs or other comparable measures to reduce sea turtle mortality in shrimp trawling operations, this
is a non-issue.
(c) Arbitrary discrimination
(a) Lack of flexibility
3.169 The United States claims that it has addressed the two distinct aspects of the US application
of Section 609 that the Appellate Body found constituted "arbitrary discrimination" between countries
where the same conditions prevail. The United States recalls that the Appellate Body found:
(a) That the lack of flexibility in applying the guidelines not only contributed to a finding
of "unjustifiable discrimination", but also resulted in "arbitrary discrimination" under
the Article XX chapeau. The Revised Guidelines responded to this finding by
increasing the flexibility in its application; and
(b) that the US certification process lacked transparency and due process protections for
exporting WTO Members. The Revised Guidelines responded to these findings by
providing extensive new procedures to ensure that every exporting country was fairly
treated in the certification process.
3.170 The United States claims that, as explained above, the Revised Guidelines introduce added
flexibility in a wide variety of ways. Notably, a country may be certified as having a comparable sea
turtle conservation programme even if such country does not adopt a TEDs programme, and that the

United States "will take fully into account any dem onstrated differences between the shrimp fishing
conditions in the United States and those in other nations."115
3.171 Malaysia submits and recalls that the flexibility in considering the comparability of foreign
programmes and the United States' programme, the increased transparency and predictability of the
certification process, and greater degree of due process alleged to be provided through the Revised
Guidelines have not eliminated the elements of unjustifiable and arbitrary discrimination, which
continue to persist and which are prohibited by Article XX of the GATT 1994. Malaysia considers
that the alleged flexibility, as claimed by the United States, that takes fully into account any
demonstrated differences between the shrimp fishing conditions in the United States and in other
nations is negated if one examines how the Revised Guidelines are structured; an examination of the
Revised Guidelines reveals they are still very biased towards meeting the shrimp trawling conditions
in the United States. Malaysia observes that throughout the part of the Revised Guidelines entitled
"II. Guidelines for Making Certification Decisions", the slant adopted by the United States is geared
towards the scenario where the harvesting nation adopts a regulatory programme that addresses the
incidental taking of sea turtles in the course of commercial shrimp trawl harvesting.
3.172 Malaysia also submits that by limiting importation only to shrimp that meet the unilaterally
determined conditions, the United States has failed to remove the "rigidity and inflexibility" that the
Appellate Body held to constitute "arbitrary di scrimination". The certification process subjects
shrimp exporting nations to the sole discretion of the United States, which is the sole determinant of
whether the exported shrimps meet the unilaterally determined standards set by the US Department of
State.
3.173 Malaysia submits that, even though the US Department of State now takes into consideration
any evidence that an exporting nation may present, the programme to protect sea turtles in the course
of shrimp trawl fishing practised by that exporting nation still has to be "comparable to the
United States’ program". The actual coercive effect on the specific policy decisions made by foreign
governments is still maintained in spite of the Revised Guidelines. Member countries are still
subjected to the discretion of the US Department of State which can refuse certification if it finds that
the turtle protection programme is not comparable to that of United States. The United States’ failure
to remove this "coercive effect" amounts to blatant non-compliance of the recommendations and
rulings of the DSB.
3.174 Malaysia argues that from an examination of the Revised Guidelines, it is clear that the
United States has no intention of removing the "unilateral character" of Section 609. Clearly the
United States still intends to maintain an economic embargo that enforces the unilaterally determined
environmental standard. Failure of the United States to remove the "unilateral character" embedded
in Section 609 is a clear manifestation of the United States’ intention to maintain the disruptive and
discriminatory influence of the import prohibition. In doing so, the United States fails to comply with
recommendations and rulings of the DSB.
3.175 Furthermore, Malaysia claims that it has demonstrated that the same conditions do not prevail
in Malaysia and that the United States has not considered those unique and peculiar conditions.
Malaysia also submits that the following characterization made by Malaysia was accepted by the
Panel and that the Appellate Body did not overrule it:
(a) Malaysia was a nesting ground but was not known to be a feeding ground for sea
turtles;
(b) the nesting season in Malaysia did not overlap with the shrimp season;

115 Revised Guidelines, Annex to this Report: Section II.B.(a)(2).

(c) the loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles rarely nested on Malaysian beaches and
did not occur in Malaysian waters respectively and the high mortality of sea turtles
reported in shrimp trawls in the United States relate to both these sea turtles;
(d) the green turtle, hawksbill, leatherback and olive ridley were the major sea turtle
species in Malaysia. Green turtles were resident in sea grass beds which were found
in shallow coastal waters whilst hawksbills were found in coral reef; trawling was
prohibited in these areas. During the nesting season, green turtles remained close to
shore, in areas where trawling was also prohibited;
(e) during long-distance migrations between feeding and nesting grounds, turtles were
actively swimming close to the surface of the water, which made them more
vulnerable to the driftnets and longlines rather than trawlnets; and
(f) in Malaysia trawling targeted fish for most of the year and thus the incidental capture
of sea turtles was due to fish trawls and not shrimp trawls.
116
3.176 Malaysia considers that the Revised Guidelines are "saddled with detailed operating
provisions"; Malaysia therefore submits that the heavy burden imposed on Malaysia to demonstrate
to the United States that it is enforcing a co mparably effective regulatory programme through
empirical data supported by objective scientific studies of sufficient duration and scope is an abuse
and misuse of an exception of Article XX.
3.177 The United States argues that it has not yet had the opportunity to take such circumstances
into account since Malaysia has never sought to be certified under Section 609.
3.178 As stated above, the United States argues that Section 609, as part of its essential structure
noted by the Appellate Body, requires a comparison between the programmes of the United States and
those of other countries and recalls that the Appellate Body found that this aspect of Section 609 was
reasonably related to sea turtle conservation and provisionally within the scope of Article XX(g). The
flaw found by the Appellate Body was that the Re vised Guidelines appeared to require exporting
nations to adopt a specific policy to achieve a particular take rate of sea turtles in shrimp fisheries, a
matter addressed in the Revised Guidelines and its current application.
(b) Due process
3.179 The United States recalls that another finding of the Appellate Body was that the certification
process under Section 609 was neither transparent nor predictable and denied to exporting nations
basic fairness and due process. There was no formal opportunity for an applicant nation to be heard
or to respond to arguments against it. There was no formal written, reasoned decision. Except for
notice in the US Federal Register, nations were not notified of decisions specifically. There was no
procedure for review of, or appeal from, a denial of certification.
3.180 In response to this finding, the United States explains that it has instituted a broad range of
procedural changes in the manner in which it makes certification decisions under Section 609. The
process is now transparent and predictable. For example, the Department of State now notifies
governments of shrimp harvesting nations on a timely basis of all pending and final decisions and
provides them with a meaningful opportunity to be heard and to present any additional information
relevant to the certification decision. The Department of State also gives the governments of
harvesting nations that are not certified a full explanation of the reasons why the certification was
denied and clearly identifies steps that such gove rnments may take to receive a certification in the
future.
117

116 Panel Report, paras. 3.273 and 3.287.
117 Revised Guidelines, Annex to this Report: para. 27.

3.181 The United States claims that many procedures have been established to ensure that the
certification determinations will be both more predictable and transparent. The section of the Revised
Guidelines entitled "Timetable and Procedures for Certification Decisions" provides, inter alia , for
the considerable information exchange that is intended to allow the foreign government to predict the
likely result.
3.182 The United States explains that the Revised Guidelines, as stated in Public Notice 3086 118,
stipulate that:
"By March 15, the Department of State will notify in writing through
diplomatic channels the government of each nation that, on the basis
of available information [ … ], does not appear to qualify for
certification. Such notification will explain the reasons for this
preliminary assessment, suggest steps that the government of the
harvesting nation can take in order to receive a certification and
invite the government of the harvesting nation to provide, by
April 15, any further information. If the government of the
harvesting nation so requests, the Department of State will schedule
face-to-face meetings between relevant US officials and officials of
the harvesting nation to discuss the situation."
3.183 Furthermore, according to the Revised Guidelines, between 15 March and 1 May, the
Department of State will actively consider any additional information that the government of the
harvesting nation believes should be considered by the Department in making its determination
concerning certification.
3.184 The United States argues that when applying the Revised Guidelines, the Department of State
makes formal decisions on certification by 1 May of each year and, moreover, the governments of all
nations that have requested certification are notified in writing of the decision promptly through
diplomatic channels.
3.185 The United States explains that according to the Revised Guidelines, in the case of those
nations for which certification is denied, such notifications will again state the reasons for such denial
as well as the necessary steps to receive a certification in the future.
3.186 Finally, the Revised Guidelines establish that the government of any nation that is denied a
certification by 1 May may, at any time thereafter, request reconsideration of that decision.
3.187 Another important improvement of the Revised Guidelines, explains the United States, is that
when the United States receives information from that government demonstrating that the
circumstances that led to the denial of the certification have been corrected, US officials will visit the
exporting nation as early as a visit can be arranged. If the visit demonstrates that the circumstances
that led to the denial have indeed been correc ted, the United States will certify that nation
immediately thereafter.
3.188 With regard to a question of the Panel about whether and under which conditions the
administrative decisions taken in the certification process under Section 609 could be appealed before
a domestic court in the United States by an exporting member
 119 , the United States responds that

118 Ibid.
119 The question reads: "The Revised Guidelines do not expressly provide for judicial appeal. Could
the United States specify whether and under which conditions the administrative decisions taken in the
certification process under Section 609 could be appealed before a domestic court in the United States by an
exporting member?"

administrative regulations often do not expressly addr ess whether judicial appeal is possible. As a
general matter, judicial review of a final decision by the US State Department regarding certification
of a country may be had in the US court system pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act,
( 5 USC. 701 et. seq.).
3.189 Malaysia submits that it had chosen not to make use of the Revised Guidelines and technical
assistance offered because it considers that in order to comply with the DSB recommendations and
rulings, the import prohibition contained in Section 609 should be removed instead of being modified
in the way that it has been.
(d) Disguised restriction on international trade
3.190 The United States, argues that the parties fully briefed the issue of "disguised restriction on
international trade" in the Original Panel proceeding. The United States recalls its main arguments to
demonstrate that its measure is not a disguised restriction on international trade are mentioned in the
Panel Report.
120
3.191 The United States points out that a number of factors showed that the United States measure
was a bona fide conservation measure, not a disguised trade restriction. Those factors include the
facts that: (1) the internationa l community, as reflected in CITES, agrees that sea turtles are
endangered; (2) TEDs have been adopted by dozens of countries worldwide as an important sea turtle
conservation measure; (3) the United States has made extensive efforts to disseminate TED
technology; and (4) the import prohibition is narrowly crafted to affect only shrimp harvested in
manners harmful to sea turtles.
3.192 Moreover, continues the United States, although this issue was not directly addressed by the
Appellate Body, several Appellate Body findings s upport the United States position that the measure
is not a disguised restriction on international trade. The Appellate Body acknowledged that TEDs are
an effective tool for sea turtle conservation.
121 The Appellate Body affirmatively found that the
measure, which exempts types of shrimp harvested in manners not harmful to sea turtles, "is not
disproportionately wide in scope and reach in relation" to its policy objective.122 And, it found that, as
between domestic and foreign shrimpers, the measure in principle was "even-handed."123
3.193 In short, concludes the United States, the record plainly shows that the US measure is not a
disguised restriction on international trade. Neither Malaysia in its submissions, nor, indeed, Mexico
in its third-party submission, has presented any evidence or arguments to the contrary.
3.194 Malaysia is of the view that the issue of the US measure being a disguised restriction on
international trade under the Article XX chapeau was not dealt with by the Appellate Body. Malaysia
mentions that upon deciding that the measure was not entitled to the justifying protection of
Article XX of GATT 1994, the Appellate Body did not even consider it necessary to examine whether
the measure was applied in a manner that constitutes a disguised restriction on international trade. The
issue was not even considered, let alone decided. The Appellate Body held that it was not necessary
to do so after having found that the application of the US measure constituted "unjustifiable
discrimination" and "arbitrary discrimination". On this score Malaysia does not deem it necessary to
deal likewise with this issue.

120 Panel Report, paras. 3.277-3.281.
121 Appellate Body Report, para. 140.
122 Ibid., para. 141.
123 Ibid., paras. 144-145.

IV. SUMMARY OF THIRD PARTY SUBMISSIONS124
1. Australia
4.1 Australia submits that the United States continues to apply an import prohibition inconsistent
with Article XI of the GATT 1994. In these circumstances, the United States needs to demonstrate
that its measure now meets the requirements of the general exceptions provision of Article XX of the
GATT 1994, if it is to demonstrate compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in
this dispute.
4.2 Australia notes the Appellate Body found that the United States measure, Section 609 of
Public Law 101-162, qualified for provisional justification under Article XX(g), but that it failed to
meet the requirements of the chapeau of Article XX, as it was applied in a manner that constituted
arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination. This finding that the US measure was provisionally
justified under Article XX(g) recognized that there might well be circumstances in which the import
prohibition contained in Section 609 could be applied in a manner consistent with the requirements of
the chapeau of Article XX. Australia notes that this could be the case if the import prohibition was
applied as part of a cooperative approach to addressing sea turtle conservation based on
intergovernmental consensus.
4.3 It is pointed out by Australia that the preamble to the WTO Agreement recognizes the need
for the trading relations of WTO Members to be conducted in accordance with the objective of
sustainable development. Through the work of the Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE),
WTO Members have specifically sought to ensure that trade and environment policies are mutually
supportive in promoting sustainable development. They have recognized that trade measures may be
needed in some circumstances to achieve en vironmental objectives, and the scope for WTO
provisions, including Article XX of the GATT 1994, to accommodate such measures. In particular,
WTO Members have recognized the complementarity between the work of the WTO and multilateral
environmental agreements.
4.4 Australia's participation as a third party throughout this dispute has reflected both substantive
trade interests and concerns with important issues of principle. In relation to its substantive trade
interests, Australia had immediate access concerns for shrimp from the Spencer Gulf region and the
Northern Prawn Fishery. Australia welcomes changes in the application of the US measure which
have restored this access. However, access for shrimp from other Australian fisheries remains
prohibited.
4.5 On the issues of principle, Australia shares the concerns of the United States in relation to sea
turtle conservation and has welcomed and supported the efforts of the United States and other
countries, including Malaysia, to address these concerns through cooperative initiatives in the Indian
Ocean and South-East Asian region. In October 1999 Australia hosted a workshop aimed at
addressing the need for a "regional agreement for the conservation and management of marine turtle
populations and their habitats throughout the Indo-Pacific and the Indian Ocean region." The
outcomes of the Workshop provided a building block leading to the adoption by consensus of the
Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles and their
Habitats of the Indian Ocean and South-East Asia at the meeting in Kuantan, Malaysia in July 2000.
The Memorandum of Understanding acknowledges and seeks to address the wide range of threats to
sea turtles, including habitat destruction, direct harvesting and trade, fisheries by-catch, pollution and
other man-induced sources of mortality.

124 Canada and Pakistan reserved their rights as third parties but did not make any submissions to the
Panel.

4.6 However, Australia remains concerned at the continuation of an import ban by the
United States based on a unilaterally determined conservation standard to address a transboundary or
global environmental issue. In particular, Australia considers that the progress in recent efforts to
promote sea turtle conservation in the Indian O cean and South-East Asian region demonstrates the
existence of alternative avenues to achieve the important objective of sea turtle conservation.
Australia considers that such cooperative efforts are an appropriate and effective means of dealing
with an issue such as sea turtle conservation. Not only do they allow the full range of issues involved
in sea turtle conservation to be identified and addressed, but they also provide a means of avoiding
inappropriate or unnecessarily trade restrictive action.
4.7 As its legal argument, Australia submits that the Appellate Body found that the US measure
qualified for provisional justification under Article XX(g), but that it failed to meet the requirements
of the chapeau of Article XX. In particular, th e Appellate Body found that the measure had been
applied by the United States in a manner that constituted arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination
between Members of the WTO due to the following problems:
(a) The rigidity and inflexibility in the administration of the import ban;
(b) the unilateral and non-consensual procedures of the import measure;
(c) the differential phase-in periods and differential approaches to technology transfer for
different groups of countries; and
(d) the denial of transparency, procedural fairness and due process in the administration
of the import ban.
4.8 Australia considers that the legal issue of whether the United States has rectified the problem
identified in (a) and (d) requires an analysis of the changes to the US Guidelines and US practice in
their administration. In this regard, Australia welcomes certain changes to the US Guidelines which
have subsequently allowed the US to make determinations granting import access to shrimp from the
Spencer Gulf region and the Northern Prawn Fishery. Australia notes that certain of the changes are
subject to continuing domestic court action in the United States and will be following closely
developments in this regard.
4.9 Australia considers that the legal issue of whether the United States has rectified the problems
identified in (c) above requires, at least in part, an analysis of current US practice in relation to the
provision of technical assistance and training in th e design, construction, installation and operation of
Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs). Australia notes that the US does not appear to have expressed a
view on what actions it has taken, or was required to take, to address the issue of differential phase-in
periods for TEDs which the Appellate Body also found to constitute unjustifiable discrimination.
4.10 In relation to (b), Australia notes the argument of the United States that one of the elements
needed for it to achieve compliance was "to engage in serious, good faith negotiations on sea turtle
conservation". Australia agrees with the United States that such negotiations may have provided it
with one means of bringing its measure into co mpliance with the requirements of the chapeau of
Article XX, specifically to address problem (b).
4.11 Australia notes that many of the points raised by the Appellate Body in relation to problem
(b) concern actions which the United States failed to take before moving to impose or enforce the
import ban. If these actions had been taken they could have obviated the need for an import ban,
through achievement of intergovernmental agreement or consensus on a range of actions to address
sea turtle conservation, or ensured that a ban would have been implemented in accordance with a
multilaterally agreed approach. Indeed, the key objective of "serious, good faith negotiations", from
the perspective of the chapeau of Article XX, is that they should be aimed at seeking to avoid any
discrimination at all, to the extent that was possible, or limiting any unavoidable discrimination to that

which was not "arbitrary" or "unjustifiable", while also avoiding any disguised restrictions on
international trade.
4.12 Australia notes that the United States is largely silent on the content, objectives or nature of
the negotiations required for them to be "serious, good faith negotiations" and to repair the
unjustifiable discrimination found by the Appellate Body. Furthermore, the United States has
presented no evidence that indicates any change to the "unilateral and non-consensual procedures" of
the import ban it maintained after the end of the reasonable period of time, or that the ban is now
based on "consensual and multilateral procedures".
4.13 Preserving the delicate balance of Article XX, Australia puts forward, is essential if it is to
achieve its aim of allowing WTO Members to take measures otherwise inconsistent with the
GATT 1994 for a range of important public policy objectives, while preventing it from being used to
inappropriately escape from treaty obligations owed to other Members.
4.14 Australia argues that Article XX of the GATT 1994 is central to this dispute. Australia
considers that the findings of the Appellate Body have confirmed the vitality of the balance of rights
and obligations in Article XX, and its continuing relevance to the current concerns of the international
community to reconcile economic growth and environmental protection.
4.15 Australia refers to the Indian Ocean and South-East Asian Regional Initiative in its response
to the request by the panel for a description of effo rts made to reach a multilateral solution in relation
to the conservation of marine turtles.125
4.16 Australia notes the technical workshop that it hosted from 19 to 22 October 1999 in Perth.
This adopted a resolution on the value of a new regional instrument to facilitate closer collaboration to
improve the conservation of marine turtles and their habitats. The participants also agreed on further
consultations aimed at concluding such an instrument. The meeting welcomed Australia's offer to
prepare a draft text.
4.17 Australia also notes that the endorsement at the workshop of the need for a new regional
instrument built upon the agreement at the 2nd ASEAN Symposium and Workshop on Sea Turtle
Biology and Conservation, held from 15 to 17 July 1999. The cooperative efforts advanced by these
meetings resulted in the adoption of the Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and
Management of Marine Turtles and their Habitats of the Indian Ocean and South-East Asia at an
intergovernmental meeting of 24 States hosted by Malaysia in Kuantan in July 2000.
4.18 Australia notes that the Memorandum of Understanding requires the completion of a
Conservation and Management Plan prior to being opened for signature. Australia had prepared a
draft Conservation and Management Plan based on the consultations held at the Perth Workshop as
part of its preparation of a draft text of the Memorandum. The Kuantan meeting agreed to develop
further the Plan with a view to having it adopte d at the next intergovernmental meeting which should
be held in the first quarter of 2001.
4.19 Australia puts forward that the discussion at the Perth workshop was wide ranging in its
scope. The discussions identified the need for ac tion in relation to a number of areas: the protection
of marine turtle habitat; the management of direct harvesting and trade; reduction in the incidental
capture and mortality of marine turtles in the course of fishing activities; and promotion of research,
information exchange, and capacity building.

125 Australia submitted to the Panel the Report of the Consultation on Needs and Mechanisms for
Regional Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles, Perth, Western Australia, 19–22 October 1999.

4.20 Australia notes that the Memorandum of Understanding provides for all of these issues to be
addressed in the Conservation and Management Plan. This will provide a comprehensive basis for
cooperative efforts to address the range of threats faced by marine turtles and their habitats within the
region. In particular, Australia notes that the threat posed to marine turtles by fisheries by-catch is
explicitly identified as one of the issues that will continue to be pursued through this process.
4.21 Australia argues that it has not claimed, as asserted by the United States, that "all
environmental measures must be based on 'consensual and multilateral procedures'." However, the
Appellate Body has clearly indicated that these considerations are directly relevant to examination of
whether the US measure conforms to the requirements of the chapeau of Article XX. In particular,
the Appellate Body emphasized that "[t]he unilateral character of the application of Section 609
heightens the disruptive and discriminatory influence of the import prohibition and underscores its
unjustifiability." In this regard, Australia considers that three issues are particularly relevant.
4.22 Australia is of the view that first, "multilateral and consensual procedures" have been and are
available for pursuing concerns about marine turtle conservation, including fisheries by-catch.
Second, the US has not presented any evidence to in dicate that its import measure is now based on
'multilateral and consensual procedures'. Third, in these circumstances, the question which the panel
must address is whether the US had demonstrated a justification for the continuance of import
measures based on 'unilateral and non-consensual procedures' sufficient to meet the requirements of
the chapeau of Article XX.
4.23 Australia notes that the United States has claimed that Australia's argument about the
existence of an alternative avenue for addressing sea turtle conservation concerns "is based on two
flawed premises". On the first of these, Australia has not claimed, as asserted by the United States,
that "a WTO Member must exhaust all possibilities for achieving its goals in other ways." In
Australia's view the question is whether the US measure meets the specific requirements of the
chapeau of Article XX.
 In this regard, Australia notes that the Appellate Body drew attention to four
specific points relating to the failure of the United States to engage other countries in serious
negotiations on marine turtle conservation before enforcing its import prohibition. These points have
been strengthened by progress with the curren t cooperative initiative in the Indian Ocean and
South-East Asian region.
4.24 The second of the "flawed premises" that the United States identified in Australia's argument
is that "the progress made in multilateral negotiations in the Indian Ocean and South-East Asian
region will not necessarily translate into the achievement of the environmental goal of the US
measure." However, it is difficult to see how the regional initiative could be substantively inferior to
the import prohibition imposed by the United States in this regard.
 The import prohibition only
addresses one of the threats posed to marine turtles, whereas the current cooperative initiative in the
Indian Ocean region provides for a comprehensive approach. The current cooperative initiative
provides a framework for addressing all fisheries by-catch issues relevant to marine turtle
conservation, whereas the import prohibition will only directly affect export oriented fisheries.
Furthermore, the import prohibition will only be effective if it induces the adoption of TEDs, an
outcome that it clearly cannot guarantee.
4.25 In concluding, Australia submits that a key argument of the United States in support of its
claimed compliance with the Appellate Body's findings is that it has engaged in serious, good faith
negotiations. From the perspective of Article XX, the key objective of serious, good faith
negotiations, in the context of this dispute, is that they should be aimed at seeking to avoid any
discrimination at all, to the extent that was possible, or limiting any unavoidable discrimination to that
which was not "arbitrary" or "unjustifiable". At the same time, the negotiations would need to avoid
any disguised restrictions on international trade to ensure compliance with all the requirements of the
chapeau of Article XX.

4.26 In short, Australia is of the view that the United States must demonstrate what serious efforts
it has taken aimed at obviating or eliminating the discriminatory impact of the import ban. In
particular, good faith negotiations, aimed at addressing the defects in the application of Section 609
identified by the Appellate Body, would require the United States to engage in discussions that could
involve changes in the existence or nature of the import ban, as well as changes in aspects of its
implementation. It would be a serious misconstruction of the Appellate Body's findings to suggest
that these should be interpreted in a manner that could never require the lifting of the import
prohibition.
2. Ecuador
4.27 Ecuador submits that it is participating as a third party given its trade interest and the systemic
implications of the case. Ecuador is one of the main suppliers of shrimp to the United States' market
and Ecuadorian exports could be affected by the scope of Article XX of the GATT 1994.
4.28 Ecuador considers that the Panel has before it a very delicate case requiring careful evaluation
of the arguments submitted by all the parties. While in principle the Panel's terms of reference are to
ascertain whether the United States has applied the conclusions and recommendations adopted by the
Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), the practical consequences of this Panel's decisions will send a clear
signal regarding proper compliance with Article XX of the GATT so as to prevent the possible use of
environmental policies to disguise protectionist trade measures.
4.29 Ecuador shares the genuine concern of the United States, Malaysia and other Members of the
WTO regarding the need to preserve marine species which may be endangered by economic activity
not guided by considerations of environmental sustainability. However, these genuine concerns are
not now under discussion. What the Panel has to determine is whether the United States has complied
with the conclusions and recommendations adopted by the DSB and whether the measures it has taken
to protect sea turtles are compatible with its obligations under the WTO Agreements.
4.30 Ecuador's view is that the United States maintains an import prohibition inconsistent with
Article XI of the GATT 1994. The United States did not appeal against this conclusion by the
Original Panel, nor does it now contend that the prohibition in question is not in force. It is therefore
easier, in these circumstances, to establish that th e issue for this Panel is to determine whether the
changes which the United States claims to have introduced in the application of Section 609 are
sufficient to take advantage of the general exception provided for in GATT Article XX.
4.31 Ecuador takes the view that the burden of proof in this matter is on the United States, despite
its being the responding party, since the issue here concerns the application of an exception to a
measure inconsistent with the GATT 1994. It is the United States which must justify such
inconsistency by responding to all the points raised by the Panel and, in particular, by the
Appellate Body in this matter.
4.32 Ecuador does not agree with the United States that, pursuant to the Appellate Body's findings,
it is not necessarily obliged to lift its prohibition on shrimp imports. On the contrary, if the United
States cannot show that it has complied with all the conditions laid down by the Appellate Body in
determining that the measure constitutes arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination and that the
exception under Article XX of the GATT is not, therefore, applicable, then the United States should
withdraw the prohibition on shrimp imports by amending Section 609.
4.33 Ecuador considers that it is inadmissible that a violation of Article XI of the GATT should be
countenanced pending modification of the applicat ion of Section 609 of the Trade Act by the
United States. That line of reasoning, which was adopted by the United States during the reasonable
period of time, is no longer applicable. In the event that the Panel finds that the United States has not

fully applied the conclusions and recommendations adopted by the DSB, the United States is not
entitled to a further reasonable period of time.
3. European Communities
4.34 The European Communities notes with considerable concern that, contrary to the requirement
contained in Article 6.2 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), the request for the
establishment of a panel in the present proceedings does not mention whether consultations were held
between Malaysia and the United States before the disagreement on the compatibility of the US
measures with a covered agreement was referred to the Panel.
126 While the parties to the present
dispute have agreed, by an exchange of letters dated 22 December 1999 127, to hold consultations
before requesting the establishment of a panel 128, the notice concerning the request for consultations
foreseen in Article 4.4 of the DSU was not provided to the DSB and was not circulated to WTO
Members. There is thus no indication whether such consultations were held in the present case.
4.35 The European Communities notes in this contex t that an inconsistent and contradictory
practice has developed in a number of cases in which parties had recourse to procedures pursuant to
Article 21.5 of the DSU without regard for the requirement of first entering into consultations under
Article 4 of the DSU before filing a request for the establishment of a panel. In certain cases, parties
have agreed bilaterally to dispense with recourse to formal consultations under Article 4 of the DSU.
Even though the bilateral agreement in this case provides explicitly that consultations are required
before the disagreement could be referred to the Panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, as already
mentioned there is no indication that consultations were indeed held and, even if they were, such
consultations were certainly not held in accordance with the procedural requirements of Article 4 of
the DSU.
4.36 The procedural step of holding consultations is however of fundamental importance for the
dispute settlement system, in the view of the European Communities. Consultations give the parties
an opportunity to resolve their differences without an adjudication of the dispute and will, at the very
least, allow the parties to clarify the precise issues on which they continue to disagree. In this way,
consultations contribute to ensuring that panel proceedings are limited to issues on which there is real
and serious disagreement. In addition, any request for consultations under Article 4 of the DSU must
be circulated to the entire WTO membership in or der to identify and circumscribe the dispute, thus
allowing potential third parties to prepare their request to participate in the procedure. In this regard,
it must be recalled that third parties may participate in consultations requested under any of the
provisions cited in Article 4.11 and footnote 4 of the DSU. Thus, third party rights are clearly
impaired by the omission of the formal consultation stage in a dispute settlement procedure.
4.37 In the context of the European Communities - Bananas dispute, the European Communities
has made it clear
129 that it considers consultations pursuant to Article 4 of the DSU to be necessary
before the establishment of a panel can be requested pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. The reason
is the reference contained in Article 21.5 that any dispute on implementation "shall be decided
through recourse to these dispute settlement procedures." In the view of the European Communities,
"these dispute settlement procedures" include consultations and a right to an appeal. This is so for
reasons related to the multilateral character of the procedures, which include procedural rights of other
WTO Members, particularly potential third parties, and a standardised dispute settlement procedure
the basic features of which may not be amended simply because that pleases the parties in an
individual case.

126 WT/DS58/17, 13 October 2000.
127 WT/DS58/16, 12 January 2000.
128 Ibid. para. 2.
129 Statement of the EC at the DSB meeting of 22 September 1998, WT/DSB/M/48, p. 7.

4.38 If the parties to a dispute were entirely free to develop procedures of their own choice
(quod non), the European Communities submits this would jeopardise third party rights enshrined in
the DSU (particularly in Articles 4.11 and 10). Nothing would stop the parties from agreeing
bilaterally not only to omit the procedural step of consultations, but also to avoid other procedural
steps such as the panel stage and to submit their dispute to the Appellate Body straight away (e.g. in
order to "gain time" and to exclude third parties who cannot participate in Appellate Body procedures
if they did not reserve their right to participate in the preceding panel procedure). It would also mean
that the parties would be free to agree among themselves that a panel report pursuant to Article 21.5
of the DSU is not binding and that it may be subjected to some kind of review by another international
body outside the WTO.
4.39 The European Communities believes these scenar ios are not compatible with the multilateral
nature of the procedures under the DSU, the procedural rights of third parties and indeed the general
matrix of procedural checks and balances built into the dispute settlement system. The DSU contains
sufficient flexibility to adapt the basic procedural requirements to the needs of the parties in individual
disputes. As an example, Article 4.7 (second sentence) of the DSU allows the parties to shorten the
60-day period on the basis of a bilateral agreement. If the parties to the dispute agree, a panel under
Article 21.5 of the DSU may be established at the first meeting where the request is considered by the
DSB (Article 6.1 of the DSU). Panels may propose special working procedures after consultations
with the parties (Article 12.1 of the DSU). All these provisions indicate that there is some flexibility
in the procedures, which is largely dependent on the agreement of the parties to the dispute. None of
these provisions however allows the parties to the dispute to simply omit one of the essential
procedural steps before requesting the next one.
4.40 The European Communities considers that all the important functions of the consultations are
undermined if the parties to the dispute are considered to be free to "jump the gun" and go to a panel
procedure without holding formal consultations under Article 4 of the DSU first. Moreover,
consultations must in any event take place in order to agree on the procedure to be followed, and it is
obvious that this is also an occasion to consult on substantive issues. Thus, in reality no time is
gained in omitting this procedural step; the only consequence is that third parties are put at a
disadvantage and that the panel may have to address issues on which there is no real disagreement.
4.41 In conclusion, the European Communities is firmly of the view that the existing rules of the
DSU do not allow parties to a dispute to agree bilaterally simply to dispense with consultations under
Article 4. Any other approach leads to unacceptabl e procedural uncertainty about the limits of the
procedural guarantees for both parties and to curtailing third party rights clearly enshrined in the
DSU. If the parties to the dispute do not respect their obligations under Article 4 of the DSU, the
Panel should draw the consequence of this failure of the parties and make a ruling that the dispute is
not properly before it (or inadmissible, to use a term of art), since all the procedural steps that are
required before a dispute may be submitted to a panel have not been followed in the present case.
4.42 In the event that the Panel concludes that it is nonetheless necessary to enter into the
consideration of the merits of the present case, the European Communities raises the following points.
4.43 The European Communities notes that the parties to the present dispute seem to agree that the
United States has engaged into serious negotiations concerning conservation measures aiming at the
protection of sea turtles in the Indian Ocean. Malaysia recognises that substantial progress has been
made toward the conclusion of an agreement on standards for such fishing techniques in the Indian
Ocean. However, Malaysia claims that as long as an agreement on these fishing techniques has not
been concluded, the United States is obliged, by virtue of the recommendations and rulings of the
DSB in this case, to discontinue the application of Section 609 of its law Relating to the Protection of
Sea Turtles in Shrimp Trawl Fishing Operations to shrimps and shrimp products imported from
Malaysia.

4.44 The European Communities notes that Malaysia claims that the 1999 amendments to the
Guidelines for the application of Section 609 (the Revised Guidelines) are insufficient for the purpose
of bringing the United States measure into compliance with the US obligations under the WTO in
accordance with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this case. Malaysia argues that it
cannot be compelled to submit its own conservation measures to scrutiny of their equivalence with the
US standards because that would mean that it has to bow to standards unilaterally determined by the
United States. The European Communities shares Malaysia’s concern regarding the unilateral
application of domestic standards outside the territory of the state that originally developed them.
4.45 In this context, the European Communities notes that the Revised Guidelines satisfy
themselves with standards that are "equivalent" in their effectiveness to the standards applicable to US
shrimp trawlers. The United States thus does not apply its domestic standards as such to foreign
fishing activities. It is only the effectiveness of the measures taken by Malaysia that is the
United States wishes to be able to ascertain.
4.46 The European Communities notes that the Appe llate Body specifically underlined in the
United States - Shrimp case that the United States is required by the chapeau of Article XX GATT to
apply its conservation measures in a manner that is compatible with the need for international
cooperation and negotiation. The European Communities further notes that international cooperation,
which is the opposite of unilateral action, cannot take place in any meaningful way without an
exchange of information before more far-reaching cooperative efforts may be envisaged.
4.47 The European Communities therefore considers that a request for information relating to
readily available empirical data and objective scientific studies on the effectiveness of conservation
measures taken by a foreign country is a necessary part of a cooperative effort. Of course, to require
burdensome research of data that are not easily available may not be part of a reasonable effort for
cooperation in good faith. The European Communities cannot judge whether it would be difficult for
Malaysia to demonstrate the effectiveness of its own conservation measures or, in the absence of such
measures, whether it is able to show with readily available empirical data that there is no need for
such measures under the specific conditions prevailing in the waters in which Malaysian shrimp
trawlers operate. The European Communities notes that there is some reference to these conditions in
Malaysia’s written submissions.
4.48 Malaysia’s claim that the United States is applying unilateral effectiveness standards cannot
stand, the European Communities submits, if it is Malaysia that refuses to enter into a cooperative
effort by communicating to the United States and other interested nations, on the basis of readily
available empirical data and scientific studies, the conservation situation for sea turtles threatened by
shrimp trawling in the waters of the Indian Ocean. After all, there can be no doubt that sea turtles of
the species to which Section 609 refers are among the species that are threatened by extinction
according to CITES and that these sea turtles form part of the "global commons" which cannot be
adequately protected by a single state without some form of international cooperation. International
cooperation means, as a minimum, communication of relevant available data between the nations that
participate in such cooperation.
4.49 In the view of the European Communities, the United States was required by the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB to enter into negotiations during the reasonable period of
time in order to be able to apply Section 609 in a non-discriminatory manner. Malaysia confirms that
such negotiations have indeed been initiated by the United States and that they are "well advanced" at
present. It would be difficult to claim that there is an obligation of result with regard to international
negotiations. Rather, to paraphrase the third sentence of Article 3.7 of the DSU, it would be clearly
preferable if the parties to the present dispute could find a mutually acceptable solution to the dispute
that is consistent with the covered agreements. Such a solution could best be achieved by the
conclusion of an international agreement on the conservation of sea turtles in the Indian Ocean. Of
course, since the conclusion of such an international agreement depends on the consent of both

parties, it would not be possible to require that the parties enter into such an agreement at a particular
point in time, such as the end of the reasonable period of time in the present case.
4.50 The EC notes that, as a separate matter, Malaysia draws the Panel’s attention to the fact that
the Revised Guidelines have been found inconsistent with Section 609 by a domestic court in the
United States. Malaysia claims in this context that, even though the court ruling in that case is
presently under appeal and that in the meantime the ruling has not led to a change in the way in which
the Revised Guidelines are applied, the United States must assume international responsibility for the
rulings taken by its courts.
4.51 It is true, the European Communities argues, that the domestic court ruling in the present case
casts a doubt on the ability of the United States to continue the application of the Revised Guidelines
without an amendment to Section 609. This is at present an open issue and may make it more
difficult to make informed decisions on the prospect for the access of shrimp and shrimp products
from non-certified nations to the market of the United States. On the other hand, it does not appear
that the domestic court ruling has any immediate effect on the ability of the United States to take a
more flexible approach to the imports of shrimp and shrimp products, as required by the
Appellate Body.
4.52 Thus, in conclusion the European Communitie s finds the present complaint by Malaysia
somewhat premature. However, since the European Communities is not in possession of all the
factual elements that may be relevant to the resolution of the present dispute, the
European Communities will abstain from making a more detailed suggestion on how the Panel should
dispose of this dispute.
4.53 In response to the question of the Panel concerning efforts to reach a multilateral solution in
relation to the conservation of sea turtles, the EC considers that the Report of the Consultations on
Needs and Mechanisms for Regional Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles held in Perth,
Western Australia, from 19 to 22 October 1999 gives the full picture of the efforts undertaken to
develop multilateral conservation methods for sea turtles in the Indian Ocean region. The
European Communities cannot add any further information on these negotiations (nor on the
negotiations of the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, in
which it did not participate) beyond the material that is already before the Panel.
4.54 In response to the question posed by Malaysia on the burden of proof, the
European Communities makes reference to the following finding of the Appellate Body in
United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline:
"The burden of demonstrating that a measure provisionally justified
as being within one of the exceptions set out in the individual
paragraphs of Article XX does not, in its application, constitute abuse
of such exception under the chapeau, rests on the party invoking the
exception. That is, of necessity, a heavier task than that involved in
showing that an exception, such as Article XX(g), encompasses the
measure at issue."
130
4.55 In addition, as is apparent from its answer to the same question, the United States accepts that
it "is asserting as an affirmative defense that its measure falls, as modified, within the scope of
Article XX. As the Appellate Body explained in United States - Wool Shirts , the burden of
establishing such a defence rests on the party asserting it." It appears, therefore, that there is no
dispute with regard to the issue raised by Malaysia’s question concerning the burden of proof.

130 Adopted on 20 May 1996, WT/DS2/AB/R, p. 22 et seq.

4. Hong Kong, China
4.56 Hong Kong, China makes its submission as a third party in this case out of legal and systemic
interest. Hong Kong, China also notes that it took part as respectively a third party and a third
participant in the Original Panel and the Appellate Body proceedings.
4.57 In summary, the aim of Hong Kong, China's written submission is first to set out what is the
appropriate legal framework to consider the question of whether or not the United States has
implemented the DSB recommendations and rulings. In this connection, Hong Kong, China provides
its understanding of the mandate of "compliance panels" and identifies the recommendations and
rulings of the DSB which the present compliance panel should examine. The submission also aims to
answer a question raised, i.e. in case the implementing actions of a WTO Member are overturned by
its domestic court.
4.58 With respect to the mandate of a 21.5 panel, Hong Kong, China refers to a recent
Appellate Body case and argues that what is at stake before a compliance panel is whether a new (in
comparison to the original dispute) measure is in itself consistent with the WTO Agreements,
particularly with the specific provisions with which the panel or Appellate Body found the original
measure inconsistent. The new measure must also be a measure which is related to the original
dispute, that is, it must be a measure which is adequate for the WTO Member concerned to be deemed
to have complied with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.
4.59 Hong Kong, China recalls the relevant rulings of the Appellate Body and states that the
compliance panel must examine whether the US actions taken consequent to the rulings of the DSB
and taken to comply with the said rulings are in conformity with the relevant GATT provisions.
4.60 Hong Kong, China recalls the statement of the United States in its written submission that it
"need not necessarily address each one of those aspe cts in order to comply with the Appellate Body
findings" on the grounds that the term "cumulative effect" used in paragraph 176 of the Appellate
Body Report in United States – Shrimp, as read by the United States, means that the Appellate Body's
findings of unjustifiable discrimination depended on a combination of aspects of the application of
Section 609. Hong Kong, China disagrees with this reading although it notes that the United States,
notwithstanding its assertion above, also states that it has indeed addressed all of the defects in the
application of Section 609.
4.61 In case the implementing actions are overturned by a domestic court, Hong Kong, China
touches upon a decision by the US Court of International Trade (CIT), attached to Malaysia's written
submission. The legal question that arises is whether, in view of the mentioned CIT decision, the
United States can be deemed to have complied with its WTO obligations. Hong Kong, China
considers that the other issues before the compliance panel are whether implementation occurs once
legislative/administrative actions have been taken, and the effects of subsequent judiciary action that
put into jeopardy the mentioned legislative/administrative implementing actions.
4.62 In concluding, Hong Kong, China reiterates that environmental protection in general and
conservation of sea turtles in particular is not in dispute in this case. Indeed, all parties and third
parties to the dispute fully endorsed these causes. What is at issue is whether the specific measures
taken by the United States to comply with the recommendation and rulings of the DSB are consistent
with the WTO provisions, particularly the chapeau of GATT Article XX.
4.63 In response to the question of the Panel on efforts to reach a multilateral solution in relation to
the conservation of sea turtles, Hong Kong, China replies that it has not been involved in any
negotiations with the United States in this respect.

5. India
4.64 India submits that Section 609, in its present form and manner of application would amount to
a unilateral economic embargo. It requires other Members, which want to have access to the US
market, to adopt essentially the same shrimp/turtle policy as that of the United States without taking
into account the different conditions of other countries. The unilateral character of the measure
heightens its disruptive and discriminatory effects. This measure ought to be multilateral and
consensual. In this regard, India urges the Panel to take into account Principles 7, 11 and 12 of the
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. India also joins Malaysia and others in calling
upon the United States to remove the measure, i.e. Section 609 and the import prohibition under that
Section.
4.65 In response to Malaysia's question with respect to the burden of proof in this case, India
agrees with Malaysia that the burden of proof lies with the United States to demonstrate that the
measures taken by it to comply with the DSB recommendations and rulings are justified under GATT
Article XX.
4.66 In response to the Panel's question concerning efforts to reach a multilateral solution in
relation to the conservation of sea turtles, India notes that it participated in the Perth Seminar held on
19-22 October 1999. The needs and mechanisms for regional cooperation in the conservation and
management of marine turtles was discussed at this seminar, and a resolution on developing a regional
agreement on Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles and their Habitats in the Indian Ocean
and South-East Asian Region was adopted. India also was represented at the follow-up meeting held
in Malaysia on 11-14 July 2000. Various aspects of marine turtle conservation were discussed at this
meeting and the draft agreement was further modified. The draft agreement was circulated to the
different state parties for consideration and signature. India notes that it is still studying this draft
agreement. India confirms that it is a signatory to the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species of Wild
Animals.
6. Japan
4.67 Japan believes that preserving the global environment is important and that protecting
endangered species is essential. At the same time, it is also necessary to ensure that both trade and
environment policies are mutually supportive. As mentioned by Japan during the CTE discussions,
when a trade measure is applied for environmental purposes, it is necessary to ensure that such
measures are not used: (a) to disguise protectionism; nor (b) in an arbitrary manner. Japan believes
the extraterritorial use of unilateral trade measures could raise concerns over arbitrary and
discriminatory implementation. When such measures are used for environmental policy, their legal
consistency must be checked carefully.
4.68 In Japan's view, the key legal issue in this panel is whether the measures taken by the
United States in order to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB are sufficient to
justify the import ban under GATT Article XX (in particular, the chapeau of Article XX). While the
United States could have fully implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB by lifting
the import ban under Section 609, Japan does not agree with the arguments that the DSB
recommendations necessarily require the United States to lift the import ban itself.
4.69 Japan considers that as the provisions in Article XX are "exceptions" to the basic principles of
the GATT, they should be applied in a strict manner. Japan fully agrees with the Appellate Body
Report that "the purpose and object of the introductory clauses of Article XX is generally the
prevention of 'abuse of the exceptions of [Article XX]'."
131 Therefore, Japan believes that if the
United States maintains the import ban, all the aspects examined by the Appellate Body in the original

131 Appellate Body Report, para. 116.

dispute should be carefully examined again in order to find out if the US measure is now justifiable
under Article XX. In this regard, Japan cannot accept the argument of the United States that "the
United States need not necessarily address each one of those aspects in order to comply with the
Appellate Body findings." Japan considers that the arguments presented by Australia are important,
for example: (a) that "the US does not appear to have expressed a view on what actions it has taken,
or was required to take, to address the issue of differential phase-in periods for TEDs"; and (b) that
"the US has not presented any evidence in its firs t submission that indicates any change to the
'unilateral and consensual procedures' of the import ban, or that the ban is now based on 'consensual
and multilateral procedures'."
4.70 In response to the question of the Panel concerning efforts for the conservation of sea turtles,
Japan submits that it has not been involved in any bilateral or multilateral negotiations with the
United States. Regarding the conservation of sea turtles in general, however, their conservation has
been on the agenda of the Conference of the Parties to CITES, in which both Japan and the
United States have participated. In its meeting in 2000, CITES considered a proposal to downlist or
transfer a particular species of sea turtles (the hawksbill turtle) from Appendix I to Appendix II, i.e. in
order to change the import/export regulations applied by CITES.
4.71 The view of Japan in response to Malaysia's question concerning the burden of proof is that
the key legal issue in this Panel is whether the measures taken by the United States in order to comply
with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB are sufficient for making the import ban justifiable
under GATT Article XX. Japan's understanding of the argument of the United States in this
proceeding is, essentially, that the United States has rectified all the problems identified in the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB, and that now the import ban under Section 609 is justified
under the provisions of Article XX.
4.72 Generally speaking, since the provisions of Article XX are "exceptions" to the basic GATT
principles, Japan considers that the burden of establishing an affirmative defence based on these
provisions should rest on the party asserting it. This is a well-established principle and was confirmed
by the Appellate Body in United States – Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and
Blouses from India.
132 Japan also considers the finding of the Appellate Body in Brazil - Export
Financing Programme for Aircraft133 lead to the conclusion in this context that the above-mentioned
allocation of burden of proof would not be altered even before an Article 21.5 panel.
7. Mexico
4.73 As a general observation, Mexico submits that it does not believe this case concerns an
environmental dispute. The WTO is not the approp riate forum for raising such issues. Moreover,
neither the parties nor the third parties question the appropriateness of protecting the environment in
general or migratory species such as sea turtles in particular. Mexico reiterates its substantial interest
in this case, inter alia , because of its systemic implications for the interpretation of the general
exceptions to the GATT 1994.
4.74 With reference to the terms of reference of the Panel, Mexico agrees with the line of
reasoning followed by the Appellate Body in Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian
Aircraft – Recourse by Brazil to Article 21.5 of the DSU 134, inasmuch as the present Panel's terms of
reference are not confined to determining whether or not the United States has complied with the DSB

132 Adopted on 23 May 1997, WT/DS33/AB/R (hereafter "United States - Wool Shirts").
133 Adopted on 4 August 2000, WT/DS46/AB/RW (hereafter " Brazil – Aircraft – Recourse by Canada
To Article 21.5 of the DSU"), para. 66.
134 Adopted on 4 August 2000, WT/DS70/AB/RW (hereafter "Canada – Aircraft – Recourse by Brazil
to Article 21.5 of the DSU"), para. 41.

recommendations and rulings, but rather to determining whether the United States' measure is
consistent with a covered agreement, in this case the GATT 1994.
4.75 In view of the fact that the parties appear to agree that the United States' measure continues to
constitute a "prohibition or restriction" within the meaning of Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994, 135
Mexico argues that the scope of this dispute is confined to determining whether that measure is
justified under GATT Article XX
136 and, specifically, under the chapeau of that article.
4.76 Mexico agrees with the Panel that Article XX is a limited and conditional exception to the
obligations imposed by other provisions of the General Agreement, not a positive rule establishing
obligations in itself, and that it has therefore been interpreted narrowly.
4.77 With respect to the actions of the United States to bring its measure into conformity with the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB, Mexico argues that the United States confined itself to
modifying the application of its law on the basis of the Appellate Body's findings.
4.78 Thus, in referring to the differences of treatment which constituted "unjustifiable
discrimination", the United States indicates that:
(a) It has introduced greater flexibility in the application of Section 609;
(b) it no longer prohibits the importation of shrimp harvested by vessels using TEDs even
where they originated in non-certified countries. (The United States recognizes that
this aspect is the subject of domestic judicial proceedings);
(c) it has endeavoured to conduct negotiations with the complaining parties, in particular
with Malaysia and other Indian Ocean nations; and
(d) it has offered and provided technical assistance services.
4.79 In referring to the United States' measure that has been considered to constitute a means of
arbitrary discrimination, Mexico points out the observation by the United States that it has resolved
the two main problems, namely lack of flexibility and lack of transparency (concepts identified in
sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) above).
4.80 With respect to whether the United States has complied with the recommendations and
rulings of the DSB, Mexico considers that the United States' argument that it only needed to modify
specific aspects of the application of its legislation is excessively minimalist, particularly when it
comes to justifying a measure under the general exceptions to the GATT 1994. In Mexico's opinion,
in order to determine whether the United States' measure is now in conformity with the GATT 1994,
the Panel should consider the following:
(a) Whether the United States measure can be justified under Article XX.
(b) Whether the judicial proceeding in the case concerning Turtle Island Restoration
Network and Anor. v. Robert L. Mallett Acting Secretary of Commerce and Anor. and

135 According to Mexico, para. 7.17 of the Panel Report in this case (WT/DS58/R) stated that: "the
wording of Section 609 and the interpretation of it made by the CIT are sufficient evidence that the
United States imposes a "prohibition or restriction" within the meaning of Article XI:1. We therefore find that
Section 609 violates Article XI:1 of GATT 1994." Mexico notes that no appeal was made against that finding.
136 Mexico refers to para. 187(c) of the Appellate Body Report that states that the United States
measure "while qualifying for provisional justification under Article XX(g), fails to meet the requirements of the
chapeau of Article XX, and, therefore, is not justified under Article XX of the GATT 1994."

National Fisheries Institute Inc. constitutes in itself non-compliance with the DSB
recommendations and rulings.
4.81 Concerning the justification of the measure under Article XX, Mexico's argument on this
subject may be set forth as follows:
(a) The Panel determined that the US measure constitutes a violation of Article XI:1 of
the GATT 1994. This was not appealed.
(b) The Appellate Body found that the measure is not justifiable under Article XX of the
GATT 1994 because it was applied in a manner which constituted arbitrary
discrimination, as well as unjustifiable discrimination.
(c) The Appellate Body did not rule on the third element of the chapeau to Article XX
(disguised restriction on international trade).137
(d) The United States decided to maintain a prohibition on importation, which had been
declared inconsistent with Article XI of the GATT 1994, and alleges that, by merely
following the findings of the Appellate Body, it brought its measure into conformity.
(e) Mexico maintains that it is not enough for the United States to demonstrate that it
followed the findings of the Appellate Body; rather, it must show that its measure no
longer constitutes a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination and, in addition,
that it is not applied in a manner which would constitute a disguised restriction on
international trade.
(f) The United States has not demonstrated that its measure is not applied in a manner
that constitutes a disguised restriction on international trade. In fact, Mexico
considers that the Panel could only examine this aspect if the United States were to
submit arguments on the subject. As it has not done so, Mexico does not see how the
Panel could justify the United States' measure under Article XX.
(g) As the measure cannot be justified under Article XX of the GATT, the finding that
the United States' measure is inconsistent with Article XI of the GATT prevails.
4.82 Mexico recalls that the United States asserted that Mexico was disregarding the fact that the
parties had discussed the matter of a disguised restriction in the Original Panel proceeding, apart from
which the Appellate Body supported the United States' position that its measure was not a disguised
restriction on international trade. However, Mexico observes that, in referring to the Panel Report, the
United States confined itself to repeating the arguments that it had itself submitted, which were
clearly not endorsed by the Panel. In addition, the United States referred to two paragraphs (140 and
141) of the Appellate Body Report, without mentioning that those paragraphs referred to sub-
paragraph (g) of Article XX, not its chapeau.
4.83 Mexico comments on the judicial proceedings in the case concerning Turtle Island
Restoration Network and Anor. v. Robert L. Mallett Acting Secretary of Commerce and Anor. and
National Fisheries Institute Inc. Malaysia maintains that the CIT de termined that the fact of granting
entry to shrimp or shrimp products harvested by vessels using TEDs, but from non-certified nations,
resulted in a violation of the letter of Section 609, for which reason the US Administration should not
apply the Revised Guidelines, and that the United States had, therefore, not complied with the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB. Mexico notes that the response of the United States is that
Malaysia had misunderstood the Court's ruling, which did not oblige the US Department of State to
change its current policy, and that, in fact, the is sue is currently under review by an appellate court,
for which reason there has been no modification of the measure for the time being.

137 Mexico notes that in para 184 of its Report, the Appellate Body stated that "[h]aving made this
finding, it is not necessary for us to examine also whether the United States measure is applied in a manner that
constitutes a "disguised restriction on international trade" under the chapeau of Article XX."

4.84 Mexico takes note of the arguments and considers that a prohibition on importation of shrimp
harvested by TEDs merely because of a lack of certification would be harmful.
4.85 In its response to the Panel's question with respect to efforts to achieve multilateral
agreement, Mexico points out that the efforts to achieve a multilateral settlement are irrelevant for
determining compliance or non-compliance with the requirements of Article XX because otherwise
the implication would be that a level of effort is required as a threshold for determining whether a
measure is justified or unjustified. In Mexico's opinion, no such threshold requirement is contained,
either explicitly or implicitly, in Article XX, apart from which it would be necessary to specify which
party or parties would be responsible for that effort: the party which imposes the measure, or the one
which suffers the consequences of the measure? Nor is an import prohibition justifiable on the
grounds that the negotiations for an international agreement have not been concluded, since the
success or failure of a multilateral negotation is also no guarantee of compliance with all the
requirements of Article XX.
4.86 An import prohibition, Mexico argues, may be applied in a manner which constitutes a means
of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination even where the Member imposing the prohibition or the
other Members involved have made serious efforts, in good faith, to achieve a multilateral settlement.
Moreover, irrespective of whether negotiations have taken place, all WTO Members must comply in
the first instance with their substantive obligations under the covered agreements, including Article XI
of the GATT. When that is not possible and the Member concerned decides to avail itself of the
general exceptions, that Member must comply with each and all of the requirements laid down in
Article XX. Otherwise, that Member will not be entitled to impose a prohibition or quantitative
restriction on the importation of products, regardless of the aim pursued and whether or not it has
entered into negotiations with other Members.
4.87 Regarding submissions to the Panel from non-governmental organizations, Mexico makes the
following observations:
(a) In Spanish, the normal meaning of the verb "recabar" (to seek) as used in Article 13
of the DSU is: "alcanzar, conseguir con instancias o súplicas lo que se desea" (to get
what one wants by formal request or entreaty), or " pedir, solicitar " (to ask for,
request). The Panel's authority is restricted to "asking or requesting" or to "getting
what it wants by formal request or entreaty". Therefore, if the Panel does not take
that initiative, Article 13 is not applicable.
(b) The United States attached to its submission a communication from an entity called
the Center for Marine Conservation ("CMC"). In Mexico's opinion, that
communication should not have been accepted when it was initially submitted unless
it had been sought, i.e. "asked for or requested", by the Panel.
4.88 Moreover, Mexico notes the fact that the United States attached the communication to its
submission at a later stage does not give it the right to have it taken into account by the Panel, unless
the United States assumes responsibility for it, in which case it would no longer be a CMC
communication but the official position of the Government of the United States. In that case, this
status would be applicable to the entire document originally submitted by the CMC, since if one or
more parts of that communication did not conform to the official position of the United States
Government, the part or parts in question would not have been included in the second written
submission of the United States. Finally, the document in question had not been transmitted to
Mexico or, presumably, to any of the parties to this proceeding. Mexico was therefore unable to refer
to the content of the communication.
4.89 In concluding, Mexico is of the opinion that the United States bears the burden of proving that
its measure is justified under Article XX of the GATT 1994. The United States has not succeeded in

doing so, in particular because it has not taken the trouble to demonstrate that its measure is not
applied in a manner which would constitute a disguised restriction on international trade.
4.90 Moreover, taking into account the findings of th e Panel, to the effect that the United States'
measure constituted a violation of Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994, Malaysia has a presumption in its
favour, which has not been effectively refuted by the United States.
4.91 In view of the fact that the United States attached the CMC communication to its submission
as an integral part thereof, Mexico considers that it should be treated as the official position of the
United States and not as a CMC communication or an " amicus curiae" brief. Furthermore, any
reference to that communication in the Panel Report should be made as a reference to the written
submission of the United States, without mentioni ng the CMC. Otherwise, recognition would be
given to a communication from a non-member of the WTO, which was not requested by the Panel.
4.92 On Malaysia's question concerning the burden of proof, Mexico considers that it is the
responsibility of the party which invokes the general exception under Article XX to justify the
invocation of that exception. This has been the approach adopted by various panels.
138
4.93 In this Panel, Mexico considers that the burden is on the United States to prove that its
measure is consistent with the three requirements of the Article XX chapeau, i.e. that the measure is
not applied in a manner which would constitute: (i) a means of unjustifiable discrimination; (ii) a
means of arbitrary discrimination; or (iii) a disguised restriction on international trade.
4.94 In Mexico's opinion, the United States has pu t forward arguments concerning the first two
elements, but not the third. Accordingly, it is not possible for the United States' measure to be
justified under Article XX of the GATT 1994.
8. Thailand
4.95 Thailand submits that the issue at hand is whether the United States has taken measures to
comply with the DSB recommendations and rulings that remove the inconsistencies with the covered
agreements as identified in the Panel and Appellate Body Reports adopted by the DSB. In Thailand's
view, the United States has not done so.
4.96 First, Thailand argues that the US statutory prohibition may be justified under GATT
Article XX only if it is applied in a manner that does not constitute "a means of arbitrary or
unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail." According to the
DSB recommendations and rulings, the United States is requested to bring its measure found by the
Panel to be inconsistent with Article XI and found by the Appellate Body not to be justified under
Article XX into conformity with its obligations under the GATT 1994.
139

138 Mexico refers to the Panel in Canada – Administration of the Foreign Investment Review Act
(L/5504, adopted on 7 February 1984, BISD 30S/140) that held that: "(s)ince Article XX(d) is an exception to
the General Agreement, it is up to Canada, as the party invoking the exception, to demonstrate that the purchase
undertakings are necessary to secure compliance with the Foreign Investment Review Act". See Analytical
Index to the GATT , Vol. I, p. 621. Similarly, the Panel in United States – Restrictions on Imports of Tuna
(WT/DS21/R, not adopted, circulated on 3 September 1991, BISD 39S/155) pointed out that "Article XX is a
limited and conditional exception from obligations under other provisions of the General Agreement, and not a
positive rule establishing obligations in itself. Therefore, the practice of panels has been to interpret Article XX
narrowly, to place the burden on the party invoking Ar ticle XX to justify its invocation, and not to examine
Article XX exceptions unless invoked" (para 5.22, references deleted).
139 Appellate Body Report, para. 188. According to the Original Panel, the import ban as applied by
the United States on the basis of Section 609 is not consistent with Article XI of the GATT 1994 and is not

4.97 In Thailand's view, it is the statutory prohibition, as applied, not its "application" that violates
the obligations of the United States under the GATT 1994. The term "measure" used in the
Appellate Body Report paragraph 188 can only be understood to refer to the import prohibition as
mandated by Section 609 and applied by the Department of State through its Guidelines, not the
application of this prohibition as suggested by th e United States. Careful reading of the Appellate
Body Report, paragraphs 184 (4th line), 186 (6th line), and 187(c) , confirms Thailand’s understanding
of the ruling: the Appellate Body mentions the word "measure" and not "application." The measure
at issue in this dispute has been identified by the panel as "the embargo applied by the United States
on the basis of Section 609." 140 The Appellate Body confirms that it is this measure, not its
application, which is at issue in the appeal.141 Thailand is of the view that as long as its application by
the United States Government is inconsistent with a covered agreement, the prohibition, as applied,
violates the US obligations under the WTO Agreement. If the United States cannot or does not apply
the prohibition in a manner consistent with Article XX, it must stop applying the import prohibition
and consequently review and amend Section 609 in order to comply with the DSB recommendations
and rulings.
4.98 In order that the statutory prohibition of the United States is justified, Thailand submits that
all the aspects of inconsistency with GATT 1994 Ar ticle XX must be removed. The Appellate Body
has identified a number of discriminatory elements in the US measure. Any of these elements
constitute in itself a breach of treaty obligation. The United States must remove all of these
discriminatory elements in order to comply w ith the ruling and conform to the principle pacta sunt
servanda – the rule that treaties are binding on the parties and must be performed in good faith, which
is a fundamental principle of the law of treaties well enshrined in Article 26 of the Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties.
4.99 Thailand disagrees with the suggestion of the United States
 that it need not necessarily
address each one of the aspects of discrimination in order to comply with the Appellate Body
findings. On the contrary, the principle of good faith treaty performance dictates that any and each
breach of treaty obligation by the United States must be removed.
4.100 Thailand considers that the Panel should examine whether each and every aspect of the
discrimination identified by the Appellate Body has been removed, notwithstanding the US claim that
the Panel is not required to do so because the United States has addressed all the aspects of
discrimination found by the Appellate Body. Only one of these aspects that remains after the expiry
of the reasonable period of time constitutes in itself a violation by the United States of its obligations
under the GATT 1994.
4.101 Second, Thailand is of the view that the United States still applies the statutory prohibition in
a manner that constitutes "a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries
where the same conditions prevail." The reasonable period of time has expired, but the United States
still has not removed some of the aspects of the discrimination found by the Appellate Body to be
inconsistent with Article XX of the GATT 1994. Two of these aspects are addressed as follows.
4.102 The first aspect Thailand considers is that the United States Government cannot implement
the DSB ruling that it must permit importation of shrimps harvested using TEDs from non-certified
countries because such permission violates Section 609 as interpreted by the US judiciary.
4.103 Thailand notes that, according to the DSB recommendations and rulings, the United States
must permit importation of shrimps harvested by vessels using TEDs comparable in effectiveness to

justified under Article XX of the same Agreement (Panel Report, para. 8.1). The Appellate Body confirmed that
the US "measure" is not justified under Article XX (Appellate Body Report, para. 187(c)).
140 Panel Report, para. 7.11. See also paras. 7.17 and 8.1.

those required in the United States, even if the harvesting nation is not certified pursuant to
Section 609. Failure to do so constitutes an unjustifiable discrimination in the sense of the Article XX
chapeau.142
4.104 Thailand notes that in July 2000, however, the US Court of International Trade ruled that
allowing such importation is inconsistent with Section 609 ("the CIT ruling"). 143 T h e C I T r u l i n g
means that Section 609, as interpreted by the US judiciary, mandates action that is inconsistent with
paragraph 165 of the Appellate Body Report and the relevant provision of the covered Agreement (i.e.
the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994). Section 609, therefore, cannot be reconciled with, as
the Appellate Body puts it, "the declared policy objective of protecting and conserving sea turtles"
144
and, consequently, is not justified under Article XX(g), provisionally or otherwise.
4.105 Pursuant to the legal system of the United States, Thailand notes, it is the Judiciary that has
the authority to adopt interpretations of legal provisions. The US judiciary is not bound by
interpretations given by the Executive Branch of legal provisions. It is the meaning of the law as
ascertained by the US courts that must be retained by the Panel. Previous panels and the Appellate
Body have underlined this point in United States - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916
145 and United States –
Sections 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974 .146 The Appellate Body also ruled in the United States -
Shrimp report that "the United States, like all other Members of the WTO and of the general
community of States, bears responsibility for acts of all its departments of government, including its
judiciary."
147
4.106 It is Thailand's view, therefore, that Section 609 as currently interpreted by the US Judiciary
is inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under the WTO Agreement. Contrary to the
claim of the United States, this is not a matter of speculation. Section 609 currently stands in
violation of the obligations of the United States. Under customary international law and under the
WTO Agreement, Article XVI:4,
 the United States must amend this Act in order to comply with its
obligations.
4.107 The second aspect Thailand argues is that the United States has failed to remove the
inconsistency regarding the "lack of flexibility" issue. The US measure at issue in the original dispute
requires other WTO Members to adopt essentially the same conservation programme as that applied
by the United States. The use of approved TEDs at all times is required regardless of possible
different conditions in other countries. According to the Appellate Body, this "rigidity and
inflexibility" constitutes an unjustifiable and arbitrary discrimination within the meaning of the
chapeau of Article XX.
 148 The Revised Guidelines are not sufficient to remove the discrimination
found by the Appellate Body, since:

142 Appellate Body Report, para. 165.
143 Turtle Island Restoration Network v. Robert Mallett, 110 Fed. Supp. 2d 1005 (CIT 2000).
144 Appellate Body Report, para. 165.
145 Both panels and the Appellate Body Reports WT/DS136/AB/R, WT/DS162/AB/R were adopted on
26 September 2000. See para. 101 of the Appellate Body Report, para. 6.84 of the Panel Report in
WT/DS136/R, and para. 6.97 of the Panel Report in WT/DS162/R.
146 Adopted on 27 January 2000, WT/DS152/R. See para. 8.1(d), which should be read in conjunction
with footnote 700 on p. 337 of that Report.
147 Appellate Body Report, para. 173. The Appellate Body rightly quoted doctrinal writings in support
of this ruling in footnote 177 on p. 71 of the Report. In this respect, it is pertinent to note the view of
Lord McNair, an authority on the law of treats in The Law of Treaties , Oxford University Press, 1961, p. 346.
Therefore, the fact that the US Government (the Department of State) has not, as of now, modified the 1999
Revised Guidelines in order to comply with the CIT ruling does not remove the inconsistency of Section 609
with the DSB recommendations and rulings.
148 Appellate Body Report, paras. 161-164, 172 and 177.

(a) TEDs remains the requirement or the standard of judgment regardless of any different
conditions prevailing in the territories or jurisdiction areas of other Members.149
(b) The US Department of State remains the sole authority to assess the effectiveness of
other Members’ programmes to protect sea turtles in the course of shrimp trawl
fishing, on the basis of a standard decided by the US authorities alone.
(c) The applying nations have the burden of demonstrating that they apply comparably
effective regulatory programmes. This amounts to a presumption that only a TED-
based programme is effective for sea turtle conservation in shrimp trawl fishing,
unless proven otherwise.
(d) The apparent, newly introduced "flexibility" of allowing non-TED users to be
certified is rendered meaningless by the statement (Section II.B(a) of the Revised
Guidelines) that the Department of State is "aware of no measures or series of
measures that can minimize the capture and drowning of sea turtles [ ... ] that is
comparable in effectiveness to the required use of TEDs." Since the sole judge (i.e.
the US Department of State) is not aware of anything else that may be as effective as
TEDs, it becomes quite impossible to prove otherwise.
4.108 Therefore, Thailand submits that the Revised Guidelines still impose de facto the use of TEDs
as the only basis for certification. The Appellat e Body has ruled, however, that the United States
must not require other nations to adopt essentially the same programme as that applied by the
United States because this violates the chapeau of Article XX.
150 Under the Revised Guidelines, the
United States "system and processes of certification", as the Appellate Body puts it, are still
"established and administered by the United States Agencies alone" and decision making by the US
authorities in this regard is still "unilateral."151
4.109 In conclusion, Thailand submits that the United States has not taken measures to comply with
the DSB recommendations and rulings consistent with the GATT 1994. The measures taken by the
United States to comply with the DSB recommendations and rulings in this case are still inconsistent
with the provisions of the relevant covered Agreement, i.e. Article XX of the GATT 1994. 152
Consequently, the United States has failed to brin g its prohibition measure into conformity with its
WTO obligations as recommended by the DSB. Since the discrimination has not been removed, it is
the statutory prohibition itself, i.e. Section 609, as applied, that remains in violation of the US
obligations under the WTO Agreement and unjustified by GATT Article XX.
4.110 In response to Malaysia’s request, Thailand submits that the Panel should recommend that the
United States bring its measure into conformity with the WTO Agreement and suggest that the
United States stop applying the import prohibition mandated by Section 609 immediately.
4.111 In response to the question posed by Malaysia, Thailand considers that it is well-established
GATT/WTO practice that when an affirmative defence, such as GATT Article XX, is invoked, the
burden of proof rests on the party asserting it.153

149 The differences in fishing conditions are taken into account only to the extent relevant to
determining whether a non-TED programme is as effective as the US TED-based programme, and not to
determining whether it is effective on its own merit as a turtle conservation programme for shrimp fishing.
150 Appellate Body Report, paras. 161-164.
151 Appellate Body Report, para. 172.
152 As demonstrated above, the United States still applies the import prohibition under Section 609 in a
manner that constitutes "a means of arbitrary or unjus tifiable discrimination between countries where the same
conditions prevail."
153 Panel Report, para. 7.30; Appellate Body Report, United States – Measure Affecting Imports of
Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India (adopted on 23 May 1997, WT/DS33/AB/R) p. 16 and footnote 23.

V. FINDINGS
A. GENERAL APPROACH TO THE ISSUES BEFORE THE PANEL
5.1 This Panel was established pursuant to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and
Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") to examine the claims raised by Malaysia
with respect to the consistency with the GATT 1994 of the measures taken by the United States to
comply with the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body ("DSB") in the case
 (hereafter "the
implementing measure").
154 Malaysia claims that the United States did not comply with the findings
contained in the Original Panel Report and with th e findings of the Appellate Body for the following
main reasons:
(a) Malaysia argues that the United States was not entitled, further to the Appellate Body
findings, unilaterally to adopt an import ban outside the framework of an international
agreement.
(b) Malaysia also argues that the United States should have negotiated an agreement on
the protection and conservation of sea turtles before the eventual imposition of an
import ban. Thus, by continuing to apply a unilateral measure 155 after the end of the
reasonable period of time pending the conclusion of an international agreement, the
United States failed to comply with its obligations under the GATT 1994.
(c) Malaysia also claims that the Revised Guidelines adopted by the United States do not
comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. In particular, Malaysia is
of the view that the United States imposes its own conservation policy and standards
on other Members and that such a practice is contrary to the sovereign right of
Malaysia to define its own environmental policies and standards.
5.2 The United States does not contest the fact that it imposes an import ban that falls within the
scope of Article XI of the GATT 1994. However, the United States argues that:
(a) Section 609 has been found to be provisionally justified under paragraph (g) of
Article XX of the GATT 1994; and
(b) as far as the other recommendations and rulings of the DSB are concerned, the
United States has made efforts to negotiate a sea turtle conservation agreement and
has modified the guidelines implementing S ection 609 in order to comply with those
recommendations and rulings.
5.3 In light of the claims and arguments of the parties and of the recommendations and rulings of
the DSB, the Panel is of the view that the matter befo re it should be addressed as follows. First, the
Panel should determine a number of preliminary issues such as: (i) the exact scope of its terms of

154 The "implementing measure" is composed of Section 609 of Public Law 101-162, of the revised
guidelines pursuant to Section 609, dated 8 July 1999, Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 130, Public Notice 3086,
p. 36946 (hereafter the "Revised Guidelines"), as well as of any practice under those Revised Guidelines. The
measure reviewed by the Panel in its report (WT/DS58/R), hereafter respectively the "Original Panel" and the
"Original Panel Report", and in the Appellate Body Report (WT/DS58/AB/R) will be referred to hereafter as the
"original measure".
155 Throughout these findings and unless stated otherwise, the term "unilateral measure(s)" shall be
deemed to refer to a measure which has been designed and is applied without being expressly mandated or
permitted by a multilateral agreement, without prejudice to the question of its justification under Article XX of
the GATT 1994 or any other provision of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization
(hereafter the "WTO Agreement").

reference; (ii) the burden of proof and the date at which the Panel should consider the evidence before
it; and (iii) the treatment of unsolicited submissions from non-governmental organizations.
5.4 Second, since an Article 21.5 panel is supposed to review the existence and consistency of the
measures taken to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings with a covered agreement, we
shall proceed with determining if, as claimed by Malaysia, the implementing measure violates
Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994. If we find that to be the case, we shall proceed to address the defence
put by the United States under Article XX of the GATT 1994. In this context we will review the
specific arguments raised by both parties as well as the general issue, invoked by Malaysia, of the
sovereign right of a country to determine its own environmental policies and standards.
5.5 In doing so, we shall take into account the fact that Malaysia's claims are concentrated on the
findings of the Appellate Body in this case, which will require us to start our analysis from the
Appellate Body findings and the Original Panel findi ngs. In other words, although we are entitled to
analyse fully the "consistency with a covered agreement of measures taken to comply", our
examination is not done from a completely fresh start. Rather, it has to be done in the light of the
evaluation of the consistency of the original measure with a covered agreement undertaken by the
Original Panel and subsequently by the Appellate Body. In particular, we note that some of the basic
assessments of the Original Panel were reversed by the Appellate Body and, consequently, our
evaluation of the consistency of the "measures ta ken to comply" has to respect the Appellate Body
analysis as stated in the Report adopted by the DSB.
B. P
RELIMINARY ISSUES
1. Terms of reference of the Panel
5.6 We note that, as confirmed by the Appellate Body 156, a panel has the responsibility to
determine its jurisdiction and that assessing the scope of its terms of reference is an essential part of
this determination. We note that Malaysia argues that it does not limit itself in this dispute to
contesting whether the United States has complied with the DSB recommendations and rulings. It
states that it is exercising its rights under Article 21.5 of the DSU. Malaysia adds that the mandate of
the Panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU is to examine the existence or the consistency with
Articles XI and XX of the GATT 1994 of measures taken by the United States to comply with the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB. Malaysia further argues that the steps taken by the
United States did not remove the elements of "unjustifiable discrimination" and "arbitrary
discrimination" that existed in the original meas ure. The implementing measure remains inconsistent
with Article XI and not justified under Article XX. We note that the United States does not argue that
Malaysia's claims are insufficiently specific or that its request for establishment of an Article 21.5
panel otherwise fails to meet the requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU.
5.7 The first sentence of Article 21.5 of the DSU reads in relevant parts as follows:
"Where there is disagreement as to the existence or consistency with
a covered agreement of measures taken to comply with the
recommendations and rulings [of the DSB] such dispute shall be
decided through recourse to these dispute settlement procedures,
[…]" (Emphasis added).

156 See, e.g., Report of the Appellate Body on United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 , adopted on

5.8 We recall that, in Canada – Measures Affecting The Export of Civil Aircraft - Recourse by
Brazil to Article 21.5 of the DSU157, the Appellate Body stated that:
"[…] a panel [under Article 21.5] is not confined to examining the
measures taken to comply from the perspective of the claims,
arguments and factual circumstances that related to the measure that
was subject to the original proceedings. […] Article 21.5 proceedings
involve, in principle, not the original measure, but rather a new and
different measure which was not before the original panel […] It is
natural, therefore, that the claims, arguments and factual
circumstances which are pertinent to the "measure taken to comply"
will not, necessarily, be the same as those which were pertinent in the
original dispute. Indeed, the utility of the review envisaged under
Article 21.5 of the DSU would be seriously undermined if a panel
were restricted to examining the new measure from the perspective of
the claims, arguments and factual circumstances that related to the
original measure, because an Article 21.5 panel would then be unable
to examine fully the "consistency with a covered agreement of the
measure taken to comply", as required by Article 21.5 of the
DSU."
158
5.9 The terms of reference of this Panel 159 do not differ from the standard terms of reference
applied in other Article 21.5 cases. In light of the reasoning of the Appellate Body mentioned above,
the Panel considers that it is fully entitled to addr ess all the claims of Malaysia under Article XI and
Article XX of the GATT 1994, whether or not thes e claims, the arguments and the facts supporting
them were made before the Original Panel and in the Appellate Body proceedings provided, as
recalled by the panel on Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon – Recourse by Canada
to Article 21.5 of the DSU 160, that the claims are identified in th e request for referring the matter to a
panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU.
5.10 In this respect, we reviewed the recourse by Malaysia to Article 21.5 of the DSU. 161 We are
mindful of the requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU and of the reasoning of the Appellate Body in
European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas 162and Korea
– Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products.163 We do not intend, however,
to take a position on the application of Article 6.2 in Article 21.5 proceedings. We simply note at this
stage that the United States did not argue that any claim made by Malaysia was insufficiently specific
in the light of Article 6.2 of the DSU and, therefore, we will proceed to address all of them, to the
extent necessary for the fulfilment of our mandate.
5.11 The Panel finally notes that third parties also have formulated a number of claims and
arguments in their submissions and at the hearing. In accordance with the practice of other panels

157 Adopted on 4 August 2000, WT/DS70/AB/RW (hereafter " Canada – Aircraft – Recourse by Brazil
to Article 21.5 of the DSU").
158 Ibid., para. 41.
159 WT/DS58/18.
160 Adopted on 20 March 2000, WT/DS18/RW (hereafter " Australia – Salmon – Recourse by Canada
to Article 21.5 of the DSU"), para. 7.10, sub-paragraphs 11 and 12.
161 WT/DS58/17.
162 Adopted on 25 September 1997, WT/DS27/AB/R, paras. 141 and, mostly, 142.
163 Adopted on 12 January 2000, WT/DS98/AB/R, paras. 127-128 and 130-131.

under the GATT 1947 and the WTO Agreement 164, we have decided to consider only those claims of
third parties that have been raised by the parties themselves.
2. Date on which the Panel should assess the facts
5.12 The Panel notes that the 13-month reasonable period of time agreed upon by the parties
expired on 6 December 1999. However, the DSB only established this Article 21.5 Panel at its
meeting on 23 October 2000. The Panel notes that the DSU is silent as to the date on which the
existence or consistency of the implementing measure must be assessed. On the one hand, it could be
argued that such a date must be logically the day following the end of the reasonable period of time
referred to in Article 21.3 of the DSU. On the other hand, keeping in mind that a prompt settlement of
disputes is, pursuant to Article 3.3 of the DSU, essential to the effective functioning of the WTO and
the maintenance of a proper balance between the rights and obligations of Members, it may be
appropriate for the Panel to take into account events subsequent to the end of the reasonable period of
time.
165
5.13 The Panel takes the view that it should take in to account all the relevant facts occurring until
the date the matter was referred to it. By applying this approach, an Article 21.5 panel can reach a
decision that favours a prompt settlement of th e dispute. Indeed, it avoids situations where
implementing measures allowing for compliance with the DSB recommendations and rulings would
be disregarded simply because they occur after the end of the reasonable period of time. The Panel,
while mindful of the obligation of the United States to bring its legislation into conformity by the end
of the reasonable period of time, considers that it is consistent with the spirit of Article 3.3 of the DSU
to take into account any relevant facts until the date on which the matter was referred to the Panel.
166
3. Admissibility of submissions from non-governmental organizations
5.14 In the course of the proceedings, the Panel received two unsolicited submissions from non-
governmental organizations. One was submitted by Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund on behalf of
Turtle Island Restoration Network, The Humane Society of the United States, The American Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Defenders of Wildlife, and Fiscalia del Medio Ambiente
(Chile).167 The other submission was filed by the National Wildlife Federation on behalf of the Center
for Marine Conservation, Centro Ecoceanos, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Earth, Kenya Sea
Turtle Committee, Marine Turtle Preservation Group of India, National Wildlife Federation, Natural
Resources Defense Council, Operation Kachhapa, Project Swarajya, Visakha Society for Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals.
168 Those submissions were respectively communicated to the parties on 15 and
18 December 2000. In a letter accompanying these submissions, the Panel informed the parties that
they were free to comment in their rebuttals on the admissibility and relevance of these submissions.
The Panel also informed the parties that it would set out in its report its decision as to how it would
address these submissions.

164 See the report of the panel on Japan – Trade in Semiconductors , adopted on 4 May 1988, BISD
35S/116, para. 98, where the panel stated that a panel is not required to make findings on issues raised solely by
interested third parties. See also the report on Australia – Salmon – Recourse by Canada to Article 21.5 of the
DSU, Op. Cit., where the panel did not formally address the question of the absence of consultations pursuant to
Article 4 of the DSU raised by the European Communities as a third party.
165 We note that similar premises seem to have been at the origin of the approach followed by the panel
in Australia – Salmon – Recourse by Canada to Article 21.5 of the DSU, Op. Cit . See para. 7.21.
166 The Panel notes that, in the case on Australia – Salmon – Recourse by Canada to Article 21.5 of the
DSU, Op. Cit., para. 7.10, sub-para. 24, the panel took into account, in relation to the definition of its terms of
reference, facts that occurred after the end of the reasonable period of time.
167 Hereafter the "Earthjustice Submission".
168 Hereafter the "National Wildlife Federation Submission".

5.15 The parties discussed the above-mentioned submissions in their rebuttals, at the hearing and
in replies to questions of the Panel. 169 The Panel notes that Malaysia considers in substance that the
Panel has no right under the DSU to accept or consider any unsolicited briefs, whereas the
United States argues that the Earthjustice Submi ssion, which addresses a hypothetical question not
before the Panel, does not appear to be as relevant to the issue in this dispute as the National Wildlife
Federation Submission. As far as the National Wildlife Federation Submission is concerned, the
United States considers that it raises issues directly relevant to the matter before the Panel and decided
to attach it as an exhibit to its submissions "to ensure that a relevant and informative document [would
be] before the Panel, regardless of whether the Panel decid[ed] to exercise its discretion to accept [that
submission] directly from the submitters." However, we take note of the fact that the United States
does not endorse some of the legal arguments contained in the "amicus brief" submitted by the
National Wildlife Federation.
170
5.16 As far as the Earthjustice Submission is concerned, the Panel takes note of the arguments of
the parties and decides not to include it in the record of this case. Regarding the National Wildlife
Federation Submission, the Panel notes that it is part of the submissions of the United States in this
case and, as a result, is already part of the record.
4. Burden of proof
5.17 Malaysia refers to the Appellate Body Report in United States – Measures Affecting Imports
of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India 171 to claim that a defence such as that invoked by the
United States under Article XX of the GATT 1994 is an affirmative defence. The burden is on the
United States to prove that its implementing measure complies with the requirements of Article XX of
the GATT 1994. The United States argues that Malaysia has the initial burden of showing that the
implementing measure is inconsistent with one or more obligations under a covered agreement.
However, the United States does not contest that the implementing measure is an import prohibition
under Article XI. The United States also agrees that it has the initial burden of proof of showing that
the implementing measure falls within the scope of Article XX.
5.18 We recall that, in Brazil – Export Financing Programme For Aircraft – Recourse by Canada
to Article 21.5 of the DSU
172, the Appellate Body confirmed the finding of the Article 21.5 panel that
Brazil had invoked item (k) of the Illustrative List of Export Subsidies 173as an "affirmative defence".
The Appellate Body also considered that the fact that the measure at issue was taken to comply with
recommendations and rulings of the DSB did not alter the allocation of the burden of proving Brazil's
defence under item (k). The Appellate Body then stated that:
"In United States – Measures Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts
and Blouses from India , we said: "It is only reasonable that the
burden of establishing [an affirmative] defence should rest on the
party asserting it." [Footnote omitted] As it is Brazil asserting this
"defence" using item (k) in these proceedings, we agree with the

169 See paras. 3.5 to 3.15 above.
170 The United States specified that "[t]he amicus brief attached to the US rebuttal submission reflects
the independent views of the organizations that signed on to the amicus brief. […] We would note, however,
that the amicus brief includes certain procedural and substantive defences not advanced in the US submission
[…], and thus that these matters are not before the Panel."
171 Adopted 23 May 1997, WT/DS33/AB/R (hereafter "United States – Shirts and Blouses").
172 Adopted on 4 August 2000, WT/DS46/AB/RW (hereafter " Brazil – Aircraft – Recourse by Canada
to Article 21.5 of the DSU").
173 WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, Annex I.

Article 21.5 Panel that Brazil has the burden of proving that the
revised PROEX is justified under the first paragraph of item (k)".174
5.19 We therefore conclude that it is up to Malaysia to establish a prima facie case that its claims
under Article XI:1 of GATT 1994 are founded. We al so conclude that, even though this is a
compliance case and even though good faith application of treaty obligations is to be presumed 175, the
United States still has to establish a prima facie case that the implementing measure is justified under
Article XX, since it is an affirmative defence. If the United States establishes a prima facie case, the
burden of proof will shift onto Malaysia. If the evidence on a particular claim or defence remains in
equipoise, the party bearing the initial burden of proof will be deemed to have failed to provide
sufficient evidence in support of its claim.
C. VIOLATION OF ARTICLE XI:1 OF THE GATT 1994
5.20 The Panel notes that Malaysia claims that Section 609 as it is currently applied by the
United States continues to violate Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994. The United States does not claim
that the implementing measure is compatible with Article XI:1.
5.21 Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 provides as follows:
"No prohibitions or restrictions other than duties, taxes or other
charges, whether made effective through quotas, import or export
licences or other measures, shall be instituted or maintained by any
Member on the importation of any product of the territory of any
other Member or on the exportation or sale for export of any product
destined for the territory of any other Member."
5.22 The Panel notes that the elements of the original measure found to be incompatible with
Article XI:1 in the Original Panel Report are still part of the implementing measure, i.e. Section 609
as currently applied by the United States. In particular, the United States continues to apply an import
prohibition on shrimp and shrimp products harvested in a manner determined to be harmful to sea
turtles. We note that the United States does not contest the fact that it applies such a prohibition of
import. We consider that the prohibition at issue fa lls within the "prohibitions or restrictions, other
than duties, taxes or other charges" maintained by a Member on the importation of a product from
another Member, in contravention of Article XI:1.
5.23 The Panel therefore concludes that the measure taken by the United States to comply with the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this case violates Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.
D. A
PPLICATION OF ARTICLE XX OF THE GATT 1994
1. Preliminary remarks
5.24 We note that the United States claims that the Revised Guidelines respond to all the
inconsistencies identified by the Appellate Body under the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994
and thus its import prohibition on certain shrimp and shrimp products is justified. Malaysia, on the
contrary, claims that the United States is not entitled to impose any prohibition in the absence of an
international agreement allowing it to do so. Malaysia also claims that the United States should have
withdrawn the import prohibition pending the conclusion of an international agreement. Malaysia

174 Brazil – Aircraft – Recourse by Canada to Article 21.5 of the DSU, para. 66.
175 See Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, UN Doc. A/CONF.39/27 (1969),
(hereafter the "Vienna Convention").

adds that the Revised Guidelines are still biased an d that the United States has failed to address the
aspects of the original measure faulted by the Appellate Body.176
5.25 We first note that the United States invokes Article XX as a "defence" for the violation of
Article XI:1. We recall what we said above about the burden of proof with respect to "affirmative
defences" in Article 21.5 cases. The United States chose to demonstrate the consistency of the
implementing measure with Article XX by proving that it satisfactorily responded to all the findings
of the Appellate Body. We also note that, when Malaysia contests that the implementing measure is
consistent with Article XX, it also claims that the United States did not satisfy the requirements
contained in the Appellate Body findings. The Panel notes in this respect that the claims of Malaysia
are exclusively based on the findings of the Appellate Body and on non-compliance with them.
Malaysia does not make any new claim under Article XX.
5.26 The Panel is mindful that the United States bears the burden of proving that the implementing
measure is compatible with all the requirements of the chapeau of Article XX. The Panel notes in this
respect that the Appellate Body did not discuss whether the original measure was a disguised
restriction on international trade. As a result, this aspect will have to be addressed separately and
without referring to any finding in the Appellate B ody Report. However, as far as unjustifiable and
arbitrary discrimination is concerned, the Panel is of the view that, in the absence of new claims, it is
not required to go beyond reviewing the conformity of the implementing measure of the United States
with the findings of the Appellate Body. In that context, the Panel considers it appropriate to apply the
following approach: (i) present its understanding of the Appellate Body findings; and (ii) address the
defence of the United States and Malaysia's arguments with respect to Article XX.
5.27 The Panel notes that, in its Report, the Appellate Body recalled the approach which it
considered to be appropriate when assessing the conformity of an affirmative defence under
Article XX:
"In order that the justifying protection of Article XX may be
extended to it, the measure at issue must not only come under one or
another of the particular exceptions -- paragraphs (a) to (j) -- listed in
Article XX; it must also satisfy the requirements imposed by the
opening clauses of Article XX. The analysis is, in other words, two-
tiered: first, provisional justification by reason of characterization of
the measure under Article XX(g); second, further appraisal of the
same measure under the introductory clauses of Article XX."
177
5.28 As a result, when considering the arguments of the United States, we shall first determine the
consistency of the implementing measure under paragraph (g) of Article XX. If we find the
implementing measure to be "provisionally justified" under paragraph (g), we shall proceed to
determine whether it is applied in conformity with the chapeau of Article XX.
5.29 In this respect, we recall that both the Original Panel and the Appellate Body expressly
addressed the question of the negotiation of a multilateral agreement for the protection of sea turtles.
Both considered the absence of negotiations with the complaining parties to be evidence of
"unjustifiable discrimination" within the meaning of the chapeau of Article XX. We also note that the
Appellate Body presented the "failure of the United States to engage the appellees, as well as other
Members exporting shrimp to the United States, in serious, across-the-board negotiations with the
objective of concluding bilateral or multilateral agreements for the protection and conservation of sea

176 A more detailed account of the arguments of the parties is found in Section III above.
177 Appellate Body Report, para. 118, quoting the Appellate Body Report on United States – Standards
for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, adopted 20 May 1996, WT/DS2/AB/R (hereafter " United States –
Gasoline"), p. 22.

turtles" as "another aspect of the application of Section 609 that bears heavily in any appraisal of
justifiable or unjustifiable discrimination". 178 We also note that the Appellate Body insisted on the
fact that such negotiations had not taken place before the United States enforced its import
prohibition.179
5.30 Without taking a definitive position at this stage on the actual scope and consequences of
these statements of the Appellate Body 180, we assume, for the sake of the structure of our findings,
that the Appellate Body, like the Original Panel, considered that negotiations should have taken place
before an import prohibition was applied. This, in our opinion, implies that, as part of our analysis of
the implementing measure before us , we must first determine whether the United States engaged in
serious negotiating efforts. Therefore, it seems appropriate for us first to determine the actual scope of
the Original Panel and Appellate Body findings, as adopted by the DSB, in respect of the negotiation
of an international agreement before reviewing the modifications made by the United States to its
original measure. Indeed, if we were to conclude that the United States may not impose any measure
of the type currently applied except pursuant to an international agreement, it would not be necessary
to review any further the compatibility of the implementing measure, unless such an international
agreement exists and actually allows the implementing measure currently in place.
181
5.31 This is why, as part of our analysis of whether the US implementing measure constitutes or
not unjustifiable discrimination, we shall first seek to determine the extent of the obligations of the
United States with respect to the negotiation of an international agreement, as identified by the
Appellate Body. Thereafter, as necessary, we will pursue our analysis of the compatibility of the
implementing measure with the chapeau of Article XX by determining whether, on the basis of the
other requirements identified in the DSB recomm endations and rulings, the implementing measure
meets the "unjustifiable discrimination" and "arbitrary discrimination" tests of the chapeau of
Article XX.
5.32 Finally, since we are called upon to examine the compatibility of the implementing measure
with all the relevant provisions of Article XX, we shall determine, as appropriate, whether or not that
measure constitutes or not a disguised restriction on international trade.
2. Consistency of the implementing measure with paragraph (g) of Article XX of the
GATT 1994
5.33 Paragraph (g) of Article XX of the GATT 1994 provides that, subject to the requirement that
such measure not be applied in a manner contrary to the chapeau of Article XX, nothing in the
GATT 1994 shall be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by any Member of measures:
"relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources if such
measures are made effective in conjunction with restrictions on
domestic production or consumption".
5.34 The Panel notes that it is instructed by Article 21.5 of the DSU to review "the existence or
consistency with a covered agreement of measures taken to comply with the recommendations and
rulings" of the DSB. The Panel notes that the Appellate Body found that:

178 Appellate Body Report, para. 166.
179 Ibid.
180 See section V.D.3(a) below on the question of the actual scope of the findings of the Appellate Body
with respect to the issue of bilateral or multilateral negotiations with the objective of reaching an agreement on
the protection and conservation of sea turtles.
181 This approach is consistent with the principle of judicial economy as recalled by the
Appellate Body, inter alia, in United States – Shirts and Blouses, Op. Cit. , p. 19.

"134. For all the forgoing reasons [developed in paragraphs 127 to
133 of the Appellate Body Report], we find that the sea turtles here
involved constitute "exhaustible natural resources" for purposes of
Article XX(g) of the GATT 1994."182
5.35 The Appellate Body also found that:
"141. In its general design and structure, therefore, Section 609 is
not a simple, blanket prohibition of the importation of shrimp
imposed without regard to the consequences (or lack thereof) of the
mode of harvesting employed upon the incidental capture and
mortality of sea turtles. Focusing on the design of the measure here
at stake [footnote omitted], it appears to us that Section 609, cum
implementing guidelines, is not disproportionately wide in its scope
and reach in relation to the policy objective of protection and
conservation of sea turtle species. The means are, in principle,
reasonably related to the ends. The means and ends relationship
between Section 609 and the legitimate policy of conserving an
exhaustible, and, in fact, endangered species, is observably a close
and real one, a relationship that is every bit as substantial as that
which we found in United States - Gasoline between the EPA
baseline establishment rules and the conservation of clean air in the
United States.
142. In our view, therefore, Section 609 is a measure "relating to"
the conservation of an exhaustible natural resource within the
meaning of Article XX(g) of the GATT 1994."
5.36 Finally, the Appellate Body found that:
"145. Accordingly, we hold that Section 609 is a measure made
effective in conjunction with the restriction on domestic harvesting of
shrimp, as required by Article XX(g)".
5.37 The Panel recalls that, as the party invoking Article XX, the United States bears the burden
of proving that its implementing measure meets all the relevant requirements of that Article, including
those of paragraph (g). This implies that the United States must make a prima facie case that the
implementing measure relates to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources if such a measure is
made effective in conjunction with restrictions on domestic production or consumption.
5.38 The United States has argued that Section 609 was found to be "provisionally justified" by the
Appellate Body under paragraph (g). Malaysia does not raise any claims or arguments on the specific
issue of the compatibility of Section 609 with paragraph (g) as such.
183
5.39 The Panel considers that two questions have to be addressed in order to determine whether the
implementing measure meets the requirements of paragraph (g) of Article XX. First, the Panel notes
that the Appellate Body found that Section 609 was "provisionally justified" under Article XX(g). 184
We understand this to mean that, in the process of determining whether Section 609 was justified
under Article XX, the Appellate Body concluded that Section 609 satisfied the first tier of the analysis

182 Appellate Body Report, para. 134.
183 A more detailed account of the arguments of the parties can be found in Section III above.
184 Appellate Body Report, para. 147.

defined in its report on United States – Gasoline 185, i.e. the characterization of the measure under
Article XX(g). This implies that, as long as the implementing measure before us is identical to the
measure examined by the Appellate Body in relation to paragraph (g), we should not reach a different
conclusion from the Appellate Body.
5.40 This leads us to the second question, i.e. what exactly did the Appellate Body find to be
"provisionally justified" under Article XX(g)?186 We note that the Appellate Body stated that it had to
"examine the relationship between the general structure and design of the measure here at stake,
Section 609, and the policy goal it purports to save, that is, the conservation of sea turtles."187 We also
recall that, in footnote 76 of its report, the Appellate Body stated that the United States measure at
issue was referred to as "Section 609" or "the measure" and that, by these terms, the Appellate Body
meant Section 609 and the 1996 Guidelines. While we have no doubt that the Appellate Body actually
considered the measure as a whole, our reading of the relevant paragraphs of the Appellate Body
Report nonetheless leads us to believe that the Appellate Body essentially based its finding of
"provisional justification" on the features of Section 609 as such. This is because, according to the
Appellate Body interpretation, the elements to be c onsidered in order to determine the compatibility
of the measure with paragraph (g) are essentially found in the text of Section 609 as such. In our
view, references to the implementing guidelines are there to confirm that the content of those
guidelines does not affect the interpretation of Section 609 as such in that respect.
5.41 As already mentioned above, the United States did not amend Section 609, whereas it has
issued revised implementing guidelines. We therefore conclude that since Section 609 as such has not
been modified, the findings of the Appellate Bo dy regarding paragraph (g) remain valid and the
consistency of Section 609 as such with the requirements of paragraph (g) also remains valid, to the
extent that the Revised Guidelines do not modify the interpretation to be given to Section 609 in that
respect. We have no evidence that the Revised Guidelines have modified in any way the meaning of
Section 609 vis-à-vis the requirements of paragraph (g), as interpreted by the Appellate Body.
5.42 We therefore conclude that the implementing measure is provisionally justified under
paragraph (g) of Article XX. We proceed with the second tier of the method applied by the Appellate
Body in this case, i.e. the "further appraisal of the same measure under the introductory clause of
Article XX."
188
3. Arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions
prevail: the question of international negotiations
(a) Extent of the US obligation to negotiate and/or reach an international agreement on the
protection and conservation of sea turtles
(i) Abuse or misuse of rights under Article XX as a standard for determining the extent of an
obligation to negotiate and/or enter into an international agreement
5.43 As mentioned above, the Appellate Body, as part of its process of determining whether the
original measure had been applied in a manner that constituted a means of "unjustifiable
discrimination", addressed the issue of international negotiations, an issue which is raised by Malaysia
before this Panel. After having considered that the lack of flexibility to take into account the different

185 Op. Cit., p. 22. See also Appellate Body Report, para. 118.
186 We are mindful that, as mentioned by the Appellate Body in Australia – Measures Affecting
Importation of Salmon (adopted on 6 November 1998, WT/DS18/AB/R, para. 223), our findings must be
complete enough to enable the DSB to make sufficiently precise recommendations and rulings so as to allow for
prompt compliance in order to ensure effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members.
187 Appellate Body Report, para. 137.
188 Appellate Body Report, para. 118.

situations in different countries amounted to unjustifiable discrimination189, the Appellate Body added
that:
"166. Another aspect of the application of Section 609 that bears
heavily in any appraisal of justifiable or unjustifiable discrimination
is the failure of the United States to engage the appellees, as well as
other Members exporting shrimp to the United States, in serious,
across-the-board negotiations with the objective of concluding
bilateral or multilateral agreements for the protection and
conservation of sea turtles, before enforcing the import prohibition
against the shrimp exports of those other Members."
5.44 As underlined by the Appellate Body itself, Section 609(a) directs the US Secretary of State
inter alia to initiate negotiations as soon as possible for the development of bilateral or multilateral
agreements with other nations for the protection and conservation of sea turtles. This as such is not a
ground for a finding of unjustifiable discrimination unless, in implementing Section 609(a), the
United States authorities have discriminated between exporting countries by negotiating seriously
with some and less seriously or not at all with others.
5.45 However, the Appellate Body did not conclude its analysis at that point. It also noted that
"the protection and conservation of highly migratory species […] demand concerted and cooperative
efforts on the part of the many countries whose waters are traversed in the course of recurrent sea
turtle migrations."
190 The Appellate Body went on to recall that the need for and the appropriateness
of such efforts had been recognized by the WTO itself as well as in a significant number of other
international instruments and declarations. 191 In addition, the Appellate Body recalled that the
United States had actually succeeded in negotiating an international agreement for the protection and
conservation of sea turtles, namely the Inter-American Convention.192 In the conclusion to its analysis,
the Appellate Body also stated that "The unilateral character of the application of Section 609
heightens the disruptive and discriminatory influence of the import prohibition and underscores its
unjustifiability."193
5.46 The approach of the Appellate Body leads us to co nclude that it is not solely the fact that the
United States negotiated seriously with some Members and less seriously with others which is at the
origin of its finding of unjustifiable discrimination in relation to negotiations, even though it would
have been sufficient in itself to justify such a conclusion. We believe that another reason for the
Appellate Body finding is that the United States, by unilaterally defining and implementing criteria
for applying Section 609, failed to take into account the different situations which may exist in the
exporting countries. In other words, the United States failed to pass the "unjustified discrimination"
test by applying the same regime to domestic and foreign shrimp.
5.47 This second requirement is, however, insufficie nt on its own to explain the findings of the
Appellate Body. We believe the reason for such find ings on this issue by th e Appellate Body flows
from the context. The protection and conservation of sea turtles is a field where a multilateral
approach is appropriate because of the highly migratory nature of sea turtles. Moreover, this is a field
where international cooperation is clearly favoured under the applicable norms of international law.
Finally, the successful negotiation and the content of the Inter-American Convention are evidence that

189 See para. 5.90 below.
190 Appellate Body Report, para. 168.
191 Ibid.
192 Appellate Body Report, paras. 169-171.
193 Appellate Body Report, para. 172 in fine.

a multilateral agreement is a reasonably open alternative course of action for securing the legitimate
goals of the US measure.194
5.48 Having determined that the United States had to engage in negotiations does not suffice to
determine whether the United States has complied with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB
in this respect. It is also necessary to assess the extent of the efforts required. In this regard, we
consider that the findings of the Appellate Body concerning the nature of the chapeau of Article XX
and, in particular, the notion of abuse or misuse of rights under Article XX provide clear guidance as
to how to assess the degree of efforts required from the United States in relation to the negotiation of
an international agreement.
5.49 We note that the Appellate Body stated in its Report that:
"156. Turning then to the chapeau of Article XX, we consider that
it embodies the recognition on the part of WTO Members of the need
to maintain a balance of rights and obligations between the right of a
Member to invoke one or another of the exceptions of Article XX,
specified in paragraphs (a) to (j), on the one hand, and the substantive
rights of the other Members under the GATT 1994, on the other
hand. Exercise by one Member of its right to invoke an exception,
such as Article XX(g), if abused or misused, will, to that extent,
erode or render naught the substantive treaty rights in, for example,
Article XI:1, of other Members . […] thus, a balance must be struck
between the right of a Member to invoke an exception under
Article XX and the duty of that same Member to respect the treaty
rights of the other Members. To permit one Member to abuse or
misuse its right to invoke an exception would be effectively to allow
that Member to degrade its own treaty obligations as well as to
devalue the treaty rights of other Members. If the abuse or misuse is
sufficiently grave or extensive, the Member, in effect, reduces its
treaty obligation to a merely facultative one and dissolves its juridical
character, and, in so doing, negates altogether the treaty rights of
other Members."
 195
5.50 The Appellate Body also considered that:
"159. The task of interpreting and applying the chapeau is, hence,
essentially the delicate one of locating and marking out a line of
equilibrium between the right of a Member to invoke an exception
under Article XX and the rights of the other Members under varying
substantive provisions (e.g., Article XI) of the GATT 1994, so that
neither of the competing rights will cancel out the other and thereby
distort and nullify or impair the balance of rights and obligations
constructed by the Members themselves in that Agreement. The
location of the line of equilibrium, as expressed in the chapeau, is not
fixed and unchanging; the line moves as the kind and the shape of the
measures at stake vary and as the facts making up specific cases
differ."196

194 Appellate Body Report, para. 171.
195 Italics in the original, underlining added.
196 Underlining added.

We conclude that, in order for us to determine what is actually required from the United States in
relation to engaging in serious "across-the-board" negotiations with the objective of concluding
bilateral or multilateral agreements for the protection and conservation of sea turtles, we need to
assess what is required to avoid abuse or misuse of the rights of the United States under Article XX in
the present case.
5.51 The existence of an abuse or misuse of those rights is dependent on a "line of equilibrium"
between the right of a Member to invoke an exception under Article XX and the rights of the other
Members under varying substantive provisions (e.g., Article XI) of the GATT 1994. As mentioned by
the Appellate Body, "the location of the line of equilibrium, as expressed in the chapeau, is not fixed
and unchanging; the line moves as the kind and the shape of the measures at stake vary and as the
facts making up specific cases differ." In other words, the position of the line itself depends on the
type of measure imposed and on the particular circumstances of this case. The measure at issue – an
import prohibition – has been described by the Appellate Body as "ordinarily, the heaviest 'weapon' in
a Member's armoury of trade measures."
197 In making this analogy, it seems that the Appellate Body
meant to imply that other, less trade restrictive m easures existed and also that import prohibitions,
because of their impact, had to be subject to stricter disciplines. We believe that, in order to
determine the position of the line, we need not only to identify the facts making up this specific case,
i.e. the factual context, but also to consider th e legal framework influencing the interpretation to be
given to the notion of "unjustifiable discrimination" in the factual context of the protection and
conservation of sea turtles.
5.52 The factual context is essentially related to the biology of sea turtles and, more particularly,
the fact that the sea turtles covered by Section 609 are highly migratory species, as was confirmed by
the experts consulted by the Original Panel.
198 We also note that the Appellate Body stated that this
objective - the protection and conservation of sea turtles as highly migratory species - "demands
concerted and cooperative efforts on the part of the many countries whose waters are traversed in the
course of recurrent sea turtle migrations." 199 It is also important to keep in mind, as implicitly noted
by the Appellate Body, that the situation of each Member may be different in terms of sea turtle
protection and conservation.200
5.53 As far as the legal framework is concerned, we recall that the Appellate Body also noted that
"the need for, and the appropriateness of, such efforts [to protect migratory species] have been
recognized in the WTO itself as well as in a significant number of international instruments and
declarations."201 Inevitably, when considering this legal framework, we will have to rely on the
customary norms of international law on treaty interpretation, as embodied in the Vienna Convention.
5.54 In that framework, assessing first the object and purpose of the WTO Agreement, we note
that the WTO preamble refers to the notion of "sustainable development". 202 This means that in

197 Appellate Body Report, para. 171.
198 Original Panel Report, paras. 5.1 to 5.312.
199 Appellate Body Report, para. 168, citing the Rio Declaration, Agenda 21, the Convention on
Biological Diversity, the Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, and the
Report (1996) of the CTE.
200 Appellate Body Report, para. 165, where the Appellate Body specifies that "many of those
Members [of the WTO] may be differently situated".
201 Appellate Body Report, para. 168.
202 See the final texts of the agreements negotiated by Governments at the United Nation Conference
on Environment and Development (UNCED), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3-14 June, 1992, specifically the
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (h ereafter the "Rio Declaration") and Agenda 21 at
www.unep.org; the concept is elaborated in detailed action plans in Agenda 21 so as to put in place
development that is sustainable - i.e. that "meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs". See World Commission on Environment and
Development, Our Common Future (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988).

interpreting the terms of the chapeau, we must keep in mind that sustainable development is one of
the objectives of the WTO Agreement.
5.55 How this objective is to be appreciated can further be elaborated by reference to the
Marrakesh Decision establishing the Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE). The preamble of
that Decision provides, inter alia, that:
"there should not be, nor need be, any policy contradiction between
upholding and safeguarding an open, non-discriminatory and
equitable multilateral trading system on the one hand and acting for
the protection of the environment and promotion of sustainable
development on the other."
These terms would seem to imply that recourse to trade-related measures not based on international
consensus is generally not the most appropriate means of enforcing environmental measures, since it
leads to the imposition of unwanted constraints on the multilateral trading system and may affect
sustainable development.
5.56 We also have evidence in the context of Article XX showing that preference must be given to
a multilateral approach in terms of protection of the environment. In this respect, we note the content
of the 1996 Report of the CTE, where the CTE endorsed and supported "multilateral solutions based
on international cooperation and consensus as the best and most effective way for governments to
tackle environmental problems of a transboundary or global nature."
203 Insofar as this report can be
deemed to embody the opinion of the WTO Members, it could be argued that it records evidence of
"subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties
regarding its interpretation" (Article 31.3(b) of th e Vienna Convention) and as such should be taken
into account in the interpretation of the provisions concerned. However, even if it is not to be
considered as evidence of a subsequent practice, it remains the expression of a common opinion of
Members and is therefore relevant in assessing the scope of the chapeau of Article XX.
5.57 Finally, we note that the Appellate Body, like the Original Panel, referred to a number of
international agreements, many of which have been ratified or otherwise accepted by the parties to
this dispute.
204 Article 31.3(c) of the Vienna Convention provides that, in interpreting a treaty, there
shall be taken into account, together with the cont ext, "any relevant rule of international law
applicable to the relations between the parties". We note that, with the exception of the Bonn
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) 205, Malaysia and the
United States have accepted or are committed to co mply with all of the international instruments
referred to by the Appellate Body in paragraph 168 of its Report.206
5.58 To clarify the meaning of "unjustifiable discrimination" in the context of measures relating to
the protection of endangered migratory species, the above-mentioned elements, to which proper
weight must be given pursuant to customary norms of interpretation, influence the positioning of the

203 Report (1996) of the Committee on Trade and Environment, WT/CTE/1, 12 November 1996,
para. 171.
204 Appellate Body Report, para. 168.
205 However, we note that the Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and Management of
Marine Turtles and their Habitats of the Indian Ocean and South-East Asian Region (MOU) "shall be considered
an agreement under Article IV, paragraph 4 of the CMS" ("Basic Principles", para. 1 of the MOU). It is also our
understanding that the CMS Secretariat provided assistance in the negotiation of the MOU and is the provisional
secretariat for this Memorandum of Understanding.
206 See footnote 199 above.

line of equilibrium that the United States must respect in this case. Undoubtedly, these elements
move the line of equilibrium towards multilateral solutions and non trade-restrictive measures.207
5.59 We therefore conclude that the fact that sea turtles are highly migratory species whose
protection concerns all the States through the territories or sea zones of which they migrate and the
recognition, both at the WTO level and in other international agreements that the protection of
migratory species is best achieved through international cooperation, significantly move the line of
equilibrium referred to by the Appellate Body towards a bilaterally or multilaterally negotiated
solution, thus rendering recourse to unilateral measures less acceptable. This is in our opinion the
reason why the Appellate Body established that it was necessary for the United States to engage in
serious efforts in the field of sea turtle protection and conservation in order to avoid abuse or misuse
of Article XX of the GATT 1994. This means that, if we were to find that the US import prohibition
had been applied without serious efforts having been made to negotiate a multilateral agreement for
the protection and conservation of sea turtles, the measure might constitute an abuse or misuse of
Article XX.
5.60 We also note that the Appellate Body stated that "the chapeau of Article XX is but one
expression of the principle of good faith".
208 The notion of good faith, in relation to the issue under
examination in this section, implies a continuity of efforts which, in our opinion, is the only way to
address successfully the issue of conservation and protection of sea turtles through multilateral
negotiations, as demonstrated by the circumstances of this case. We therefore consider that, even
though the Appellate Body only refers to "serious efforts", the notion of good faith efforts implies,
inter alia, that the seriousness of the United States’ efforts in this case must be assessed over a period
of time. It is this continuity of efforts that matters, not a particular move at a given moment, followed
by inaction.
5.61 On that basis, we proceed to determine whether the line of equilibrium in the field of sea
turtle conservation and protection is such as to require the conclusion of an international agreement or
only efforts to negotiate.
(ii) Obligation to negotiate v. obligation to reach an international agreement
5.62 We recall that the parties differ as to the extent of the obligations of the United States in
relation to the negotiation and conclusion of an international agreement on the protection and
conservation of sea turtles. The United States argues that it only has to make good faith efforts to
negotiate an agreement whereas Malaysia claims, as a first line of argumentation, that an international
agreement has to be reached before any measure can be imposed.
5.63 The Panel first recalls that the Appellate Body considered "the failure of the United States to
engage the appellees , as well as other Members exporting shrimp to the United States, in serious
across-the-board negotiations with the objective of concluding bilateral or multilateral agreements for

207 We note in this respect that the Appellate Body itself used the Inter-American Convention as an
illustration of the positioning of the line of equilibrium which defines when a particular measure may be
perceived as an abuse or misuse of Article XX:
"170. The juxtaposition of (a) the consensual undertakings to put in place regulations
providing for, inter alia, use of TEDs jointly determined to be suitable for a particular party's
maritime areas, with (b) the reaffirmatio n of the parties' obligations under the
WTO Agreement, including the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and Article XI of
the GATT 1994, suggests that the parties to the Inter-American Convention together marked
out the equilibrium line to which we referred earlier.” (Italics in the original, underlining
added).
208 Appellate Body Report, para. 158.

the protection and conservation of sea turtles, before enforcing the import prohibition against the
shrimp exports of those other Members"209 bears heavily in any appraisal of justifiable or unjustifiable
discrimination within the meaning of the chapeau of Article XX. From the terms used, it appears to
us that the Appellate Body had in mind a negotiation, not the conclusion of an agreement. If the
Appellate Body had considered that an agreemen t had to be concluded before any measure can be
taken by the United States, it would not have used the terms "with the objective"; it would have
simply stated that an agreement had to be concluded.
5.64 We also note that the Appellate Body stated that:
"172. Clearly, the United States negotiated seriously with some, but
not with other Members (including the appellees), that export shrimp
to the United States. The effect is plainly discriminatory and, in our
view, unjustifiable. The unjustifiable nature of this discrimination
emerges clearly when we consider the cumulative effects of the
failure of the United States to pursue negotiations for establishing
consensual means of protection and conservation of the living marine
resources here involved , notwithstanding the explicit statutory
direction in Section 609 itself to initiate negotiations as soon as
possible for the development of bilateral and multilateral agreements.
[Footnote omitted]"
This paragraph is evidence that the Appellate Body considered that the requirement is one of
"negotiation", not "conclusion" of an agreement. Moreover, we consider that, if the Appellate Body
had intended to imply that no measure could be adopted outside the framework of an international
agreement on the protection and conservation of sea turtles, it would not have continued with its
review of the unilateral measure applied pursuant to Section 609. Rather, it would have reached a
final conclusion once it had determined, as had the Original Panel, that no serious efforts had been
made at that time by the United States to negotiate an agreement on the protection and conservation of
sea turtles.
5.65 We also note that, in paragraph 121 of its Report, the Appellate Body stated that
"conditioning access to a Member's domestic market on whether exporting Members comply with, or
adopt, a policy or policies unilaterally prescribed by the importing Member may, to some degree, be a
common aspect of measures falling within the scope of one or another of the exceptions (a) to (j) of
Article XX." This seems to mean that, in the opinion of the Appellate Body, recourse to a unilateral
measure cannot a priori be excluded under Article XX of the GATT 1994.
5.66 In the context of this section, we conclude that the United States had the following obligations
in this case in order to avoid "unjustifiable discrimination":
(a) the United States had to take the initiative of negotiations with the appellees, having
already negotiated with other harvesting countries (Caribbean and Western Atlantic
countries);
(b) the negotiations had to be with all interested parties ("across-the-board") and aimed at
establishing consensual means of protection and conservation of endangered sea
turtles;
(c) the United States had to make serious efforts in good faith
210 to negotiate; and

209 Appellate Body Report, para. 166 (emphasis added).
210 See para. 5.60 above.

(d) serious efforts in good faith had to take place before 211 the enforcement of a
unilaterally designed import prohibition.212
5.67 We are consequently of the view that the Appellate Body could not have meant in its findings
that the United States had the obligation to conclude an agreement on the protection and conservation
of sea turtles in order to comply with Article XX. However, we reach the conclusion that the
United States has an obligation to make serious good faith efforts to reach an agreement before
resorting to the type of unilateral measure curren tly in place. We also consider that those efforts
cannot be a "one-off" exercise. There must be a continuous process, including once a unilateral
measure has been adopted pending the conclusion of an agreement. Indeed, we consider the reference
of the Appellate Body to a number of international agreements promoting a multilateral solution to the
conservation concerns subject to Section 609 to be evidence that a multilateral, ideally non-trade
restrictive, solution is generally to be preferred when dealing with those concerns, in particular if it is
established that it constitutes "an alternative course of action reasonably open".
213
5.68 Having determined the context in which recourse must be made to bilateral or multilateral
negotiations, we now proceed to determine the extent of the "serious good faith efforts" required in
the present case.
(iii) The Inter-American Convention as a benchmark of serious good faith efforts in this case
5.69 As mentioned above, what is at issue at this stage is the existence of "unjustifiable
discrimination" as a result of: (i) an absence of or insufficient negotiation with some Members
compared with others and, in general; and (ii) the unilateral nature of the design and application of the
original measure which did not allow for the particular situation of each exporting country to be taken
into account. As a result, in order to remove the unjustifiable discrimination, serious good faith
efforts must address these two aspects.
5.70 We note that, with respect to the Inter-American Convention, the Appellate Body stated,
inter alia, that:
"170. The juxtaposition of (a) the consensual undertakings to put in
place regulations providing for, inter alia , use of TEDs jointly
determined to be suitable for a particular party's maritime areas,
with (b) the reaffirmation of the parties' obligations under the
WTO Agreement, including the Agreement on Technical Barriers to
Trade and Article XI of the GATT 1994, suggests that the parties to
the Inter-American Convention together marked out the equilibrium
line to which we referred earlier. The Inter-American Convention
demonstrates the conviction of its signatories, including the
United States, that consensual and multilateral procedures are
available and feasible for the establishment of programs for the
conservation of sea turtles. Moreover, the Inter-American
Convention emphasizes the continuing validity and significance of
Article XI of the GATT 1994, and of the obligations of the

211 The Panel considers that the use of the word “before” by the Appellate Body has to be considered in
the context of the original case. This does not mean that, in terms of implementation, the United States would
have to go back in time to correct the original error, something obviously impossible. The question of the
conformity with the DSB recommendations and rulings has to be assessed on the basis of the actions taken by
the United States subsequent to the adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body reports.
212 On this last point, the Panel considers it to be important to note that it is not sufficient formally to
"initiate" negotiations before having recourse to a unilateral measure. Serious good faith efforts must take place
continuously up to the satisfactory conclusion of the negotiations.
213 Appellate Body Report, para. 171.

WTO Agreement generally, in maintaining the balance of rights and
obligations under the WTO Agreement among the signatories of that
Convention.
171. The Inter-American Convention thus provides convincing
demonstration that an alternative course of action was reasonably
open to the United States for securing the legitimate policy goal of its
measure, a course of action other than the unilateral and non-
consensual procedures of the import prohibition under Section
609."214
5.71 With respect to the absence of or insufficie nt negotiation with some Members compared with
others, the reference of the Appellate Body to the Inter-American Convention is evidence that the
efforts made by the United States to negotiate with the complainants before imposing the original
measure were largely insufficient. The Inter-American Convention was negotiated as a binding
agreement and has entered into force on 2 May 2001.
215 We conclude that the Inter-American
Convention can reasonably be considered as a benchmark of what can be achieved through
multilateral negotiations in the field of protection and conservation. While we agree that factual
circumstances may influence the duration of the process or the end result, we consider that any effort
alleged to be a "serious good faith effort" must be assessed against the efforts made in relation to the
conclusion of the Inter-American Convention.
5.72 Regarding the unilateral nature of the design and application of the original measure which
did not allow for the particular situation of each exporting country to be taken into account, we recall
that the Appellate Body noted that the Inter-American Convention provided for consensual
undertakings to put in place regulations providing for, inter alia, use of TEDs jointly determined to be
suitable for a particular party's maritime areas . This is, in our view, an application to the specific
context of the negotiation of an agreement on sea turtles of the requirement more generally recalled
by the Appellate Body in its findings on arbi trary and unjustifiable discrimination that the
United States should have taken into account the situation prevailing in the other negotiating
countries.
216
5.73 The consequence of this is, in our view, that the standard of serious good faith efforts to
negotiate an agreement on the protection and conservation of sea turtles has to be understood in line
with the finding of the Appellat e Body that the United States should have taken into account the
situation of each exporting country. Thus, efforts to negotiate should be made taking into account the
situations prevailing in the other negotiating countries. We agree that, normally, it is the very raison
d'être of a negotiation to allow all parties to try to have their situations taken into account and that
adding such a requirement could seem to be superfluous. We consider, however, that this requirement
is essential in the particular context at issue. We note that Section 609 has been applied to the whole
world since 1996. Since then, any country exporting shrimp to the United States and entering into
negotiations has done so while being subject to the requirements Section 609. The Appellate Body
noted that the original measure, in its application, was more concerned with effectively influencing
WTO Members to adopt essentially the same comprehensive regulatory regime as that applied by the
United States to its domestic shrimp trawlers, even though many of those Members may be differently
situated.
217 We consider that, in that context, negotiators may have found themselves constrained to
accept conditions that they may not have accepted had Section 609 not been applied. Even if Section
609 as currently applied takes more into account the existence of different conservation programmes,

214 Underlining added.
215 As of 15 May 2001, the Convention has nine parties: Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras,
Mexico, The Netherlands, Peru, Venezuela, and the United States.
216 See, e.g., Appellate Body Report, paras. 161, 163, 164, 165, 172 and 177.
217 Appellate Body Report, para. 165.

it can still influence the outcome of negotiations. This is why the Panel feels it is important to take
the reality of international relations into account and considers that the standard of review of the
efforts of the United States on the international plane should be expressed as follows: whether the
United States made serious good faith efforts to ne gotiate an international agreement, taking into
account the situations of the other negotiating countries.
5.74 At this stage we wish to clarify that, in our opinion, the Appellate Body perceived the Inter-
American Convention not as what is required in the field of protection of sea turtles, but as an
example of an action which would meet the criteria of the chapeau of Article XX in terms of balance
between the right of a Member to invoke Article XX and the duty of that same Member to respect the
treaty rights of other Members. As a result, an agreement of that type would be more consistent with
the objective of the chapeau of Article XX to avoid abuse or misuse of rights than a unilaterally
designed import ban. This can be deduced from the comparison made by the Appellate Body between
the Inter-American Convention and "an import pr ohibition [which] is, ordinarily, the heaviest
"weapon" in a Member's armoury of trade measures."218
5.75 However, even though this may be only one way of dealing with the protection of sea turtles
in a manner consistent with Article XX, it appears to us that, in the context of this case, it has a
particular strength: the Inter-American Convention is evidence that it is feasible to negotiate a binding
agreement imposing the adoption of measures compar able to those applied in the United States.
Contrary to what the United States seems to claim, the conclusion of the Inter-American Convention
demonstrates that the standard of serious good faith efforts imposed in relation to the negotiation of an
international agreement in the field of protection and conservation of sea turtles may be quite
demanding.
(iv) Conclusion
5.76 We understand the Appellate Body findings as meaning that the United States has an
obligation to make serious good faith efforts to address the question of the protection and
conservation of sea turtles at the international level. We are mindful of the potentially subjective
nature of the notion of serious good faith efforts and of how difficult such a test may be to apply in
reality. We note, however, that in the present case a number of guideposts are available. The fact that
sea turtles are migratory species and that they are on the verge of extinction is unanimously
acknowledged. Objectives in terms of protection and conservation of sea turtles are quite clear and
largely uncontested. The means of reaching them have been identified by scientists, discussed in
seminars and included in negotiation documents. The nature of sea turtles as migratory species is also
important, in light of the preference expressed in a number of international conventions for a
multilateral approach to the conservation of migratory species. The United States is a demandeur in
this field and given its scientific, diplomatic and financial means, it is reasonable to expect rather
more than less from that Member in terms of serious good faith efforts. Indeed, the capacity of
persuasion of the United States is illustrated by the successful negotiation of the Inter-American
Convention.
5.77 Of course, no single standard may be appropriate. Moreover, the particular factual
circumstances prevailing in a particular negotiation may change the degree of achievement which may
be expected. This is why this Panel sought to obtain as much information as possible on the
negotiation of the Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and Management of Marine
Turtles and their Habitats of the Indian Ocean and South-East Asia
219, in the negotiation of which
Malaysia and the United States have been involved.

218 Appellate Body Report, para. 171.
219 July 2000, hereafter the "MOU".

5.78 In addition, the United States, even though it is demandeur in this field, may not be held
exclusively responsible for reaching an agreement on the protection and conservation of sea turtles.
Indeed, while it may be responsible for the absence of agreement, e.g. by blocking the negotiations, it
may also share the responsibility or bear no responsibility at all.
(b) Assessment of the consistency of the implementing measure
(i) Serious good faith efforts by the end of the reasonable period of time
5.79 Both parties have provided us with a description of their efforts to negotiate an agreement on
the protection and conservation of sea turtles since 1996. The Panel notes that the first tangible
evidence of a good faith effort of the United States toward the conclusion of an international
agreement on the protection and conservation of sea turtles is the document communicated by the US
Department of State to a number of nations of the Indian Ocean and to the four original complainants
in this dispute on 14 October 1998. This docume nt contained possible elements of a regional
convention for the conservation of sea turtles in the Indian Ocean. The United States subsequently
contributed to the Symposium and Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology held in Sabah,
Malaysia, on 15-17 July 1999. The Sabah Symposium led to the adoption of a Declaration calling for
"the negotiation and implementation of a wider regional agreement for the conservation and
management of marine turtle populations and their habitat throughout the Indo-Pacific and Indian
Ocean region". Finally, at the Perth Conference in October 1999, the participating governments
committed themselves to develop an international agreement on sea turtle conservation for the region.
5.80 The Panel, having regard to the criteria identified by the Appellate Body, concludes that, by
the end of the reasonable period of time, the United States had made substantial efforts. However,
these efforts were still continuing at that time. This Panel was established only on 23 October 2000.
Between the end of the reasonable period of time and that date, new events have occurred which
cannot be disregarded in assessing whether serious good faith efforts have actually been made. This is
why we refrain, in this particular case, from taking a position on the existence of serious good faith
efforts as of the end of the reasonable period of time and prefer to determine whether good faith
efforts had actually taken place at the date of establishment of this Panel under Article 21.5 of the
DSU.
220
(ii) Serious good faith efforts as of the date the matter was referred to this Panel
5.81 The major event since the end of the reasonable period of time has been the conduct of a first
round of negotiations toward the conclusion of a regional agreement on the conservation of sea turtles
in Kuantan, Malaysia, from 11 to 14 July 2000, in which the United States participated. At Kuantan,
24 countries adopted the text of the South-East Asian MOU. The Final Act of the meeting provides
that, before the MOU can be finalised, a Conservation and Management Plan must be negotiated and
annexed to the MOU. The MOU, however, will not be a legally binding instrument for the time being.
5.82 The Panel is of the view that the contribution of the United States to the steps that led to the
Kuantan meeting and its contribution to the Kuantan meeting itself could be considered to constitute
serious good faith efforts. As mentioned above, the standard set by the Inter-American Convention is
quite high. However, the factual circumstances have to be kept in mind.
5.83 First, the Inter-American Convention was negotiated as a legally binding instrument. It is the
understanding of the Panel that the United States was in favour of a legally binding agreement for the
Indian Ocean and South-East Asian region too. However, it appears that a number of other parties
were in favour of a non-binding text. As mentioned above, the United States' efforts must be assessed

220 This does not mean that the United States did not have to bring its legislation into conformity by the
end of the reasonable period of time.

in the light of the factual context. The United States cannot be held liable for the fact that a number of
other parties in the Kuantan meeting were not in favour of a binding text. This, however, cannot
detract from the United States continuing obligation to make serious good faith efforts towards a
binding agreement. The Panel notes, moreover, that the remaining negotiations in relation to the
South-East Asian MOU could be concluded in the course of 2001.
5.84 Second, the content of the final agreement will depend on the content of the Conservation and
Management Plan, which is to be annexed to the MOU but was still being drafted as this Panel was
proceeding. In this respect, the Panel cannot assume that the United States, in the light of its own
policy towards protection and conservation of sea turtles, would be in favour of an international
agreement which would impose or promote – in th e case of a non-binding agreement – insufficient
protection and conservation programmes. We believe that, at least until the Conservation and
Management Plan to be attached to the MOU is completed, the United States' efforts should be judged
on the basis of its active participation and its financial support to the negotiations, as well as on the
basis of its previous efforts since 1998, having regard to the likelihood of a conclusion of the
negotiations in the course of 2001. In that context it seems reasonable to consider that the United
States had, as of the date of establishment of this Panel, made serious good faith efforts to conclude a
multilateral agreement.
5.85 The Panel notes the argument of the United States that the progress made in multilateral
negotiations in the Indian Ocean and South-East Asian region will not necessarily translate into the
achievement of the environmental goal of the US measure. In other words, according to the
United States, the negotiations may, or may not, result in multilaterally agreed steps that will save sea
turtles from extinction.
5.86 The Panel would like to recall that what is required from the United States according to the
Appellate Body reasoning is serious good faith efforts in the negotiation of an agreement aiming at
the protection and conservation of sea turtles, taking into account the situation of the other negotiating
parties. In other words, the United States, in the present case, has an obligation to make efforts
commensurate with its position as the country seeking the protection and conservation of sea turtles.
Moreover, the obligation borne by the United States is a continuing one. In the present case, it is
because the United States has demonstrated that it was making serious good faith efforts that it is, in
our opinion, provisionally entitled to apply the implementing measure, which may be subject to
further control under Article 21.5 of the DSU.
(c) Conclusion
5.87 As mentioned above, our understanding of th e Appellate Body findings is that the
United States would be entitled to maintain the im plementing measure if it were demonstrated that it
was making serious good faith efforts to conclude an international agreement on the protection and
conservation of sea turtles. The Panel is of the vi ew that the US efforts since 1998 meet the standard
established by the Appellate Body Report. In this respect, the Panel notes the sustained pace of the
negotiations and the prospect of their conclusion in 2001, as well as the effective contribution of the
United States in the context of these negotiations. The Panel also notes the significant contrast
between the situation reviewed by the Original Pa nel and the Appellate Body and the situation today.
Finally, the Panel notes that Malaysia did not submit convincing evidence that the United States had
not made serious good faith efforts in relation to the negotiation of an international agreement on the
protection and conservation of sea turtles since the adoption of the reports of the Original Panel and
the Appellate Body.
5.88 Finally, the Panel would like to clarify that, in a context such as this one where a multilateral
agreement is clearly to be preferred and where measures such as that taken by the United States in this
case may only be accepted under Article XX if they were allowed under an international agreement,
or if they were taken further to the completion of serious good faith efforts to reach a multilateral

agreement, the possibility to impose a unilateral measure to protect sea turtles under Section 609 is
more to be seen, for the purposes of Article XX, as the possibility to adopt a provisional measure
allowed for emergency reasons than as a definitive "right" to take a permanent measure. The extent to
which serious good faith efforts continue to be made may be reassessed at any time. For instance,
steps which constituted good faith efforts at the beginning of a negotiation may fail to meet that test at
a later stage.
4. Other requirements related to arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between
countries where the same conditions prevail
(a) Claims relating to the findings of "unjustifiable discrimination" in the Appellate Body Report
(i) Introduction
5.89 The parties seem to agree that the findings of the Appellate Body as to the existence of
"unjustifiable discrimination", beyond those concerning multilateral negotiations, relate to four main
aspects of the application of Section 609, namely: (i) the insufficient flexibility of the 1996
Guidelines, in particular the absence of consideration of the different conditions that may exist in the
exporting nations; (ii) the prohibition of importation of shrimp caught in uncertified countries,
including when that shrimp had been caught using TEDs; (iii) the length of the "phase-in" period; and
(iv) the differences in the level of efforts made by the United States to transfer successfully TED
technology to exporting countries.
(ii) The insufficient flexibility of the 1996 Guidelines, in particular the absence of consideration
of the different conditions that may exist in the territories of exporting nations
5.90 The Appellate Body considered that Section 609 as implemented through the 1996 Guidelines
constituted unjustifiable discrimination insofar as its certification process lacked flexibility. In
particular, the measure should have taken into consideration the different conditions that may exist in
the territories of the exporting Members. Because of the complexity of the issue addressed, the
Appellate Body findings on this issue deserve to be quoted extensively:
"161. […] Perhaps the most conspicuous flaw in this measure's
application relates to its intended and actual coercive effect on the
specific policy decisions made by foreign governments, Members of
the WTO. Section 609, in its application, is, in effect, an economic
embargo which requires all other exporting Members, if they wish to
exercise their GATT rights, to adopt essentially the same policy
(together with an approved enforcement program) as that applied to,
and enforced on, United States domestic shrimp trawlers. As enacted
by the Congress of the United States, the statutory provisions of
Section 609(b)(2)(A) and (B) do not, in themselves, require that
other WTO Members adopt essentially the same policies and
enforcement practices as the United States. Viewed alone, the statute
appears to permit a degree of discretion or flexibility in how the
standards for determining comparability might be applied, in
practice, to other countries. [Footnote omitted] However, any
flexibility that may have been intended by Congress when it enacted
the statutory provision has been effectively eliminated in the
implementation of that policy through the 1996 Guidelines
promulgated by the Department of State and through the practice of
the administrators in making certification determinations.

162. According to the 1996 Guidelines, certification "shall be
made" under Section 609(b)(2)(A) and (B) if an exporting country's
program includes a requirement that all commercial shrimp trawl
vessels operating in waters in which there is a likelihood of
intercepting sea turtles use, at all times, TEDs comparable in
effectiveness to those used in the United States. [Footnote omitted]
Under these Guidelines, any exceptions to the requirement of the use
of TEDs must be comparable to those of the United States
program.[Footnote omitted] Furthermore, the harvesting country
must have in place a "credible enforcement effort". [Footnote
omitted] The language in the 1996 Guidelines is mandatory:
certification "shall be made" if these conditions are fulfilled.
However, we understand that these rules are also applied in an
exclusive manner. That is, the 1996 Guidelines specify the only way
that a harvesting country's regulatory program can be deemed
"comparable" to the United States' program, and, therefore, they
define the only way that a harvesting nation can be certified under
Section 609(b)(2)(A) and (B). Although the 1996 Guidelines state
that, in making a comparability determination, the Department of
State "shall also take into account other measures the harvesting
nation undertakes to protect sea turtles" [footnote omitted], in
practice, the competent government officials only look to see whether
there is a regulatory program requiring the use of TEDs or one that
comes within one of the extremely limited exceptions available to
United States shrimp trawl vessels. [Footnote omitted]
163. The actual application of the measure, through the
implementation of the 1996 Guidelines and the regulatory practice of
administrators, requires other WTO Members to adopt a regulatory
program that is not merely comparable, but rather essentially the
same, as that applied to the United States shrimp trawl vessels. Thus,
the effect of the application of Section 609 is to establish a rigid and
unbending standard by which United States officials determine
whether or not countries will be certified, thus granting or refusing
other countries the right to export shrimp to the United States. Other
specific policies and measures that an exporting country may have
adopted for the protection and conservation of sea turtles are not
taken into account, in practice, by the administrators making the
comparability determination. [Footnote omitted]
164. We understand that the United States also applies a uniform
standard throughout its territory, regardless of the particular
conditions existing in certain parts of the country. The United States
requires the use of approved TEDs at all times by domestic,
commercial shrimp trawl vessels operating in waters where there is
any likelihood that they may interact with sea turtles, regardless of
the actual incidence of sea turtles in those waters, the species of those
sea turtles, or other differences or disparities that may exist in
different parts of the United States. It may be quite acceptable for a
government, in adopting and implementing a domestic policy, to
adopt a single standard applicable to all its citizens throughout that
country. However, it is not acceptable, in international trade
relations, for one WTO Member to use an economic embargo to
 require other Members to adopt essentially the same comprehensive

regulatory program, to achieve a certain policy goal, as that in force
within that Member's territory, without taking into consideration
different conditions which may occur in the territories of those other
Members."221
5.91 The Appellate Body opposed the text of Section 609 on the one hand and the implementing
guidelines and the practice of the United States authorities on the other hand; the former only
providing that conservation programmes be comparable, whereas the latter required them to be
essentially the same as the US programme. The Appellate Body also opposed the application of a
uniform standard throughout the US territory, whic h was acceptable, and the application of the same
uniform standard to exporting countries, which was not.
222
5.92 In addition, in paragraph 165, the Appellate Body seems to suggest that the essential reason
that Section 609 was applied in a manner which constituted "unjustifiable discrimination" was
because the application of the measure at issue did not allow for any inquiry into the appropriateness
of the regulatory programme for the conditions prevailing in the exporting countries.
5.93 The Appellate Body, in paragraph 165 of its Report, also found that the original measure:
"in its application, [was] more concerned with effectively influencing
WTO Members to adopt essentially the same comprehensive
regulatory regime as that applied by the United States to its domestic
shrimp trawlers, even though many of those Members may be
differently situated." (Emphasis added)
It seems that whereas the Appellate Body found that requiring the adoption of essentially the same
regime constituted arbitrary discrimination, it accepted - at least implicitly - that a requirement that
the US and foreign programmes be "comparable in effectiveness" would be compatible with the
obligations of the United States under the chapeau of Article XX. This is because it would "permit a
degree of discretion or flexibility in how the standards for determining comparability might be
applied, in practice, to other countries."
223 We therefore conclude that if, in practice , the
implementing measure provides for "comparable effectiveness", the finding of the Appellate Body in
terms of lack of flexibility will have been addressed.
5.94 The first step in determining whether the implementing measure does not share the same flaw
as the original measure reviewed by the Appellate Body is to assess whether the United States no
longer requires that the conservation programmes of exporting countries be "essentially the same" as
that of the United States but only "comparable in effectiveness". We note that Section II.B.(a)(1)(i) of
the Revised Guidelines provides, with respect to those programmes which require the use of TEDs,
that:
"[…] a requirement that all commercial shrimp trawl vessels
operating in waters in which there is a likelihood of intercepting sea
turtles use TEDs at all time. TEDs must be comparable in
effectiveness to those used in the United States. Any exception to
this requirement must be comparable to those of the US program
described above."
224

221 Italics in the original.
222 See para. 5.72 above.
223 Appellate Body Report, para. 161.
224 Revised Guidelines, p. 36950; Annex to this Report: para. 18 (emphasis added).

As implicitly acknowledged by the Appellate Body225, it is not enough that the Revised Guidelines no
longer provide for the "essentially the same" test. The actual practice of the US authorities must also
be considered. In this respect, the United States drew the attention of the Panel to the review of the
TED-based programme put into place by Australia in its Northern Prawn Fishery. The United States
reviewed the information submitted by Australia and proceeded to site visits and discussions with
Australian officials and industry representatives. As stated by Australia in the course of the
proceedings
226, the visits and discussions "confirm[ed] that a small number of technical differences
between the [Northern Prawn Fisheries] TED regula tions and the US TED regulations did not render
the Australian TEDs less than comparable in effect iveness to the US TEDs." Australia did not argue
that the "comparable effectiveness" test found in the Revised Guidelines was applied by US officials
in a restrictive manner. We therefore conclude that, having regard to the example of Australia's
Northern Prawn Fishery and in the absence of other evidence to the contrary, the actual application of
the "comparable effectiveness" test contained in the Revised Guidelines provides for greater
flexibility than the "essentially the same" test previously applied under the 1996 Guidelines and is not
applied restrictively by the US authorities responsible for assessing TED-based programmes.
5.95 We next proceed to determine whether the Revised Guidelines allow an implementation of
Section 609 that provides for "inquiry into the appropriateness of that regulatory programme for the
conditions prevailing in the exporting countries". We consider that a measure which would allow a
Member to demonstrate that:
(a) it has a programme comparable with the US programme without providing for the
mandatory use of TEDs; or
(b) that other conditions exist on its territory
would meet the requirements of the DSB recommendation in this respect. We do not consider that the
term "inquiry" in the Appellate Body findings necessarily means that the United States should take the
initiative of an investigation in each country applying for certification, but that it should be prepared
to investigate any claim made by a harvesting country seeking certification.
5.96 First, we note that the Revised Guidelines provide for the possibility to certify programmes
which do not require the use of TEDs. The Revised Guidelines, Section II.B.(a.), provide that "The
Department of State shall assess regulatory programs, as described in any documentary evidence
provided by the governments of harvesting nations, for comparability with the US program". We also
note that Section II.B.(a)(2) provides that:
"If the government of a harvesting nation demonstrates that it has
implemented and is enforcing a comparably effective regulatory
program to protect sea turtles in the course of shrimp trawl fishing
without the use of TED, that nation will also be eligible for
certification."
227
5.97 The Revised Guidelines provide that such a demonstration would need to be based on
empirical data supported by objective scientific studies of sufficient duration and scope to provide the
information necessary for a reliable determination. The Revised Guidelines further state that:
"in reviewing any such information, the Department of State will take
fully into account any demonstrated differences between the shrimp

225 Appellate Body Report, paras. 161 and 162.
226 Australia's third party written submission, para. 13.
227 Revised Guidelines, p. 36950; Annex to this Report: Section II.B.(a)(2).

fishing conditions in the United States and those of other nations, as
well as information available from other sources."228
5.98 We recall that the Revised Guidelines also mention that "The Department of State is presently
aware of no measure or series of measures that can minimize the capture and drowning of sea turtles
in [standard otter trawl nets used in shrimp fisher ies] that is comparable in effectiveness to the
required use of TEDs". However, this "presumption" is limited in scope to the use of trawl nets and
does not cover other ways of protecting sea turtles such as, e.g., fishing prohibition. It therefore
appears to us that, on its face, the implementing measure provides for "inquiry into the
appropriateness of that regulatory programme for the conditions prevailing in the exporting countries"
when it comes to assess programmes that do not require the use of TEDs.
5.99 Second, we also note that the Revised Guidelines include a new category which allows the
importation of "shrimp harvested in any other manner or under any other circumstances that the
Department of State may determine, following consultations with the NMFS [National Marine
Fisheries Service], does not pose a threat of the incidental taking of sea turtles."
229 Consequently, it
appears that the Revised Guidelines provide for the possibility of taking into account situations where
turtles are not endangered by shrimp trawling.
5.100 However, as for the assessment of TED-based programmes, we nonetheless need to determine
whether, in practice , the implementing measure is applied so as to allow for "inquiry into the
appropriateness of that regulatory programme for the conditions prevailing in the exporting countries"
in relation to non TED-based programmes and to situations where shrimp trawling does not pose a
threat of incidental taking of sea turtles. We recall that the United States gave the example of
Pakistan, which had been certified on the basis of a programme combining the use of TEDs and
shrimp trawling prohibition. We also note the example given by Australia of shrimp caught in the
Spencer Gulf. The United States excluded shrimp from the Spencer Gulf from the field of application
of the prohibition on the basis of the clause me ntioned in the preceeding paragraph, once the
extremely low incidence of sea turtles in the fishery had been established by Australia.
5.101 We also note the statement of the representative of the United States in reply to a question of
the Panel that "there is no element in the Malaysian programme, [ … ], that would make it impossible
for the United States to certify Malaysia pursuant to Section 609."
230 We also note that Malaysia has
not sought certification on the basis of its programme, which does not include the use of TEDs.
5.102 We consider that we have evidence that the United States has applied effectively the Revised
Guidelines in a way that allowed for "inquiry into the appropriateness of that regulatory programme
for the conditions prevailing in the exporting countries" in relation to non TED-based programmes
and to situations where shrimp trawling does not pose a threat of incidental taking of sea turtles.
5.103 We also recall that Malaysia claimed that the United States, by imposing a unilaterally
defined standard of protection, violates the sovereign right of Malaysia to determine its own sea
turtles protection and conservation policy. We are mindful of the problem caused by the type of
measure applied by the United States to pursue its environmental policy objectives. We recall that
Principle 12 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development states in part that:
"unilateral actions to deal with environmental challenges outside the
jurisdiction of the importing country should be avoided.
Environmental measures addressing transboundary or global

228 Ibid.
229 Revised Guidelines, p. 36949; Annex to this Report: para. 5(d).
230 See reply of the United States, footnote 105 above.

environmental problems should, as far as possible, be based on
international consensus."231
However, it is the understanding of the Panel that the Appellate Body Report found that, while a
WTO Member may not impose on exporting members to apply the same standards of environmental
protection as those it applies itself, this Member may legitimately require, as a condition of access of
certain products to its market, that exporting countries commit themselves to a regulatory programme
deemed comparable to its own. At present, Ma laysia does not have to comply with the US
requirements because it does not export to the United States. If Malaysia exported shrimp to the
United States, it would be subject to requirements that may distort Malaysia's priorities in terms of
environmental policy. As Article XX of the GATT 1994 has been interpreted by the Appellate Body,
the WTO Agreement does not provide for any recourse in the situation Malaysia would face under
those circumstances. While we cannot, in light of the interpretation of Article XX made by the
Appellate Body, find in favour of Malaysia on this "sovereignty" issue, we nonetheless consider that
the "sovereignty" question raised by Malaysia is an additional argument in favour of the conclusion of
an international agreement to protect and conserve sea turtles which would take into account the
situation of all interested parties.
5.104 We therefore conclude that the United States has established a prima facie case that the
implementing measure complies with the findings of the Appellate Body concerning the insufficient
flexibility of the 1996 Guidelines. We also note that Malaysia did not provide sufficient evidence to
rebut this presumption.
(iii) The prohibition of importation of shrimp caught in uncertified countries, including when that
shrimp had been caught using TEDs
5.105 In its Report, the Appellate Body found that:
"165. Furthermore, when this dispute was before the Panel and
before us, the United States did not permit imports of shrimp
harvested by commercial shrimp trawl vessels using TEDs
comparable in effectiveness to those required in the United States if
those shrimp originated in waters of countries not certified under
Section 609. In other words, shrimp caught using methods identical
to those employed in the United States have been excluded from the
United States market solely because they have been caught in waters
of countries that have not been certified by the United States . The
resulting situation is difficult to reconcile with the declared policy
objective of protecting and conserving sea turtles. This suggests to
us that this measure, in its application, is more concerned with
effectively influencing WTO Members to adopt essentially the same
comprehensive regulatory regime as that applied by the United States
to its domestic shrimp trawlers, even though many of those Members
may be differently situated. We believe that discrimination results
not only when countries in which the same conditions prevail are
differently treated, but also when the application of the measure at
issue does not allow for any inquiry into the appropriateness of the
regulatory program for the conditions prevailing in those exporting
countries."

231 See also para. 2.22(i) of Agenda 21. The Appellate Body made reference to these international
instruments in its Report (see para. 168).

5.106 This condition is addressed separately from the broader category concerning the lack of
flexibility and insufficient consideration of the conditions prevailing in the exporting countries
because, in our opinion, it required a specific solution, while the other findings left more discretion to
the United States.
5.107 We note that, under the Revised Guidelines, the importation of shrimp harvested by vessels
using TEDs is allowed, even if the exporting nation has not been certified pursuant to Section 609.
The United States has also provided evidence of instances where imports of TED-caught shrimp have
been allowed even though the country of origin has not been certified.
232
5.108 Malaysia does not contest the fact that importation of shrimp harvested by vessels using
TEDs may be allowed, even when the exporting nation is not certified pursuant to Section 609.
Malaysia expressed concerns that this part of the Revised Guidelines has been found illegal in a
judgement of the US Court of International Trade (CIT). 233 Malaysia claims that the United States is
responsible for actions of all its branches of government, including courts, and refers to the finding of
the Appellate Body in paragraph 173 of its Report.
5.109 We first note that in its judgement, the CIT, while ruling that the interpretation of the
Department of State was not compatible with the terms of Section 609, refrained from granting an
injunction that the US Department of State modify its guidelines. As a result, the Panel is satisfied
that the United States does not, for now, have to modify its Revised Guidelines. The decision has been
appealed before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. At our request, the United States
confirmed that the Court of Appeals could require that the Revised Guidelines be modified in
accordance with the interpretation of Section 609 made by the CIT. However, until a decision is
reached by the Court of Appeals, the Revised Guid elines remain applicable. Moreover, no judgement
is likely to be issued for several months and an appeal before the US Supreme Court cannot be
excluded. As was recalled by the Appellate Body
234, we are not supposed to interpret domestic law,
which we are to treat as a fact. Even if the possibility cannot be excluded that the Revised Guidelines
be modified 235, the situation before us is, for the moment, the one provided for in the
Revised Guidelines, which on this point are not contested by Malaysia.
5.110 Second, we do not consider that Malaysia appropriately referred to the Appellate Body
finding in paragraph 173. A State is to be presumed to act in good faith and in conformity with its
international obligations. The CIT itself did not require that the Revised Guidelines be modified.
There is no reason to consider that this situation will inevitably change in the near future.
5.111 Therefore, we consider that the United States , by modifying its guidelines and adjusting its
practice so as to permit import of TED-caught shrimp from non-certified countries complies, as long
as that situation remains unchanged, with the DSB recommendations and rulings in this respect. We
do not consider that Malaysia submitted sufficient evidence to rebut the prima facie case established
by the United States in this respect.

232 The United States gave the examples of Australia and Brazil. Exports from the northern shrimp
fisheries of Brazil have been authorized even though Br azil does not qualify for certification due to the lack of
TED use in the southern Brazilian fisheries. Import of shrimp harvested in the Australian Northern Prawn
Fisheries has also been allowed because the use of Turtle Excluder Devices has been mandatory since
April 2000, even though Australia is not certified due to the lack of TED use in other fisheries.
233 United States Court of International Trade (CIT): Turtle Island Restoration Network et al. v.
Robert L. Mallett et al., 19 July 2000, 2000 WL 1024797 (CIT).
234 See India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products , adopted on
16 January 1998, WT/DS50/AB/R, paras. 65-68.
235 The Revised Guidelines themselves note the possibility that they may be revised as a result of
pending domestic litigation (see p. 36951; Annex to this Report: para. 24)

(iv) Phase-in period
5.112 The Appellate Body found that the United St ates had discriminated between exporting
countries in terms of the phase-in period granted as follows:
"173. The application of Section 609, through the implementing
guidelines together with administrative practice, also resulted in other
differential treatment among various countries desiring certification.
Under the 1991 and 1993 Guidelines, to be certifiable, fourteen
countries in the wider Caribbean/Western Atlantic region had to
commit themselves to require the use of TEDs on all commercial
shrimp trawling vessels by 1 May 1994. These fourteen countries
had a "phase-in" period of three years during which their respective
shrimp trawling sectors could adjust to the requirement of the use of
TEDs. With respect to all other countries exporting shrimp to the
United States (including the appellees, India, Malaysia, Pakistan and
Thailand), on 29 December 1995, the United States Court of
International Trade directed the Department of State to apply the
import ban on a world-wide basis not later than 1 May 1996.
236 On
19 April 1996, the 1996 Guidelines were issued by the Department of
State bringing shrimp harvested in all foreign countries within the
scope of Section 609, effective 1 May 1996. Thus, all countries that
were not among the fourteen in the wider Caribbean/Western
Atlantic region had only four months to implement the requirement
of compulsory use of TEDs. […]
174. The length of the "phase-in" period is not inconsequential for
exporting countries desiring certification. That period relates directly
to the onerousness of the burdens of complying with the requisites of
certification and the practical feasibility of locating and developing
alternative export markets for shrimp. The shorter that period, the
heavier the burdens of compliance, particularly where an applicant
has a large number of trawler vessels, and the greater the difficulties
of re-orienting the harvesting country's shrimp exports. The shorter
that period, in net effect, the heavier the influence of the import ban.
The United States sought to explain the marked difference between
"phase-in" periods granted to the fourteen wider Caribbean/Western
Atlantic countries and those allowed the rest of the shrimp exporting
countries. The United States asserted that the longer time-period was
justified by the then undeveloped character of TED technology, while
the shorter period was later made possible by the improvements in
that technology. This explanation is less than persuasive, for it does
not address the administrative and financial costs and the difficulties
of governments in putting together and enacting the necessary
regulatory programs and "credible enforcement effort", and in
implementing the compulsory use of TEDs on hundreds, if not
thousands, of shrimp trawl vessels. [Footnote omitted]"
5.113 On this issue, the United States claims that the difference in phase-in periods has been
corrected by the passage of time and that Malaysia had more than four years between the first US
court ruling and the end of the reasonable period of time to adopt a TED-based programme or other

236Earth Island Institute v. Warren Christopher, 913 F. Supp. 559 (CIT 1995).

comparable programmes. Malaysia generally claims that the United States should have lifted its
import ban whilst it engaged in negotiations for the protection and conservation of marine turtles.
5.114 We are of the opinion that this finding of the Appellate Body has to be considered in the
context in which it was made, i.e. that of assessing whether unjustifiable discrimination existed at the
time. We agree with the United States that it cannot travel back in time in order to grant the same
phase-in period to Malaysia as it had granted the Caribbean/Western Atlantic countries. Interpreting
the Appellate Body findings as requiring such a thing would be tantamount to making any compliance
impossible in this case. Rather, we believe that the issue which remains relevant is that, by providing
for a shorter phase-in period for the complainants , the United States made any attempt to comply
more onerous in terms of "administrative and financial costs" and in terms of the difficulties for
governments to put together and enact the necessary regulatory programmes and "credible
enforcement effort".
5.115 We note that Malaysia has not yet attempted to be certified. It is therefore impossible to
determine whether it incurred any particularly serious cost in that respect. This as such should not be
a reason for concluding that the United States has complied with its obligations in this respect.
However, there are elements which should allow us to assess whether Malaysia would have actually
incurred such costs. More particularly, we note that Malaysia claims that it has a comprehensive
programme of protection and conservation of sea turtles and that the scientific experts consulted by
the Original Panel also have made reference to Malaysia's efforts at sea turtle conservation.
237 We
recall that the United States stated that there were no elements in the Malaysian programme that
would make it impossible for the United States to certify Malaysia pursuant to Section 609. In this
respect, we have noted the changes introduced in the Revised Guidelines, which allow the US
authorities to consider certain programmes that do not provide for the mandatory use of TEDs. We
therefore consider that if Malaysia sought to be certified, there is no evidence that it would incur any
of the costs which the Appellate Body identified as the major issue with the difference of phase-in
period between the complainants in the original case and the Caribbean/Western Atlantic countries.
5.116 We therefore conclude that, for the above-mentioned reasons, the United States has made a
prima facie case that its practice addressed the DSB recommendations and rulings with respect to the
phase-in period. We also note that Malaysia did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut this
prima facie case.
(v) Transfer of technology
5.117 On the issue of transfer of technology, the Appellate Body found that:
"175. Differing treatment of different countries desiring
certification is also observable in the differences in the levels of
effort made by the United States in transferring the required TED
technology to specific countries. Far greater efforts to transfer that
technology successfully were made to certain exporting countries -
basically the fourteen wider Caribbean/Western Atlantic countries
cited earlier - than to other exporting countries, including the
appellees. [Footnote omitted] The level of these efforts is probably
related to the length of the "phase-in" periods granted - the longer the
"phase-in" period, the higher the possible level of efforts at
technology transfer. Because compliance with the requirements of
certification realistically assumes successful TED technology
transfer, low or merely nominal efforts at achieving that transfer will,

237 See para. 3.162 above and Original Panel Report, Annex IV, Transcript of the Meeting with the
Experts, statement of Dr. Eckert, para. 69, p. 378.

in all probability, result in fewer countries being able to satisfy the
certification requirements under Section 609, within the very limited
"phase-in" periods allowed them."
5.118 The United States argues that it has repeatedly offered technical assistance and training in the
design, construction, installation and operation of TEDs to any government that requested it. The
United States has provided technical assistance and training to a number of governments and other
organizations in the Indian Ocean and South-East Asian region. The US National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) presented a paper on TEDs and technology transfer at the Sabah Symposium in
July 1999. US officials assisted the government of Bahrain and conducted training and workshops in
Pakistan (January 2000) and Australia (July 2000). In April 2000, NMFS hosted a training session on
TEDs for technical experts from the South-East Asian Fisheries Development Center. Malaysia
contends that the US offer of technical assistance was of no consequence for it in light of the
efficiency of its own conservation programme.
5.119 We note that the Appellate Body Report draws a link between the phase-in period and the
transfer of technology: the longer the phase-in period, the higher the possible level of efforts at
technology transfer. The United States proceeded to transfer technology under various forms as early
as July 1999 (Sabah Symposium), providing assistance to Bahrain and Pakistan and training in
Australia. We note that these countries have since been certified or allowed to export part of their
production to the United States. The Panel notes that there was no discrimination vis-à-vis Malaysia
since Malaysia did not seek any transfer of technology.
5.120 We therefore conclude that, for the above-mentioned reasons, the United States has made a
prima facie case that its practice addressed the DSB recommendations and rulings with respect to the
transfer of technology. We also note that Malaysia did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut this
prima facie case.
(b) Claims relating to "arbitrary discrimination"
(i) Lack of flexibility
5.121 The Appellate Body found that:
"[…] We have already observed that Section 609, in its application,
imposes a single, rigid and unbending requirement that countries
applying for certification under Section 609(b)(2)(A) and (B) adopt a
comprehensive regulatory program that is essentially the same as the
United States' program, without inquiring into the appropriateness of
that program for the conditions prevailing in the exporting countries.
[Footnote Omitted] Furthermore, there is little or no flexibility in
how officials make the determination for certification pursuant to
these provisions.
 [Footnote omitted] In our view, this rigidity and
inflexibility also constitute "arbitrary discrimination" within the
meaning of the chapeau."238
5.122 We have already addressed the question of the rigidity and inflexibility of the 1996
Guidelines and of the administrative practices of that time in relation to the identification of
"unjustifiable discrimination". From the Appellat e Body Report, we understand that what caused the
application of Section 609 to be considered "arbitrary discrimination" was that:

238 Appellate Body Report, para. 177.

(a) It imposed a single, rigid and unbending requirement that countries applying for
certification adopt a comprehensive regulatory programme that is essentially the same
as the United States' programme; and
(b) that this programme was imposed without inquiring into the appropriateness of that
programme for the conditions prevailing in the exporting countries.
5.123 We have already found that the United States no longer requires the exporting countries'
programmes to be essentially the same as the US programme, and that the United States
acknowledges that other programmes may be comparable. 239 Malaysia contests the requirement of a
"comparable programme" as an interference with its sovereign right to determine its environmental
policy. The Panel does not read the Appellate Body Report as supporting Malaysia's view. In our
opinion, the Appellate Body did not contest the right of the United States to restrict imports of shrimp
for environmental reasons; it is the requirement that other Members adopt essentially the same
programme as the United States which was found to constitute arbitrary discrimination because it did
not take into account the appropriateness of that programme for the countries concerned.
5.124 Having regard to the ordinary meaning of the word "arbitrary" most suitable in the context
240
of the chapeau of Article XX, i.e. "capricious, unpredictable, inconsistent" 241, we note that, with the
implementation of the Revised Guidelines, the United States ought to be in a better position to avoid
"arbitrary" decisions. A Member seeking certification seems to have the possibility to demonstrate
that its programme - even though not requiring the use of TEDs, is comparable to that of the
United States. On the face of it, the implementing measure is no longer primarily based on the
application of certain methods or standards, but on the achievement of certain objectives, even though
the term "objective" may, in this case, have a re latively broad meaning. Some evidence of the actual
degree of flexibility of the Revised Guidelines can be found in the authorisation granted to Australia
to export shrimp from the Northern Prawn Fisheries and the Spencer Gulf even though Australia as
such is not certified under Section 609.
5.125 We conclude that the United States has made a prima facie case that the implementing
measure complies with the relevant DSB recommendations and rulings. We note in this respect that
Malaysia did not provide sufficient evidence to the contrary.
(ii) Due process
5.126 With respect to due process, the Appellate Body found, inter alia, that:
"181. The certification processes followed by the United States
thus appears to be singularly informal and casual, and to be
conducted in a manner such that these processes could result in the
negation of rights of Members. There appears to be no way that
exporting Members can be certain whether the terms of Section 609,
in particular, the 1996 Guidelines, are being applied in a fair and just
manner by the appropriate governmental agencies of the United
States. It appears to us that, effectively, exporting Members applying
for certification whose applications are rejected are denied basic
fairness and due process, and are discriminated against, vis-à-vis
those Members which are granted certification."

239 See, e.g., Revised Guidelines, p. 36950-51; Annex to this Report: paras. 15, 16, 18, and
Section II.B.(a)(2).
240 In this sentence, the word "context" is not used within the legal meaning of that term in the
Vienna Convention, but in its more common meaning.
241 The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary (1993), p. 107.

5.127 The Appellate Body has criticised the absence, with respect to any type of certification under
Section 609(b)(2), of a transparent, predictable certification process that is followed by the competent
United States government officials. In particular, the Appellate Body has contested:
(a) The ex parte nature of the inquiries and certifications;
(b) the absence of formal opportunity for the country under investigation to be heard or
to respond to any arguments made against it;
(c) the absence of formal written reasoned decision, whether of acceptance or of
rejection. In particular, countries denied certification do not receive notice of the
denial; and
(d) the absence of procedure for review of, or appeal from, a denial of an application.242
5.128 The United States argues that it has modified its Guidelines to take these findings of the
Appellate Body into account. In order to assess the changes made by the United States, we compare
the findings of the Appellate Body with the text of the Revised Guidelines and the administrative
practice under those Revised Guidelines.
5.129 With regard to the ex parte nature of investigations and to the absence of formal opportunity
for the country under investigation to be heard or to respond to any arguments made against it under
the 1996 Guidelines, we note that the Revised Guidelines not only provide for visits by US officials of
those nations requesting certification under Section 609(b)(2)(A) and (B), but also that:
"Each visit will conclude with a meeting between the US officials
and governments officials of the harvesting nation to discuss the
results of the visit and to review any identified deficiencies regarding
the harvesting nation's program to protect sea turtles in the course of
shrimp trawl fishing."243
5.130 Moreover, the Revised Guidelines provide for two assessments by the Department of State of
the exporting country programme: a "preliminary" one by 15 March of each year and a formal one
by 1 May of each year. The Revised Guidelines state that, after the "preliminary" assessment,
"If the government of the harvesting nation so requests, the
Department of State will schedule face-to-face meetings between
relevant US officials and officials of the harvesting nation to discuss
the situation."
244
5.131 We therefore conclude that the Revised Guidelines address the Appellate Body concerns in
terms of the ex parte nature of the investigation and absence of formal opportunity for the country
under investigation to be heard or to respond to any arguments made against it.
5.132 With respect to the Appellate Body findings on the absence of formal written reasoned
decision, whether of acceptance or of rejection, we note that the Revised Guidelines provide, with
respect to the "preliminary" assessment, that:
"By March 15, the Department of State will notify in writing through
diplomatic channels the government of each nation that, on the basis

242 Appellate Body Report, para. 180.
243 Revised Guidelines, p. 36951; Annex to this Report: para. 26.
244 Revised Guidelines, p. 36951; Annex to this Report: para. 27.

of available information, including information gathered during [the
visits mentioned in para. 5.129 above], does not appear to qualify for
certification. Such notification will explain the reasons for this
preliminary assessment, suggest steps that the government of the
harvesting nation can take in order to receive a certification and
invite the government of the harvesting nation to provide, by
April 15, any further information."
245
and also that:
"By May 1 of each year the Department of State will make formal
decisions on certification. The governments of all nations that have
requested certification will be notified in writing of the decision
promptly through diplomatic channels. In the case of those nations
for which certification is denied, such notification will again state the
reasons for such denials and steps necessary to receive a certification
in the future."
246
5.133 We consider that these provisions of the Revised Guidelines address the problems of
notification and statement of reasons identified by the Appellate Body.
5.134 Moreover, concerning the absence of procedure fo r review of, or appeal from, a denial of an
application, we note that the Revised Guidelines provide that:
"The government of any nation that is denied a certification by
May 1 may, at any time thereafter, request reconsideration of that
decision."247
At our request, the United States also confirmed that, as a general matter, judicial review of a final
decision by the US Department of State regarding certification of a country may be had in the US
court system pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. 248 Thus, it is our understanding that the
Revised Guidelines, together with the relevant US legislation, address the DSB recommendations and
rulings on review procedures and appeal.
5.135 Finally, instances of actual application of the Revised Guidelines also tend to demonstrate
that they now comply with the findings of the Appellate Body. The information provided by the
United States and Australia with regard to the process which led the United States to authorize the
importation of shrimp caught in the Spencer Gulf fisheries and the Northern Prawn Fisheries show
that, in those particular instances, the United States appears to have applied its Revised Guidelines in
conformity with the wording of those guidelines. We also note that Australia did not mention that it
was at any stage deprived of the possibility to make its views known to the US investigating
authorities.
5.136 We therefore conclude that evidence available supports the view that due process appears to
have been respected so far.

245 Ibid.
246 Revised Guidelines, p. 36951; Annex to this Report: para. 29.
247 Revised Guidelines, p. 36951; Annex to this Report: para. 30.
248 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq.

(c) Conclusion
5.137 We therefore conclude that the United States has made a prima facie case that Section 609 is
now applied in a manner that no longer constitutes a means of unjustifiable or arbitrary
discrimination, as identified by the Appellate Body in its Report. We note that Malaysia did not
submit sufficient evidence to the contrary.
5. Disguised restriction on international trade
5.138 The Panel notes that it is instructed by Article 21.5 of the DSU to review "the existence or
consistency with a covered agreement of measures taken to comply with the recommendations and
rulings" of the DSB. The fact that the Appellate Body did not have to make a finding that the original
measure was a disguised restriction on trade does not mean that the measure adopted to implement the
DSB recommendations and rulings is not a disguised restriction on trade. The Panel also recalls that,
as the party invoking Article XX, the United States bears the burden of proving that its implementing
measure meets all the relevant requirements of the chapeau. This implies that the United States make
a prima facie case that the implementing measure is not a disguised restriction on trade.
5.139 We first note that the United States argued that the implementing measure is narrowly tailored
to achieve a bona fide conservation goal. The United States has also mentioned that it has expended
substantial efforts to disseminate TEDs technology worldwide, thus assisting many countries in
obtaining certification under Section 609. Malaysia states that the three conditions of the chapeau of
Article XX, including that according to which the implementing measure must not be applied so as to
constitute a disguised restriction on international trade, have to be complied with by the United States.
5.140 The Panel notes that the fact that, on its face, a law has been narrowly tailored to achieve a
bona fide conservation plan does not mean that, when applied, it does not constitute a disguised
restriction on trade. As stressed by the Appellate Body:
"149. The policy goal of a measure at issue cannot provide its
rationale or justification under the standards of the chapeau of Article
XX. […] it does not follow from the fact that a measure falls within
the terms of Article XX(g) that that measure also will necessarily
comply with the requirements of the chapeau. To accept the
argument of the United States would be to disregard the standards
established by the chapeau."
5.141 Second, the Panel notes that, in the United States - Gasoline case, the Appellate Body
concluded that:
"The fundamental theme is to be found in the purpose and object of
avoiding abuse or illegitimate use of the exceptions to substantive
rules available in Article XX."
249
5.142 The Panel is of the view that there would be an abuse of Article XX(g) "if [the compliance
with Article XX(g) was] in fact only a disguise to conceal the pursuit of trade-restrictive
objectives".250 As mentioned by the Appellate Body in Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages251, the
protective application of a measure can most often be discerned from its design, architecture and

249 Appellate Body Report on United States – Gasoline, Op. Cit., p. 25.
250 Panel Report on European Communities – Measures Aff ecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing
Products, adopted on 5 April 2001, WT/DS135/R, para. 8.236. This finding was neither reversed nor modified
by the Appellate Body.
251 Appellate Body Report on Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , adopted on 1 November 1996,
WT/DS8; DS10; DS11/AB/R, p. 29.

revealing structure. We therefore proceed to determine whether, beyond the protection which
automatically results from the imposition of a ban, the design, architecture and revealing structure of
Section 609 together with the Revised Guidelines, as actually applied by the US authorities,
demonstrate that the implementing measure constitutes a disguised restriction on international trade.
An examination of the text of Section 609 and of the Revised Guidelines does not show any element
leaning in that direction.
5.143 We nonetheless recall that, before the Original Panel, the question of whether Section 609
was applied so as to constitute a disguised restriction on international trade was addressed by the
parties. First, the Panel recalls that the case which led to the CIT judgement which extended the scope
of application of Section 609 beyond the United States and the Caribbean/Western Atlantic countries
was initiated by environmental groups. 252 The attention of the Original Panel was drawn to the
legislative history of Section 609.253 The Panel notes that US fishermen harvesting shrimp are subject
to constraints comparable to those imposed on exporting countries' fishermen insofar as they have to
use TEDs at all times. Even though, when the application of Section 609 was extended to the whole
world, US fishermen were probably in favour of a measure imposing the same requirements on
foreign fishermen, they are likely to incur little commercial gain from a ban since the
Revised Guidelines make it easier to export shrimp to the United States under Section 609, compared
with the situation under the 1996 Guidelines. Indee d, the United States has demonstrated that the
mandatory use of TEDs in certain circumstances is no longer a condition sine qua non for certification
if other comparable programmes are applied. The Panel considers that, by allowing exporting
countries to apply programmes not based on the mandatory use of TEDs, and by offering technical
assistance to develop the use of TEDs in third countries, the United States has demonstrated that
Section 609 is not applied so as to constitute a disguised restriction on trade.
5.144 The Panel therefore concludes that the implementing measure does not constitute a disguised
restriction on international trade within the meaning of the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
6.1 In light of the findings above, the Panel reaches the following conclusions:
(a) The measure adopted by the United States in order to comply with the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB violates Article XI.1 of the GATT 1994;
(b) in light of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, Section 609 of Public
Law 101-162, as implemented by the Revised Guidelines of 8 July 1999 and as
applied so far by the US authorities, is justified under Article XX of the GATT 1994
as long as the conditions stated in the findings of this Report, in particular the
ongoing serious good faith efforts to reach a multilateral agreement, remain satisfied.
6.2 The Panel notes that should any one of the conditions referred to in sub-paragraph 6.1(b)
above cease to be met in the future, the recommendations of the DSB may no longer be complied
with. This Panel believes that, in such a case, any complaining party in the original case may be
entitled to have further recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU.

252 United States Court of International Trade: Earth Island Institute v. Warren Christopher ,
913 Fed. Supp. 559 (CIT 1995).
253 See e.g., Original Panel Report, paras. 3.272; 3.278 and 3.281.

VII. CONCLUDING REMARKS
7.1 The Panel reaffirms its concluding remarks in the Original Panel Report:
"The best way for the parties to this dispute to contribute effectively
to the protection of sea turtles in a manner consistent with WTO
objectives, including sustainable development, would be to reach
cooperative agreements on integrated conservation strategies
covering, inter alia , the design, implementation and use of TEDs
while taking into account the specific conditions in the different
geographical areas concerned."
254
7.2 The Panel urges Malaysia and the United States to cooperate fully in order to conclude as
soon a possible an agreement which will permit the protection and conservation of sea turtles to the
satisfaction of all interests involved and taking into account the principle that States have common but
differentiated responsibilities to conserve and protect the environment.
255

254 Original Panel Report, para. 9.1.
255 Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration.

ANNEX
Revised Guidelines pursuant to Section 609, 8 July 1999256
1. For the sake of clarity, the 28 August 1998 guidelines are restated below as modified to
reflect the changes proposed in the Federal Register notice issued 25 March 1999, and the comments
received on those proposed changes.
1. Introductory Material
A. T
HE US PROGRAM
2. Since certification decisions under Section 609(b)(2)(A) and (B) are based on comparability
with the US program governing the incidental taking of sea turtles in the course of shrimp harvesting,
an explanation of the components of that program follows. The US program requires that commercial
shrimp trawl vessels use TEDs approved in accordance with standards established by the US National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), in areas and at times when there is a likelihood of intercepting sea
turtles. The goal of this program is to protect sea turtle populations from further decline by reducing
the incidental mortality of sea turtles in commercial shrimp trawl operations.
3. The commercial shrimp trawl fisheries in the United States in which there is a likelihood of
intercepting sea turtles occur in the temperate waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean
from North Carolina to Texas. With very limited exceptions, all US commercial shrimp trawl vessels
operating in these waters must use approved TEDs at all times and in all areas. The only exceptions
to this requirement are as follows:
(a) Vessels equipped exclusively with wing nets, skimmer trawls, and pusher-head trawls
when used in conjunction with certain restricted tow times are not required to use
TEDs because their operations do not pose a threat to sea turtles. Vessels equipped
with barred beam trawls and/or barred roller trawls are not required to use TEDs.
Single try nets (with less than a twelve foot headrope and fifteen foot rope) are not
required to use TEDs.
(b) Vessels whose nets are retrieved exclusively by manual rather than mechanical means
are not required to use TEDs because the lack of a mechanical retrieval system
necessarily limits tow times to a short duration so as not to pose a threat of the
incidental drowning of sea turtles. This exemption applies only to vessels that have
no power or mechanical-advantage trawl retrieval system.
(c) In exceptional circumstances, where NMFS determines that the use of TEDs would
be impracticable because of special environmental conditions such as the presence of
algae, seaweed, or debris, or that TEDs would be ineffective in protecting sea turtles
in particular areas, vessels are permitted to restrict tow times instead of using TEDs.
Such exceptions are generally limited to two periods of 30 days each. In practice,
NMFS has permitted such exceptions only rarely.
4. With these limited exceptions, all other commercial shrimp trawl vessels operating in waters
subject to US jurisdiction in which there is a likelihood of intercepting sea turtles must use TEDs at

256 This Annex contains the Revised Guidelines for the Implementation of Section 609 of Public Law
101-162 Relating to the Protection of Sea Turtles in Shrimp Trawl Fishing Operations, US Department of State,
Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 130, 8 July 1999, Pub lic Notice 3086, pp. 36949-36952. For ease of reference,
the paragraphs of the Revised Guidelines have been numbered in this Annex.

all times. For more information on the US program governing the incidental taking of sea turtles in
the course of commercial shrimp trawl harvesting, see 50 CFR 227.17 and 50 CFR 227.72(e).
B. S HRIMP HARVESTED IN A MANNER NOT HARMFUL TO SEA TURTLES
5. The Department of State has determined that the import prohibitions imposed pursuant to
Section 609 do not apply to shrimp or products of shrimp harvested under the following conditions,
since such harvesting does not adversely affect sea turtle species:
(a) Shrimp harvested in an aquaculture facility in which the shrimp spend at least 30 days
in pond prior to being harvested.
(b) Shrimp harvested by commercial shrimp trawl vessels using TEDs comparable in
effectiveness to those required in the United States.
(c) Shrimp harvested exclusively by means that do not involve the retrieval of fishing
nets by mechanical devices, such as winches, pulleys, power blocks or other devices
providing mechanical advantage, or by vessels using gear that, in accordance with the
US program described above, would not require TEDs.
(d) Shrimp harvested in any other manner or under any other circumstances that the
Department of State may determine, following consultation with the NMFS, does not
pose a threat of the incidental taking of sea turtles. The Department of State shall
publish any such determinations in the Federal Register and shall notify affected
foreign governments and other interested parties directly.
C. S
HRIMP EXPORTER’S/IMPORTER’S DECLARATION
6. The requirement that all shipments of shrimp and products of shrimp imported into the
United States must be accompanied by a declaration (DSP–121, revised) became effective as
of 1 May 1996 and remains effective. The DSP–121 attests that the shrimp accompanying the
declaration was harvested either under conditions that do not adversely affect sea turtles (as defined
above) or in waters subject to the jurisdiction of a nation currently certified pursuant to Section 609.
All declarations must be signed by the exporter. The declaration must accompany the shipment
through all stages of the export process, including any transformation of the original product and any
shipment through any intermediary nation. As before, the Department of State will make copies of
the declaration readily available. Local reproduction of the declarations is fully acceptable.
7. The requirement that a government official of the harvesting nation currently certified
pursuant to Section 609 must also sign the DSP–121 asserting that the accompanying shrimp was
harvested under conditions that do not adversely affect sea turtles species remains effective. In order
to protect against fraud, the Department will continue to conduct periodic reviews of the systems that
such foreign governments have put in place to verify the statements made on the DSP–121 form.
Date of Export
8. Import prohibitions shall not apply to shipments of shrimp and products of shrimp with a date
of export falling at a time in which the harvesting nation is currently certified pursuant to Section 609.
Country of Origin
9. For purposes of implementing Section 609, the c ountry of origin shall be deemed to be the
nation in whose waters the shrimp is harvested, whether or not the harvesting vessel is flying the flag
of another nation.

E. R EVIEW OF INFORMATION
10. The government of any harvesting nation may request that the Department of State review
any information regarding the particular shrimp fi shing environment and conditions in that nation, or
within a distinct geographic region of that nation, in making decisions pursuant to Section 609. Such
information may be presented to demonstrate, inter alia:
(1) That some portion of the shrimp intended to be exported from that nation to the
United States is harvested under one of the conditions identified above as not
adversely affecting species of sea turtles;
(2) that the government of that nation has adopted a regulatory program governing the
incidental taking of sea turtles in the course of commercial shrimp trawl fishing that
is comparable to the US program and, therefore, that the nation is eligible for
certification under Section 609(b)(2)(A) and (B); or
(3) that the fishing environment in that nation does not pose a threat of the incidental
taking of sea turtles and, therefore, that the nation is eligible for certification under
Section 609(b)(2)(C).
11. Such information should be based on empirical data supported by objective scientific studies
of sufficient duration and scope to provide the information necessary for a reliable determination. In
addition, information submitted to support a request for any such determination should include
available biological data regarding the resources in question and operational information relating to
the activities of the fishing fleet that are relevant to determining whether or not the fishing
environment of the harvesting nation is likely to pose a threat to sea turtles. Studies intended to show
the rate of incidental taking of sea turtles in a given shrimp fishery should, at a minimum, contain data
for an entire fishing season. Upon request, the United States will review and provide comments on a
planned or existing study with respect to sample size, scientific methodology and other factors that
affect whether such a study provides a sufficient basis for making a reliable determination.
12. The Department will fully review and take into consideration all such information and, in
consultation with the NMFS, respond in writing to the government of the harvesting nation
within 120 days from the date on which the information is received.
13. The Department, in consultation with the NMFS, will also take into consideration information
on the same subjects that may be available from other sources, including but not limited to academic
and scientific organizations, intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations
with recognized expertise in the subject matter.
II. GUIDELINES FOR MAKING CERTIFICATION DECISIONS
A. C
ERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 609(b)(2)(C)
14. Section 609(b)(2)(C) authorizes the Department of State to certify a harvesting nation if the
particular fishing environment of the harvesting nation does not pose a threat of incidental taking of
sea turtles in the course of commercial shrimp trawl harvesting. Accordingly, the Department shall
certify any harvesting nation meeting the following criteria without the need for action on the part of
the government of the harvesting nation:
(a) Any harvesting nation without any of the relevant species of sea turtles occurring in
waters subject to its jurisdiction;

(b) any harvesting nation that harvests shrimp exclusively by means that do not pose a
threat to sea turtles, e.g., any nation that harvests shrimp exclusively by artisanal
means;
(c) any nation whose commercial shrimp trawling operations take place exclusively in
waters subject to its jurisdiction in which sea turtles do not occur.
B. C ERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 609(b)(2)(A) AND (B)
15. Under Section 609(b)(2), the Department of State shall certify any other harvesting nation by
May 1st of each year if ‘‘the government of (that) nation has provided documentary evidence of the
adoption of a regulatory program governing the incidental taking of such sea turtles in the course of
such harvesting that is comparable to that of the United States’’ and if ‘‘the average rate of that
incidental taking by vessels of the harvesting nation is comparable to the average rate of incidental
taking of sea turtles by United States vessels in the course of such harvesting.’’
(a) Regulatory Program
16. The Department of State shall assess regulatory programs, as described in any documentary
evidence provided by the governments of harvesting nations, for comparability with the US program.
17. Where standard otter trawl nets are used in sh rimp fisheries in waters where sea turtles are
present, sea turtles will inevitably be captured and drowned. The Department of State is presently
aware of no measure or series of measures that can minimize the capture and drowning of sea turtles
in such nets that is comparable in effectiveness to the required use of TEDs.
(1) If the government of the harvesting nation seeks certification on the basis of having adopted a
TEDs program, certification shall be made if a program includes the following:
(i) Required Use of TEDs
18. A requirement that all commercial shrimp trawl vessels operating in waters in which there is a
likelihood of intercepting sea turtles use TEDs at all times. TEDs must be comparable in
effectiveness to those used in the United States. Any exceptions to this requirement must be
comparable to those of the US program described above; and
(ii) Enforcement
19. A credible enforcement effort that includes monitoring for compliance and appropriate
sanctions.
(2) If the government of a harvesting nation demonstrates that it has implemented and is
enforcing a comparably effective regulatory progra m to protect sea turtles in the course of shrimp
trawl fishing without the use of TEDs, that nation will also be eligible for certification. As described
above, such a demonstration would need to be based on empirical data supported by objective
scientific studies of sufficient duration and scope to provide the information necessary for a reliable
determination. In reviewing any such information, the Department of State will take fully into
account any demonstrated differences between the shrimp fishing conditions in the United States and
those in other nations, as well as information available from other sources.

(b) Incidental Take
20. Average incidental take rates will be deemed comparable if the harvesting nation requires the
use of TEDs in a manner comparable to that of the US program or, as described above, otherwise
demonstrates that it has implemented a comparably effective program to protect sea turtles in the
course of shrimp trawl fishing without the use of TEDs.
(c) Additional Considerations
(i) Form
21. A regulatory program may be in the form of regulations promulgated by the government of
the harvesting nation and having the force of law. If the legal system and industry structure of the
harvesting nation permit voluntary arrangements between government and the fishing industry, such
an arrangement may be acceptable so long as there is a governmental mechanism to monitor
compliance with the arrangement and to impose penalties for non-compliance, and reliable
confirmation that the fishing industry is complying with the arrangement.
(ii) Documentary Evidence
22. Documentary evidence may be in the form of copies of the relevant laws, regulations or
decrees. If the regulatory program is in the form of a government-industry arrangement, then a copy
of the arrangement is required. Harvesting nations are encouraged to provide, to the extent
practicable, information relating to the extent of shrimp harvested by means of aquaculture.
(iii) Additional Sea Turtle Protection Measures
23. The Department of State recognizes that sea turtles require protection throughout their life
cycle, not only when they are threatened during the course of commercial shrimp trawl harvesting. In
making certification determinations, the Department shall also take fully into account other measures
the harvesting nation undertakes to protect sea turtles, including national programs to protect nesting
beaches and other habitat, prohibitions on the directed take of sea turtles, national enforcement and
compliance programs, and participation in any international agreement for the protection and
conservation of sea turtles. In assessing any information provided by the governments of harvesting
nations in this respect, the Department of State will rely on the technical expertise of NMFS and,
where appropriate, the US Fish and Wildlife Service to evaluate threats to sea turtles and the
effectiveness of sea turtle protection programs.
(iv) Consultations
24. The Department of State will engage in ongoing consultations with the governments of
harvesting nations. The Department recognizes that, as sea turtle protection programs develop,
additional information will be gained about the interaction between sea turtle populations and shrimp
fisheries. These Guidelines may be revised in the future to take into consideration that and other
information, as well as to take into account changes in the US program. These Guidelines may also
be revised as a result of pending domestic litigation. In addition, the Department will continue to
welcome public input on the best ways to implement both these Guidelines and Section 609 as a
whole and may revise these guidelines in the future accordingly.
C. T
IMETABLE AND PROCEDURES FOR CERTIFICATION DECISIONS
25. Each year the Department will consider for certification: (a) any nation that is currently
certified, and (b) any other shrimp harvesting natio n whose government requests such certification in
a written communication to the Department of State through diplomatic channels prior to 1 September

of the preceding year. Any such communicati on should include any information not previously
provided that would support the request for certification, including the information specified above
under Review of Information.
26. Between 1 September and 1 March, US officials will seek to visit those nations requesting
certifications pursuant to Section 609(b)(2)(A) and (B ). Each visit will conclude with a meeting
between the US officials and government officials of the harvesting nation to discuss the results of the
visit and to review any identified deficiencies regarding the harvesting nation’s program to protect sea
turtles in the course of shrimp trawl fishing.
27. By 15 March, the Department of State will noti fy in writing through diplomatic channels the
government of each nation that, on the basis of available information, including information gathered
during such visits, does not appear to qualify for certification. Such notification will explain the
reasons for this preliminary assessment, suggest steps that the government of the harvesting nation
can take in order to receive a certification and invite the government of the harvesting nation to
provide, by 15 April, any further information. If the government of the harvesting nation so requests,
the Department of State will schedule face-to-face meetings between relevant US officials and
officials of the harvesting nation to discuss the situation.
28. Between 15 March and 1 May, the Department of State will actively consider any additional
information that the government of the harvesting nation believes should be considered by the
Department in making its determination concerning certification.
29. By 1 May of each year the Department of State will make formal decisions on certification.
The governments of all nations that have requested certification will be notified in writing of the
decision promptly through diplomatic channels. In the case of those nations for which certification is
denied, such notification will again state the reasons for such denial and the steps necessary to receive
a certification in the future.
30. The government of any nation that is denied a certification by 1 May may, at any time
thereafter, request reconsideration of that decision. When the United States receives information from
that government demonstrating that the circumstance s that led to the denial of the certification have
been corrected, US officials will visit the exporting nation as early as a visit can be arranged. If the
visit demonstrates that the circumstances that led to the denial of the certification have indeed been
corrected, the United States will certify that nation immediately thereafter.
D. S
PECIAL TIMETABLE FOR 1999
31. The United States and the four nations that brought the WTO complaint have agreed that the
United States would implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB within 13 months of the
adoption of the WTO Appellate Body report by the DSB, i.e., by 6 December 1999.
32. Accordingly, the Department of State hereby establishes the following timetable to apply in
1999 only:
33. After the date of publication of the revised guidelines, the government of any harvesting
nation that was denied certification by 1 May 1999, may request to be certified in accordance with
these guidelines in a written communication to the Department of State through diplomatic channels
prior to 1 September 1999.
34. Not later than 15 October 1999, US officials will seek to visit to those nations requesting such
certifications. Each visit will conclude with a meeting between the US officials and government
officials of the harvesting nation to discuss the results of the visit and to review any identified

deficiencies regarding the harvesting nation’s program to protect sea turtles in the course of shrimp
trawl fishing.
35. By 1 November 1999, the Department of Stat e will notify in writing through diplomatic
channels the government of any nation that, on the basis of available information, including
information gathered during such visits, does not appear to qualify for certification. Such notification
will explain the reasons for this preliminary assessm ent, suggest steps that the government of the
harvesting nation can take in order to receive a certification and invite the government of the
harvesting nation to provide, by 15 November 1999, any further information.
36. Between 15 November and 6 December 1999, the Department of State will actively consider
any additional information that the government of the harvesting nation believes should be considered
by the Department in making its determination concerning certification.
37. By 6 December 1999, the Department of State will make formal decisions on certification.
The governments of all nations that have requested certification under the special 1999 timetable will
be notified in writing of the decision promptly through diplomatic channels. In the case of those
nations for which certification is denied, such notification will again state the reasons for such denial
and the steps necessary to receive a certification in the future.
38. The government of any nation that is denied a certification by 6 December 1999, may, at any
time thereafter, request reconsideration of that decision. When the United States receives information
from that government demonstrating that the circumst ances that led to the denial of the certification
have been corrected, US officials will visit the exporting nation as early as a visit can be arranged. If
the visit demonstrates that the circumstances that led to the denial of the certification have indeed
been corrected, the United States will certify that nation immediately thereafter.
39. The Department of State recognizes that a government seeking certification on the basis of
the revised guidelines may not, by 1 September 1999, be able to gather sufficient information
necessary to support such a request. To meet this concern, and in accordance with its existing
practice, the Department will accept requests for certification at any time in 1999 and will process
them as expeditiously as possible. However, the Department can only commit to making a
certification determination by 6 December 1999 if it has received the necessary information
by 1 September 1999.
E. R
ELATED DETERMINATIONS
40. As noted above, any harvesting nation that is not certified on 1 May of any year may be
certified prior to the following 1 May at such time as the harvesting nation meets the criteria
necessary for certification. Conversely, any harvesting nation that is certified on 1 May of any year
may have its certification revoked prior to the fo llowing 1 May at such time as the harvesting nation
no longer meets those criteria.
41. As a matter relating to the foreign affairs function, these guidelines are exempt from the
notice, comment, and delayed effectiveness provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act. This
action is exempt from Executive Order 12866, and is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
Dated: 29 June 1999.
Stuart E. Eizenstat, Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business and Agriculture Affairs.
 [FR Doc. 99–17330 Filed 7–7–99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710–09–U