^INTERNATIONAL ^ECONOMIC ^LAW

^I. ^Introduction

^New ^Zealand ^pursued ^a ^full ^trade ^negotiating ^agenda ^in ^2011, ^with ^work ^intensifying  ^in  ^the  ^Trans  ^Pacific ^Partnership  ^(TPP)  ^negotiations, ^and ^continuing ^with ^various ^bilateral ^partners. ^In ^the ^multilateral ^arena, ^negotiating ^activity ^tailed ^off ^in ^the ^World ^Trade ^Organisation ^(WTO) ^Doha ^Development ^Round, ^with ^a ^series ^of ^Chairs’ ^reports ^in ^April ^highlighting ^ongoing ^divergences  ^across ^numerous   ^negotiating ^areas.  ^However, ^there ^were ^still ^a ^number ^of ^developments ^in ^the ^WTO,  ^including ^accession ^of ^four ^new ^members, ^finalisation ^of ^a ^revision ^of ^the ^Plurilateral ^Government ^Procurement ^Agreement, ^and ^release ^of ^several ^panel ^and ^Appellate ^Body ^decisions. ^This ^review ^details ^multilateral,  ^regional, ^and ^bilateral ^developments ^in ^2011, ^focusing ^on ^New ^Zealand’s ^involvement. ^It ^also ^reviews ^key ^WTO ^dispute ^settlement ^decisions ^of ^interest ^to ^New ^Zealand.

^II. ^Regional ^and ^Bilateral ^Negotiations

^A. ^Trans ^Pacific ^Partnership
^In ^2011, ^the ^nine ^TPP ^negotiating ^partners ^(New ^Zealand, ^Singapore, ^Brunei, ^Chile, ^Australia, ^Vietnam, ^Malaysia, ^Peru, ^and ^the ^United ^States ^of ^America) ^held ^five ^formal ^rounds ^of ^negotiations  ^as ^they ^continued ^to ^work ^towards ^an ^agreement ^creating ^a ^regional ^free ^trade ^area. ^In ^the ^margins ^of ^the ^APEC ^Leaders’ ^Meeting ^in ^November ^2011, ^leaders ^from ^the ^nine ^TPP ^economies ^endorsed ^a ^report ^from ^their ^Trade ^Ministers ^defining ^the ^broad ^outlines ^of ^a ^TPP ^agreement. ^The ^Leaders’  ^Statement ^noted ^the ^goal ^for ^the ^agreement ^to ^be ^“a ^model ^for ^ambition ^for ^other ^free ^trade ^agreements ^in ^the ^future, ^forging ^close ^linkages ^among ^our ^economies, ^enhancing ^our ^competitiveness,  ^benefitting ^our ^consumers ^and ^supporting ^the ^creation ^and ^retention ^of ^jobs, ^higher ^living ^standards, ^and ^the ^reduction ^of ^poverty ^in ^our ^countries”.1   ^Along ^with ^the ^Leaders’ ^Statement, ^the ^Trade ^Ministers ^of ^the ^negotiating ^partners  ^released ^a ^document ^setting  ^out  ^the ^broad ^outlines ^for ^the ^agreement. ^This ^document ^identified  ^five ^characteristics ^of ^the ^agreement:2

^1.  ^Comprehensive ^market ^access ^through ^elimination ^of ^tariffs ^and ^other ^barriers ^to ^goods ^and ^services ^trade ^and ^investment;
^2.  ^Facilitation ^of ^development ^of ^production ^and ^supply ^chains ^among ^TPP ^members;
^3.  ^Development ^of ^four ^cross-cutting  ^issues, ^namely, ^regulatory ^coherence, ^competitiveness  ^and ^business  ^facilitation, ^small  ^and ^medium-sized ^enterprises, ^and ^development;
^4.  ^Promotion ^of ^trade ^and ^investment ^in ^innovative ^products ^and ^services, ^including ^those ^related ^to ^the ^digital ^economy ^and ^green ^technologies, ^and ^ensuring ^a ^competitive ^business ^environment ^across ^the ^TPP ^region; ^and
^5.  ^Ensuring ^that ^the ^TPP ^is ^a ^“living ^agreement” ^which ^is ^capable ^of ^being ^updated ^as ^appropriate ^to ^address ^trade ^issues ^that ^emerge ^in ^the ^future ^as ^well ^as ^new ^issues ^that ^arise ^with ^the ^expansion ^of ^the ^agreement ^to ^include ^new ^countries.

^Following ^the  ^APEC ^Leaders’  ^Meeting ^in  ^November ^2011,  ^Canada, ^Mexico ^and ^Japan ^formally ^announced ^their ^interest ^in ^joining ^the ^TPP ^negotiations. ^The ^process ^for ^additional ^countries ^to ^join ^the ^negotiations ^requires ^discussions ^with ^each ^of ^the ^current ^partners ^to ^determine ^whether ^the ^aspirant ^country ^is ^in ^a ^position ^to ^negotiate ^rules ^and ^market ^access ^commitments ^consistent ^with ^the ^ambition ^of ^the ^nine ^countries ^currently ^around ^the ^table. ^These  ^discussions  ^will ^continue ^into ^2012. ^For ^a ^new ^member ^to ^join ^the ^negotiations, ^all ^current ^TPP ^negotiating ^partners ^must ^reach ^consensus.

^B. ^Bilateral ^Negotiations
^In  ^January ^2011, ^the ^New ^Zealand ^– ^Hong  ^Kong ^Closer  ^Economic ^Partnership ^Agreement ^(the ^“CEP”) ^entered ^into ^force. ^The ^CEP ^included ^a ^commitment ^for ^New ^Zealand ^and ^Hong ^Kong ^to ^conclude ^a ^comprehensive ^Investment ^Protocol ^to ^the ^CEP ^(Investment ^Protocol) ^within ^two ^years ^of ^the ^CEP’s ^entry ^into ^force. ^In ^May ^2011, ^the ^first ^round ^of ^negotiations ^for ^an ^Investment ^Protocol ^was ^held ^and ^this ^was ^followed ^by ^further ^rounds ^throughout ^the ^year. ^Hong ^Kong ^is ^New ^Zealand’s ^eighth ^largest ^investment ^destination, ^with ^investments ^worth ^approximately ^NZ$1.2 ^billion ^in ^the ^year ^to ^June ^2009.3

^In  ^other  ^negotiating ^activity, ^following ^a ^political ^announcement ^in ^November ^2011, ^New ^Zealand ^commenced ^substantive ^negotiations ^for ^a ^free ^trade ^agreement ^with ^Russia ^and ^its ^customs ^union ^partners ^Belarus ^and ^Kazakhstan. ^A ^number ^of ^negotiating ^rounds ^were ^held ^throughout ^2011. ^Completion ^of ^the ^negotiations  ^is ^scheduled ^for ^2012. ^Negotiations ^also ^continued ^with ^India, ^with ^negotiating ^rounds ^being ^held ^in ^March, ^May, ^and ^August.

^III. ^World ^Trade ^Organisation

^A. ^Membership
^The ^WTO ^approved ^four ^new ^members ^in ^2011. ^On ^26 ^October ^2011, ^the ^WTO ^General ^Council ^formally ^approved ^Vanuatu’s ^Accession ^Package, ^and ^on ^17 ^December, ^WTO ^Ministers ^adopted ^Samoa’s ^and ^Montenegro’s ^terms  ^of ^entry. ^However, ^the  ^most  ^significant  ^development ^was  ^WTO ^Ministers’ ^approval ^on ^16 ^December ^2011 ^of ^the ^Approval ^Package ^of ^the ^Russian ^Federation. ^This ^was ^the ^culmination ^of ^a ^lengthy ^and ^often ^difficult ^accession ^process ^that ^began ^in ^June ^1993. ^All ^countries ^acceding ^to ^the ^WTO ^are ^required ^as ^part ^of ^the ^process ^to ^bring ^their ^trade ^regime ^into ^compliance ^with ^WTO ^rules. ^Russia’s ^Accession ^Package ^is ^particularly  ^long ^and ^complex, ^with ^the ^final ^document ^containing ^over ^700 ^pages ^in ^addition ^to ^goods ^and ^services ^schedules.  ^As ^part ^of ^its ^accession, ^Russia ^concluded ^30 ^bilateral ^agreements ^on ^market ^access ^for ^services ^and ^57 ^on ^market ^access ^for ^goods. ^Russia ^also ^undertook ^a ^number ^of ^obligations ^in ^order ^to ^bring ^its ^domestic ^policies ^in ^line ^with ^WTO ^rules, ^including ^in ^the ^area ^of ^domestic ^subsidies, ^sanitary ^and ^phytosanitary ^measures, ^technical ^barriers ^to ^trade, ^trade-related ^investment  ^measures, ^and ^protection ^of ^intellectual ^property ^rights. ^Russia ^has ^until ^15 ^June ^2012 ^to ^ratify ^its ^Accession ^Package. ^The ^other ^remaining ^barrier ^to ^Russia’s ^membership  ^is ^for ^the ^US ^to ^repeal ^its ^so-called ^Jackson-Vanik ^legislation ^to ^allow ^the ^US ^to ^establish ^permanent ^normal ^trade ^relations ^with ^the ^Federation.

^B. ^Doha ^Development ^Agenda
^Progress ^on ^the ^Doha ^Development ^Agenda ^was ^slow ^in ^2011. ^In ^April, ^chairs ^of ^the ^various ^negotiating ^groups ^partook ^in ^the ^“Easter ^process” ^which ^involved ^them ^submitting ^revised ^drafts ^of ^texts ^or ^chairs’ ^reports ^to ^describe ^the ^state ^of ^play ^of ^the ^negotiations. ^A ^brief ^summary ^of ^the ^state ^of ^play ^in ^the ^negotiations ^on ^key ^areas ^of ^interest ^to ^New ^Zealand ^follows.

^1.	^Agriculture
^In  ^his  ^April ^2011  ^report, ^the  ^Chair  ^of ^the  ^Agriculture ^Negotiating ^Group ^noted ^that ^in ^respect ^of ^issues ^bracketed ^or ^otherwise ^annotated ^in ^the ^draft ^text, ^Members ^had ^not ^made ^any ^discernible  ^progress ^over ^the ^previous ^year ^that ^could ^be ^captured ^in ^that ^text.4 ^These ^outstanding  ^issues ^include: ^blue ^box ^(product-specific ^limits); ^cotton; ^designation ^of ^sensitive ^products; ^tariff ^cap ^levels ^for ^products ^outside ^a ^Member’s ^overall ^‘sensitive ^product’ ^entitlement’; ^tariff ^quota ^creation; ^tariff ^simplification;  ^special ^products; ^special ^safeguard ^mechanism ^for ^developing ^countries; ^and ^tropical ^and ^diversification ^products.  ^Members  ^had ^similarly  ^failed ^to ^make ^any ^substantive ^progress ^in ^the ^ongoing ^negotiations ^on ^the ^proposal ^on ^cotton ^made ^by ^Benin, ^Burkina ^Faso, ^Chad, ^and ^Mali.5  ^In ^November, ^Members ^elected ^New ^Zealand ^Ambassador ^John ^Adank ^as ^the ^new ^Chairperson ^of ^the ^Agriculture ^Negotiating ^Group. ^John ^Adank ^replaced ^New ^Zealand ^Ambassador ^David ^Walker ^who ^had ^held ^the ^position ^since ^April ^2009.

^2.	^Non-Agricultural ^Market ^Access
^As ^with ^the ^Agriculture ^Negotiating ^Group, ^the ^news ^out ^of ^the ^Non- ^Agricultural ^Market ^Access ^(NAMA) ^Negotiating ^Group ^in ^2011 ^revealed ^little ^substantive  ^progress. ^In ^his  ^April ^report, ^the ^Chair ^noted ^that ^the ^divergence ^in ^views  ^between ^some ^Members  ^about ^the ^appropriate ^level ^of ^ambition ^has ^been ^considered ^the ^main ^stumbling ^block ^of ^the ^NAMA ^negotiations ^since ^mid-2008.6 ^However, ^the ^Chair ^did ^report ^that ^the ^Group ^had ^made ^some ^progress ^on ^non-tariff ^barriers ^(NTBs) ^– ^an ^area ^which ^has ^been ^under ^negotiation ^since ^the ^beginning ^of ^2009. ^The ^Chair ^reported ^that ^there ^is ^a ^significant ^potential ^NTB ^package ^“within ^reach” ^which ^would ^improve ^the ^functioning ^of ^the ^Agreement ^on ^Technical ^Barriers ^to ^Trade ^(the ^TBT ^Agreement), ^create ^incentives ^for ^legislators ^to ^privilege ^the ^reference ^to ^international ^standards, ^and ^reduce ^the ^tendency ^for ^countries ^to ^deviate ^from ^international ^standards.7

^3.	^Trade ^and ^Environment
^The ^Committee ^on ^Trade ^and ^Environment ^(CTE) ^has ^a ^mandate ^which ^includes  ^considering  ^the  ^relationship  ^between ^existing  ^WTO  ^rules  ^and ^specific ^trade ^obligations  ^set ^out ^in ^multilateral ^environmental ^agreements ^(MEAs), ^and ^looking ^at ^procedures ^for ^regular ^information ^exchange ^between ^MEA ^secretariats  ^and ^the ^relevant ^WTO  ^committees,  ^and ^the ^criteria ^for ^the ^granting ^of ^observer ^status. ^To ^this ^end, ^the ^Chair ^of ^the ^CTE ^reported ^in ^April ^2011 ^that ^Members ^had ^agreed ^on ^the ^idea ^of ^producing ^a ^Ministerial ^Decision ^to ^address ^these ^two ^issues ^and ^attached ^a ^bracketed ^draft ^of ^the ^same ^(noting ^that ^the ^draft ^text ^was ^“conditional  ^in ^the ^deepest ^sense”).8 ^The ^textual ^proposals ^for ^preambular ^language ^cover ^matters  ^such ^as ^the ^objective ^of ^sustainable ^development, ^mutual ^supportiveness ^of ^trade ^and ^environment, ^recognition ^of ^the ^different ^bodies ^of ^international ^law, ^and ^the ^importance ^of ^technical ^assistance ^and ^capacity ^building. ^The ^Chair ^reported ^that  ^substantially  ^all ^Members  ^agree ^that  ^an ^outcome ^should  ^highlight ^the ^importance ^of ^coordination ^at ^the ^national  ^level ^in ^the ^negotiation ^and ^implementation ^of ^specific ^trade ^obligations ^in ^MEAs ^and ^the ^sharing ^of ^domestic  ^experiences ^in ^this ^regard ^in ^the ^CTE. ^The ^draft ^text ^includes ^provisions  ^dealing ^with ^observer ^status,  ^technical ^assistance  ^and ^capacity ^building, ^and ^dispute ^settlement.

^On  ^the ^issue ^of ^environmental ^goods ^and ^services, ^where ^the ^CTE ^is ^working ^towards ^the ^reduction ^or ^elimination ^of ^tariff ^and ^non-tariff ^barriers ^to ^environmental ^goods,  ^the ^Chair ^reported ^that ^a ^number ^of ^technical ^difficulties  ^remain, ^including ^questions  ^concerning ^preambular ^language; ^coverage; ^treatment ^of ^tariffs ^and ^non-tariff ^barriers; ^and ^cross-cutting ^and ^development ^elements.9

^4.	^Fish ^Subsidies
^An ^area ^of ^particular ^importance ^to ^New ^Zealand, ^the ^fish  ^subsidies ^negotiations, ^remained ^in ^a ^state ^of ^flux ^in ^2011. ^New ^proposals ^were ^discussed ^during ^the ^year, ^but ^Members ^continued ^to ^find ^themselves ^unable ^to ^agree ^on ^either ^technical ^issues ^or ^the ^core ^substantive ^issues. ^The ^latter ^include: ^the ^breadth ^of ^any ^eventual ^prohibition ^on ^subsidies ^(ie, ^what ^types ^of ^subsidies ^should ^be ^targeted); ^whether ^there ^should ^be ^a ^broad ^and ^strict ^prohibition ^of ^subsidies ^with ^narrowly ^defined ^exceptions, ^or ^a ^more ^conditional ^approach ^to ^prohibition; ^whether ^there ^should ^be ^an ^exemption ^for ^at ^least ^some ^subsidies ^benefitting ^“artisanal” ^or ^“small-scale” ^fisheries; ^whether ^there ^should ^be ^a ^de ^minimus ^general ^exception; ^the ^question ^of ^special ^and ^differential ^treatment ^for ^developing ^country ^Members;  ^and ^questions ^surrounding  ^the ^role ^of ^fisheries ^management ^in ^the ^disciplines.

^The ^Chair ^noted ^in ^his ^April ^2011 ^report ^that ^a ^text ^showing ^all ^of ^the ^proposals ^as ^possible ^“options”,  ^would ^probably ^be ^“impossible ^to ^produce ^as ^one ^text ^that ^was ^comprehensible”.10   ^The ^importance ^of ^the ^issues ^under ^discussion ^in ^this ^area ^is ^highlighted ^by ^the ^fact ^that ^there ^is ^consensus ^among ^Members ^that ^the ^state ^of ^global ^fisheries ^resources ^is ^“alarming  ^and ^getting ^worse”.11  ^The ^Chair’s ^report ^notes ^that12

^all ^delegations, ^when ^referring ^to ^data, ^rely ^on ^the ^same ^statistics ^– ^those ^published ^by ^the ^FAO ^– ^the ^latest ^of ^which ^show ^that ^85 ^per ^cent ^of ^world ^fish ^stocks ^are ^either ^fully- ^or ^over-exploited.  ^All ^recognise ^that ^this ^is ^a ^crisis ^of ^exceptionally ^serious ^implications ^for ^all ^humankind, ^and ^particularly ^for ^the ^poor ^in ^many ^countries ^who ^are ^heavily ^dependent ^on ^fisheries ^as ^a ^source ^of ^nutrition ^and ^employment. ^… ^Furthermore, ^most ^agree ^that ^subsidies ^play ^a ^major ^role ^in ^contributing ^to ^these ^problems, ^and ^that ^this ^is ^what ^is ^behind ^the ^negotiating ^mandate ^to ^strengthen ^disciplines ^on ^fisheries ^subsidies, ^including ^through ^a ^prohibition.

^However, ^the ^Chair ^suggests ^that ^despite ^this ^convergence ^as ^to ^the ^nature ^and ^extent ^of ^the ^problem, ^and ^the ^role ^of ^subsidies, ^many ^delegations ^are ^focusing ^principally ^on ^maintaining ^their ^own ^status ^quo ^by ^“placing ^on ^others ^the ^main ^responsibility  ^to ^implement ^solutions,  ^while ^minimising ^the ^impact ^of ^disciplines ^on ^their ^own ^activities” ^and ^emphasising ^their ^individual ^needs ^to ^continue ^to ^provide ^subsidies ^(eg, ^harnessing ^fisheries ^as ^a ^basis ^for ^development, ^economic ^growth, ^and ^employment). ^The ^Chair ^was ^to ^the ^point ^in ^noting ^that ^negotiators ^will ^need ^to ^focus ^less ^on ^protecting ^their ^short-term  ^defensive ^interests ^if ^there ^is ^likely ^to ^be ^any ^success ^in ^the ^negotiations.13

^C. ^Plurilateral ^Negotiations
^In ^December ^2011, ^Parties ^to ^the ^Plurilateral ^Government ^Procurement ^Agreement ^(GPA) ^finalised ^revision ^of ^the ^1994 ^Agreement. ^The ^GPA ^aims ^to ^open ^the ^government ^procurement ^processes ^of ^the ^Parties ^up ^to ^international ^competition. ^The ^rules ^focus ^on ^increasing  ^the ^transparency ^of ^measures ^regarding ^government ^procurement, ^and ^ensuring ^non-discriminatory ^treatment ^with ^regard ^to ^the ^products,  ^services ^or ^suppliers ^of ^any ^Party ^to ^the ^Agreement. ^New ^Zealand ^is ^currently ^an ^observer ^to ^the ^1994 ^GPA.

^D. ^Dispute ^Settlement
^While ^progress ^on ^the ^“legislative” ^side ^of ^the ^WTO ^may ^have ^been ^slow ^in ^2011, ^the ^“judicial” ^function ^was ^very ^active, ^with ^a ^number ^of ^important ^disputes ^working ^their ^way ^through ^the ^system. ^Of ^particular ^significance ^to ^New ^Zealand ^were ^two ^panel ^decisions ^in ^disputes ^under ^the ^Technical ^Barriers ^to ^Trade ^(TBT) ^Agreement: ^United ^States ^– ^Tuna14 ^and ^United ^States ^– ^Mandatory ^Country ^of ^Origin ^Labelling.15  ^New ^Zealand ^has ^a ^strong ^systemic ^interest ^in ^how ^the ^TBT ^Agreement  ^is ^interpreted ^and ^therefore ^participated ^as ^a ^Third ^Party ^in ^both ^these ^disputes. ^The ^Panel ^Report ^in ^United ^States ^– ^Tuna ^was ^circulated  ^on ^15 ^September ^2011; ^followed ^by ^the ^Panel ^Report ^in ^United ^States ^– ^Mandatory  ^Country ^of ^Origin ^Labelling ^(MCOOL) ^on ^18 ^November ^2011.

^The ^US ^– ^Tuna ^dispute ^involved ^certain ^US ^measures ^that, ^taken ^together, ^set ^out ^the ^requirements ^for ^when ^tuna ^products ^sold ^in ^the ^US ^may ^be ^labelled ^as ^“dolphin-safe”. ^The ^measures ^condition ^eligibility ^for ^a ^“dolphin-safe” ^label ^upon ^certain ^documentary ^evidence ^that ^varies ^depending ^on ^the ^area ^where ^the ^tuna ^contained ^in ^the ^tuna ^product ^is ^harvested ^and ^the ^type ^of ^vessel ^and ^fishing ^method ^by ^which ^it ^is ^harvested. ^Tuna ^caught ^by ^“setting ^on” ^dolphins ^is ^not ^eligible ^for ^a ^“dolphin-safe” ^label ^in ^the ^US, ^regardless ^of ^whether ^this ^fishing ^method ^is ^used ^inside ^or ^outside ^the ^Eastern ^Tropical ^Pacific ^Ocean ^(ETP). ^However, ^the ^measure ^does ^not ^make ^the ^use ^of ^a ^“dolphin-safe” ^label ^obligatory ^for ^the ^importation ^or ^sale ^of ^tuna ^products ^in ^the ^US.

^Mexico ^brought ^a ^claim ^against ^the ^US ^alleging ^that ^its ^measures ^had ^the ^effect ^of ^blocking ^its ^imports ^into ^the ^US ^market, ^and ^in ^so ^doing, ^violated ^various ^provisions ^of ^the ^TBT ^Agreement. ^While ^the ^Panel ^found ^that ^the ^US ^measures ^were ^not ^discriminatory ^(and ^therefore ^did ^not ^violate ^art ^2.1 ^as ^claimed ^by ^Mexico), ^it ^found ^that ^the ^measures ^were ^more ^trade-restrictive ^than ^necessary ^to ^fulfil ^a ^legitimate ^objective ^and ^thus ^violated ^art ^2.2. ^The ^Panel ^identified ^two ^objectives ^which ^the ^US ^measures ^purported ^to ^fulfil: ^1) ^ensuring ^that ^consumers ^are ^not ^misled ^or ^deceived ^about ^whether ^tuna ^products ^contain ^tuna ^that ^was ^caught ^in ^a ^manner ^that ^adversely ^affects ^dolphins; ^and ^2) ^contributing ^to ^the ^protection ^of ^dolphins, ^by ^ensuring ^that ^the ^US ^market ^is ^not ^used ^to ^encourage ^fishing ^fleets ^to ^catch ^tuna ^in ^a ^manner ^that ^adversely ^affects ^dolphins.  ^While ^it ^considered ^these ^objectives ^to ^be ^legitimate ^ones ^under ^art ^2.2 ^of ^the ^TBT ^Agreement, ^the ^Panel ^found ^that ^they ^were ^only ^partially ^fulfilled ^by ^the ^measures ^at ^issue ^and ^that ^other, ^less ^trade-restrictive  ^alternatives ^existed.

^In ^US ^– ^MCOOL, ^Canada ^and ^Mexico ^successfully ^challenged ^the ^WTO ^consistency ^of ^US ^country-of-origin ^labelling ^(COOL) ^rules ^for ^livestock ^and ^meat ^exports. ^These ^rules ^require ^that ^consumers ^be ^informed ^of ^the ^country ^of ^origin ^of ^meat ^by ^means ^of ^a ^label ^on ^the ^packaging. ^The ^regime ^provides ^for ^five ^different ^categories ^of ^labels, ^depending ^on ^whether ^the ^animals ^were ^born, ^raised, ^and ^slaughtered ^in ^the ^US, ^or ^whether ^they ^had ^a ^“mixed” ^life ^(e.g., ^born ^abroad ^but ^raised ^and ^slaughtered ^in ^the ^US). ^The ^Panel ^did ^not ^find ^that ^country ^of ^origin ^labelling  ^is ^in ^itself ^WTO-inconsistent,  ^but ^found ^that ^the ^particular ^US ^regime ^in ^question ^was ^too ^trade ^restrictive ^and ^discriminated ^on ^the ^basis ^of ^nationality. ^It ^found ^that ^– ^while ^the ^same ^rules ^apply ^to ^both ^foreign ^and ^domestic ^meat ^– ^there ^was ^de ^facto ^discrimination ^because ^“the ^competitive ^opportunities ^of ^imported ^livestock ^are ^reduced ^as ^the ^additional ^costs ^of ^compliance ^with ^the ^COOL ^measure ^are ^incurred”. ^The ^Panel ^rejected ^the ^US ^argument ^that ^the ^measures ^“pursued ^a ^legitimate ^objective” ^as  ^allowed ^under ^art ^2.2 ^of ^the ^TBT  ^Agreement. ^While ^the ^Panel ^recognised ^that ^consumer ^information ^was ^a ^legitimate ^objective, ^and ^that ^this ^also ^included ^labels ^dealing ^with ^the ^country ^of ^origin, ^it ^found ^that ^the ^COOL ^measure ^was ^not ^able ^to ^achieve ^that ^goal. ^This ^is ^because ^the ^information ^provided ^on ^the ^COOL  ^labels  ^was  ^misleading  ^and ^not ^understandable ^for ^consumers.

^Finally, ^developments ^in ^respect ^of ^the ^Australia ^– ^Apples ^dispute ^should ^be ^noted. ^In ^early ^2011, ^New ^Zealand ^and ^Australia ^agreed ^on ^a ^reasonable ^period ^of ^time ^for ^implementation ^of ^the ^findings ^of ^the ^Appellate ^Body, ^whose  ^report ^had ^been ^adopted ^by ^the ^WTO  ^Dispute ^Settlement ^Body ^on ^17 ^December ^2010. ^Following ^adoption ^of ^the ^Appellate ^Body ^Report, ^Australia ^had ^indicated ^that ^it ^accepted ^the ^decision ^and ^would ^carry ^out ^a ^review ^of ^the ^import ^risk ^analysis ^for ^New ^Zealand ^apples. ^New ^Zealand ^and ^Australia ^reached ^agreement ^on ^an ^eight ^month ^period ^for ^Australia ^to ^undertake ^this ^task ^and ^bring ^its ^measures ^into ^compliance ^with ^its ^WTO ^obligations. ^The ^eight ^month ^period ^expired ^on ^17 ^August ^2011 ^and ^Australia ^shortly ^thereafter ^released ^a ^new ^determination ^for ^the ^importation ^of ^apples ^to ^Australia ^which ^opened ^the ^way ^for ^Australia ^to ^issue ^import ^permits ^for ^New ^Zealand ^apples.

^Tracey ^Epps
^Senior ^Trade ^Law ^Adviser, ^Legal ^Division,
^New ^Zealand ^Ministry ^of ^Foreign ^Affairs ^and ^Trade

^1     ^Trans-Pacific ^Partnership ^Leaders ^Statement ^(Honolulu, ^United ^States, ^12 ^November ^2011).
^2    ^“Enhancing ^Trade ^and ^Investment, ^Supporting ^Jobs, ^Economic ^Growth ^and ^Development: ^Outlines ^of ^the ^Trans-Pacific ^Partnership ^Agreement” ^(2011) ^<http://beehive.govt.nz/sites/ ^all/files/TPP_broad_outlines%20.pdf>.
^3     ^New ^Zealand ^Ministry ^of ^Foreign ^Affairs ^and ^Trade ^(10 ^May ^2011) ^<http://www.mfat.govt. ^nz/Trade-and-Economic-Relations/2-Trade-Relationships-and-Agreements/Hong-Kong/ ^NZ-Hong-Kong-CEPIP.php>.
^4     ^Report ^by ^the ^Chairman,  ^H ^E ^Mr ^David ^Walker, ^to ^the ^Trade ^Negotiations ^Committee ^WTO ^Doc ^TN/AG/26 ^(21 ^April ^2011).
^5    ^This ^proposal ^asks ^Ministers ^to ^affirm ^a ^number ^of ^decisions ^taken ^on ^cotton ^which ^include ^a ^commitment ^to ^cut ^distorting ^subsidies ^for ^cotton ^by ^more ^than ^the ^reductions ^on ^other ^agricultural ^products.
^6    ^Textual ^Report ^by ^the ^Chairman,  ^Ambassador ^Luzius ^Wasescha ^on ^the ^State ^of ^Play ^of ^the ^NAMA ^Negotiations ^WTO ^Doc ^TN/MA/W/103/Rev.3/Add.1 ^(21 ^April ^2011).
^7     ^Ibid, ^at ^[3].
^8     ^Report  ^by  ^the  ^Chairman, ^Ambassador  ^Manual ^A ^J     ^Teehankee,  ^to  ^the  ^Trade  ^Negotiations ^Committee ^WTO ^Doc ^TN/TE/20 ^(21 ^April ^2011) ^at ^[3] ^and ^[4].
^9      ^Ibid, ^at ^[11].
^10    ^“Communication ^from ^the ^Chairman” ^WTO ^Doc ^TN/RL/W/254 ^(21 ^April ^2011) ^at ^46.
^11    ^Ibid, ^at ^48.
^12    ^Ibid.
^13    ^Ibid.
^14    ^United ^States ^– ^Measures ^Concerning ^the ^Importation,  ^Marketing ^and ^Sale ^of ^Tuna ^and ^Tuna ^Products ^WTO ^Doc ^WT/DS381/R, ^15 ^September ^2011 ^(Panel ^Report).
^15    ^United ^States ^– ^Certain ^Country ^of ^Origin ^Labelling ^Requirements ^WTO ^Doc ^WT/DS384/R; ^WT/DS386/R, ^18 ^November ^2011 ^(Panel ^Report).