WTO EC-석면 사건과 첫 환경예외의 인정

The French Government adopted Decree, which in Articles 1 and 2 set forth prohibitions on asbestos and on products containing asbestos fibres, but have certain limited and temporary exceptions from those prohibitions. Canada brought this case complaining that the Decree is inconsistent with a number of obligations of the EC under Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, and Articles 3 and 11 of the GATT 1994. The panel found that the Decree violates Article 3(4) of the GATT, but is justified under GATT Article 20(b). On appeal, Canada argued mostly that some of the Panel's findings related to GATT Articles 3(4) and 20(b) were in error. In the Appellate Body Report, Appellate Body (1) reversed panel's finding that the products at issue are "like", and therefore reversed the panel's finding that the measure violates GATT Article 3(4), (2) upheld the panel's conclusion that the measure is justified under Article 20(b) as necessary "to protect human life or health." In this case, WTO Appellate Body suggested a new way of interpretation of Article 3 and 20(b) of the GATT. The Appellate Body considered consumer's taste, especially quality of risk or quantity of risk to human health, in judging the scope of like product in Article 3(4). Upholding a French ban on imports of asbestos under Article 20(b), the Appellate Body held that where there is a scientifically proven risk to health, WTO Members have the right to determine the level of protection of health. Generally speaking, the GATT had interpreted Article 20 very strictly and in a limited way. After the establishment of the WTO, however, the interpretation of Article 20 has been changing towards more environment or health policy friendly. EC-Asbestos Case well shows the trends of Article 20 interpretation in the WTO era.