Argentina is one of the world’s producers and exporter of biodiesel and exports most of it to the EU (Hatum, 2011). The EU in many cases sets the market regulations of its members regarding the sale of the biodiesel products, such as imposing duties and regulations on environmental pollution and degradation (Hatum, 2011). This essay discusses a case involving Argentina and EU on issues concerning the regulation of biodiesel products. The complainant in the case involving the biodiesel is Argentina, the respondent is the European Union (EU) officials, and the ruling body is the World Trade Organization (WTO).

On 15^th May 2013, Argentina filed a case on the EU policies on the importation of the biodiesel and their market in the European market concerning the new measures by the EU (Perišin, 2013). The case also involved the bloc’s support of the biodiesel industry affecting the trade relationship between Buenos and Aires. The complaint number was DS459, and the argument by Argentina was that the implementation of some of the measures at the state level as set by EU violates the WTO rules. The measures by the EU are for promoting energy from renewable sources and reducing the greenhouse effect, a major cause of the global warming in the world as Perišin (2013) observes. According Perišin (2013), the member states (GATT) as Perišin (2013) notes. According to Argentina, the measures by the EU violates the provisions of ATT 1994, which advises against discrimination in the international markets. The technical barriers to trade that the EU establishes through its measures will affect Argentina’s Biodiesel sales and lower the profits.

The Argentina Foreign Ministry said that the Argentina biodiesel should have the same market access treatment as the other participants in the EU markets. The Argentine government wants the WTO to intervene and defend the Argentina producers and exporters as the action by the EU will allow competitive products that will affect Argentina biodiesel sales. In the recent past, trade laws concerning the renewable energy have become common as the energy sector tries to promote the use of green energy to lower the rate of pollution. The EU officials, who were the respondents, claimed that they informed Argentina in Geneva of their plans in a courteous way and never thought that Argentina will take it offensively. The EU officials discovered later that Argentina had made a report to the WTO complaining the EU, was trying to block its biodiesel market by imposing some dubious measures. The EU officials claimed that the Argentine’s move was political, and their act was uncivilized since the policy affected several suppliers of the commodity. According to the views of the EU officials, Argentina had some dubious reasons, as the policies were good for the protection of the environment and a restriction of exports of biodiesel by any country.

The WTO required Brussels and Buenos Aires to engage in discussions for a period of not less than 60 days in the first consultation stage. After this discussion, Argentina can request the dispute panel to sort out the case in case the two parties do not agree. In case the parties do not settle the matter, the world trade organization will scrutinize the case and give a final ruling.

On 15 may 2013, Argentina requested to hold some consultations with the EU and its Member States concerning some of the measures affecting the importation and marketing of biodiesel. The measures in support of the biodiesel industry were of great importance to Argentina and needed some reviews. The EU plan to promote the use of the renewable sources of energy and ways to reduce the greenhouse emissions formed an important part of GATT 1994, Articles of the SCM Agreement, TRIMS Agreement, TBT Agreement, and the WTO Agreement. Argentina invited the EU parties for the discussion as required by the WTO before it can intervene.

Conclusion

The case of Argentina to the WTO against the EU involved the bloc’s support of the biodiesel industry affecting the trade relationship between Buenos and Aires. According to Argentina, The WTO requested Argentina and Brussels to hold discussions on the matter and try to settle the disputes. In case the two parties will not agree on the way forward the WTO, will evaluate the case and give the verdict.

References

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Hatum, A. (2011). The transformation process of AGD, Argentina. Em Mkts Case Studies, 1(1), 1-12. doi:10.1108/20450621111123353

Loewenstein, K. (1943). Legislation against Subversive Activities in Argentina. Harvard Law Review, 56(8), 1261. doi:10.2307/1335015

Matthews, A. (2010). Ideas, Institutions, and Trade: The WTO and the Curious Role of EU Farm Policy in Trade Liberalisation. Eurochoices, 9(2), 48-48. doi:10.1111/j.1746-692x.2010.00169.x

Perišin, T. (2013). IS THE EU SEAL PRODUCTS REGULATION A SEALED DEAL? EU AND WTO CHALLENGES. International And Comparative Law Quarterly, 62(02), 373-405. doi:10.1017/s0020589313000079

Szuchman, M. (2006). Imagining the State and Building the Nation: The Case of Nineteenth-Century Argentina. History Compass, 4(2), 314-347. doi:10.1111/j.1478-0542.2006.00303.x