The World Trade Organisation has come under fire recently due to conflicting views on its ability, or rather, responsibility to police environment-related issues through trade regulations. As a result of W.T.O.s decisions on such cases, two distinct groups have formed; those who support W.T.O. making decisions on such issues, and those who don't.
             The main supporters of W.T.O in this situation are lesser developed or developing countries (such as India, Malaysia, Brazil, Venezuela and Thailand). These countries' main gripe is with developed countries such as the United States (U.S.) which they accuse of trying to "...pressure [them] to adopt standards that are ill-suited to their strained economies..." (Weinstein & Charnovitz, 2001). The "Tuna-Dolphin", "Gasoline" and "Shrimps & Turtles" cases are prime examples of the US trying to impose their own laws via trade sanctions (such as import bans and embargos) on the above mentioned countries for production and resource cultivation methods that it deems particularly harmful to the environment. The affected countries are relatively very small, and find it very difficult to settle such cases with the US without jeopardising the future of their economies. Favourable outcomes can only be realised if the developing countries take up their cases with the W.T.O., an example of which includes the W.T.O. Lower Panel's ruling, on the "Shrimps & Turtles" case .Only by working through the W.T.O. are these developing countries able to see unfair trade sanctions abolished and the future of their international trades safeguarded.
             The group against W.T.O.s right to arbitrate environment-related cases mainly constitute environmentalists such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and countries that have environmental-conservation ideologies deeply engrained in its laws and trade practices, such as the U.S. They argue that the W.T.O. is not eq
             ...