1 Rodrigo Bustamante, The Need for a GATT Doctrine of Locus Standi: Why the United States Cannot Stand the European Community’s Banana Import Regime, 6 Minn. J. Global Trade 533, 533–35 (1997).
2 Id.
3 Id. at 538–40.
4 Gordon Fairclough & Darren McDermott, Fruit of Labor: The Banana Business Is Rotten, So Why Do People Fight Over It?, Wall St. J., Aug. 9, 1999, at A1.
5 Eric Margolis, U.S. Trade War with Europe Looms, Edmonton Sun, Dec. 24, 1998, at 11. The main corporations involved are Chiquita Brands International, Inc., Dole Foods, and Hawaiian Banana Industry Association. Id.
6 Declaration by Sir Leon Brittan to the European Parliament on Banana Dispute with the US, EU Directorate Gen. for Trade, Mar. 9, 1999.
7 Hale Sheppard, The Lome Convention in the Next Millenium: Modification of the Trade/Aid Package and Support for Regional Integration, 7-SPG Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 84, 91 (1998).
8 Matthew Newmann, EU Commission to Decide on New Plan in Banana Row Wednesday, Dow Jones Int’l News, Nov. 8, 1999.
9 Dagens Nyheter, Banana Trade War is Bananas, Chi. Trib., Mar. 13, 1999, at 25.
10 The US/EU Banana Dispute: Modifications to the EC Banana Regime, Directorate Gen. for Trade, Nov. 10, 1998; see Margolis, supra note 5.
11 Sheppard, supra note 7, at 91.
12 Newmann, supra note 8.
13 Id.
14 Id.; Sheppard, supra note 7, at 91.
15 Newmann, supra note 8.
16 Azar M. Khansari, Searching for the Perfect Solution: International Dispute Resolution and the New World Trade Organization, 20 Hastings Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 183, 197 nn.150–51 (1996) (citing Jeff Harrington, Chiquita Becomes U.S. Trade Test Case, Cincinnati Enquirer, Jan. 22, 1995).
17 Zsolt K. Bessko, Going Bananas over EEC Preferences?: A Look at the Banana Trade War and the WTO’s Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, 28 Case W. Res. J. Int’l L. 265, 269 n.24 (1996) (citing Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community, Mar. 25, 1957, 298 U.N.T.S. 4, arts. 131–36 and annex IV). The original six EEC members included France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy, and West Germany. Id. at 269 n.24.
18 Sheppard, supra note 7, at 84.
19 Bessko, supra note 17, at 269 n.27 (citing Treaty Concerning the Accession of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland to the European Economic Community and to the European Atomic Energy Community, Jan. 22, 1972, 197 O.J. Spec. Ed. 5).
20 Id. at 270 n.30 (citing ACP-EEC Convention of Lome, Feb. 28, 1975, 1976 O.J. (L.25) 2), reprinted in 14 I.L.M 595 (1975).
21 Id. at 270 n.29 (citing ACP-EEC Convention of Lome, Feb. 28, 1975, 1976 O.J. (L.25) 2), reprinted in 14 I.L.M 595 (1975).
22 Id.
23 Id. at 270 n.32 (citing Second ACP-EEC Convention of Lome, Oct. 31, 1979, 1980 O.J. (L347) 2, reprinted in 19 I.L.M. 327 (1980); Third ACP-EEC Convention of Lome, Dec. 8, 1984, 24 I.L.M. 571 (1985); Fourth ACP-EEC Convention of Lome, Dec. 15, 1989, reprinted in The Courier, No. 120, Mar.-Apr. 1990, 29 I.L.M. 783 (1990)).
24 Richard Lyons, European Union Banana Controversey, 9 Fla. J. Int’l L. 165, 177 n.119 (1994), (citing Fourth ACP–EEC Convention of Lome, Dec. 15, 1989, List of Signataries, Treaty Series No. 47 (1992) Cm 1999 (Eng.), 29 I.L.M. 788, pt.5, Protocol 5 (entered into force Sept. 1, 1991)).
25 Khansari, supra note 16, at 198.
26 Sheppard, supra note 7, at 87.
27 Jack J. Chen, Going Bananas: How the WTO Can Heal the Split in the Global Banana Trade Dispute, 63 Fordham L. Rev. 1283, 1298–99 (1995).
28 Khansari, supra note 16, at 198 n.162 (citing Bert Wilkinson, Caribbean Community Writes Clinton Seeking Truce in Banana Dispute, Assoc. Press Political Serv., 1996 WL 5391181, Jun. 25, 1996).
29 Sheppard, supra note 7, at 86.
30 Chen, supra note 27, at 1299.
31 Bustamante, supra note 1, at 537–38.
32 Id.
33 Lyons, supra note 24, at 167, 176.
34 Khansari, supra note 16, at 199 nn.170–71 (citing Council Regulation 404/93 of 13 Feb. 1993 on the Common Organization of the Market in Bananas, tit. IV, art. 18s 1, and tit. V, art. 132, 1993 O.J. (L.47/1)).
35 Bustamante, supra note 1, at 540 n.42 (citing Case C-280/93, Federal Republic of Germany v. Council, E.C.R. I-4973, [1994] 34 I.L.M. 168 (1995)).
36 Lyons, supra note 24, at 178 n.126 (citing Council Regulation 404/93, art.12, Titles I-V, 1993 O.J. (L47)).
37 Khansari, supra note 16, at 199 n.172 (citing Debra Percival, Third World-Trade: Rise in EU Banana Quotes Benefits Latin America, Inter Press Service, 1995 WL 2260164, Apr. 4, 1995).
38 Eric Margolis, supra note 5. The WTO replaced the GATT system on January 1, 1995, providing a common institutional framework for the conduct of trade relations among its members concerning the agreements negotiated under the Uruguay Round. Khansari, supra note 16, at 188. The DSU originated out of the shortcomings of the GATT dispute settlement arrangement and eliminated ineffective GATT policies, such as the consensus voting. Id.
39 Khansari, supra note 16, at 199 n.175 (citing GATT Dispute Settlement Panel Report on the European Economic Community—Import Regime for Bananas, 34 I.L.M. 177 (1994)).
40 Id. The countries named other GATT provisions that they believed the EU violated, such as the “National Treatment on Internal Taxation and Regulation” provisions and Article II’s Schedule of Concessions, both of which the WTO Panel found to be valid criticism of the banana regime. Id.
41 Sheppard, supra note 7, at 87.
42 Khansari, supra note 16, at 200.
43 Sheppard, supra note 7, at 87 n.39 (citing GATT Panel Says EC’s Banana Import Regime Discriminated Against Latin American Nations, Int’l Trade Reporter., Jun. 2, 1993).
44 Id.
45 Lyons, supra note 24, at 170 n.43 (citing Alison Maitland, Commissioner Rejects GATT Attack on EU Banana Regime, Fin. Times Limited, Feb. 23, 1994, at 34).
46 Sheppard, supra note 7, at 87 nn.40–41 (citing Terence P. Stewart, The World Trade Organization: Multilateral Trade Framework for the 21st Century and US Implementing Legislation, American Bar Association, 1996, at 33; Latin American Nations Ask GATT to Adopt Panel Report on EC Banana Duties, Int’l Trade Reporter, Jul. 28, 1993). According to Article 23(2) of GATT, “consensus voting” means that a panel holding was not enforceable unless all members including the party against whom the decision was made, agreed to adopt it. Sheppard, supra note 7, at 87 n.40.
47 Khansari, supra note 16, at 200–01.
48 Sheppard, supra note 7, at 87 n.43 (citing General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Article XXV(5)).
49 Id.
50 Khansari, supra note 16, at 201.
51 Id.
52 Id. at 87–88 n.45 (citing Guy de Jonquieres, EU Banana Policy ‘Perverse and Inefficient’ Says World Bank, Fin. Times, Jan. 20, 1994).
53 Sheppard, supra note 7, at 88 n.46 (citing EU to Defend Banana Rules From US Attack, The Reuter European Community Report, Sept. 28, 1995).
54 Bessko, supra note 17, at 282 n.122 (citing Trade Act of 1974, S 301(c), 19 U.S.C. § 2411(c) (1988)).
55 Sheppard, supra note 7, at 88. Chiquita already had captured approximately 45% of Germany’s market because Germany offered a free market with no import restrictions or tariffs. Donald L. Barlett & James B. Steele, With Big Money and Politics, Who Gets Hurt? How to Become A Top Banana, Time Mag., Feb. 7, 2000 at 45.
56 Id. at 88 n.47 (citing Trade Act of 1974, Title III. Chapter 1. Section 301).
57 Bessko, supra note 17, at 282 n.118 (citing Trade Act of 1974, § 301–09, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 2411 (1988)).
58 Sheppard, supra note 7, at 88.
59 Id.; EU Requests WTO Panel Against US Section 301 Legislation, Directorate Gen. for Trade, Brussels (Feb. 17, 1999), available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg0/ sect3011.htm.
60 Sheppard, supra note 7, at 88 n.49 (citing U.S. Complains Again to WTO, St. Lucia Accuses Chiquita of Trying to Destroy Industry, Lat. Am. Regional Reports, Caribbean, Feb.29, 1996).
61 Id.
62 Id. at 88 n.50 (citing Wesley Gibbings, Regional Officials Examine WTO Ruling, Inter Press Serv., Apr. 7, 1997); Gerrit Schohe, The WTO Panel Report on the EU’s Banana Regime. Will the Rule of Law Prevail over Political Arbitrainess?, Eur. Food L. Rev. Frankfurt am Main. Vol. 8, No. 3, 245–263, 18 Aug. 1997.
63 Sheppard, supra note 7, at 88 n.51 (citing Brendan McGrath, WTO Ruling on Bananas May Hit Fyffes, The Irish Times, May 24, 1997).
64 Id. at 88 n.52 (citing Dispute Settlement Understanding—WTO, Article 19(1)).
65 See id.
66 The US/EU Banana Dispute, Modifications to the EC Banana Regime, Directorate Gen. of Trade, Nov. 10, 1998.
67 Id.
68 Id.
69 Id. Attached to this report is a chart outlining the original Banana Regime, the WTO comment, and the revised Banana Regime that the EU believes is WTO compatible.
70 See James M. Cooper, Spirits in the Material World: A Post-Modern Approach to United States Trade Policy, 14 Am. U. Int’l L. Rev. 957, 972 (1999).
71 EC Request for Establishment of a Panel on Section 301 of the US Trade Act of 1974, Directorate Gen. for Trade.
72 Statement by H.F. Beseler at the European Parliament, Directorate Gen. for Trade, Feb. 3, 1999.
73 The US/EU Banana Dispute, Modifications to the EC Banana Regime, supra note 66.
74 EU Requests WTO Panel Against US Section 301 Legislation, Directorate General for Trade, Feb. 17, 1999.
75 Declaration by Sir Leon Brittan on the European Parliament on Banana Dispute with the US, Directorate Gen. for Trade, Plenary Meeting, available at http://europa. eu.int/comm/dg0/1003bana.htm (last modified Mar. 9, 1999).
76 Id.; EU Requests WTO Panel Against US Section 301 Legislation, supra note 74.
77 EU Requests WTO Panel Against US Section 301 Legislation, supra note 74.
78 Sheryle Bagwell, Banana Row Sets Scene for Bigger Trade Wars, Australian Fin. Rev. 12, 1999 WL 5068468 (Mar. 11, 1999).
79 The US/EU Banana Dispute, Modifications to the EC Banana Regime, supra note 66; see EU Files Complaint in Banana War, The Columbus Dispatch, Mar. 5, 1999.
80 EU-US Banana Dispute: Latest Developments in the Bananas Trade Dispute, Directorate Gen. for Trade (last modified Apr. 12, 1999), available at http://europa.eu.int/ comm/dg0/1204bana.htm; Barlett & Steele, supra note 55, at 44.
81 EU-US Banana Dispute: Latest Developments in the Bananas Trade Dispute, supra.
82 Id.
83 See The European Commission Outlines Options for a New Banana Regime, Directorate Gen. for Trade, May 27, 1999. The US’ punitive tariffs also are causing many small American businesses to suffer because they can no longer afford to pay to import the targeted goods. Barlett & Steele, supra note 55, at 45. On May 18, 2000, President Clinton signed into law a bill that includes a provision on “carousel retaliation,” which requires the USTR to revise every six months the list of goods targeted for retaliatory tariffs. The EU/US Bananas Dispute, “Carousel Retaliation,” Dept. of Trade and Industry, Apr. 1999, available at http://www.bananalink.org.uk/trade_war/trade_war.htm (last visited Sept. 10, 2000).
84 See Commission Proposes to Modify the EU’s Banana Regime, Directorate Gen. for Trade, Nov. 10, 1999.
85 See Communication to the Commission: Settlement of the Banana Dispute, Directorate Gen. for Trade, Brussels (Sept. 13, 1999), available at http://europa.eu.int/ comm/dg0/1309bana.htm.
86 See id.
87 Id.
88 See EU to Present New Banana Import System, Reuters English News Serv., Reuters Limited 1999, Nov. 8, 1999.
89 Sheppard, supra note 7, at 88, 89.
90 See id. at 88; EU/US Dispute on Banana: Commission Gives New Impetus to Resolve Banana Dispute, European Commission (Jul. 5, 2000), available at http://europa.eu.int/ comm/trade/miti/dispute/banana/050700bana_en.htm.
91 Id. at 89.
92 Fairclough & McDermott, supra note 4.
93 Id.
94 Sheppard, supra note 7, at 89.
95 Id. at 89 n.57 (citing Beyond Lome IV: Exploring Options for Future ACP-EU Cooperation, European Center for Development Policy Management, Chap. 3 Redrawing the Map: The Scope for Differentiated Approaches (1996)).
96 Id. at 89 n.63 (citing Dipankar De Sarkar, Welcome to the Era of Development Non-Cooperation, Inter Press Serv., at 1).
97 Id. at 89; see Khansari, supra note 16 at 198 n.158 (citing Frances Williams, WTO Ruling Could Ruin Poor Banana Economies, Fin.Times, Sept. 10, 1996, at 4).
98 Sheppard, supra note 7, at 89.
99 Id. at 90.
100 Id. at 89 n.63 (citing Dipankar De Sarkar, Welcome to the Era of Development Non-Cooperation, Inter Press Serv., at 1).
101 Id. at 90.
102 The Commission Reports to the Council on Consultations With a View to Settlement of the Banana Disputes, Directorate Gen. for Trade, Sept. 10, 1999.
103 Id.
104 Chen, supra note 27, at 1299.
105 EU to Present New Banana Import System, supra note 88.
106 Communication to the Commission: Settlement of the Banana Dispute, supra note 85.
107 Id.
108 Id.
109 Id.
110 Id.
111 Communication to the Commission: Settlement of the Banana Dispute, supra note 85; EU/US Dispute on Banana: Commission Gives New Impetus to Resolve Banana Dispute, supra note 90.
112 Commission Proposes to Modify the EU’s Banana Regime, supra note 84.
113 Id.
114 Id.
115 Id.
116 Newmann, supra note 8.
117 Id.
118 Commission Proposes to Modify the EU’s Banana Regime, supra note 84.
119 Id.
120 Id.
121 Id.
122 Raf Casert, EU Makes New Banana Trade Proposal, Associated Press, Nov. 10, 1999.
123 Newmann, supra note 8; EU/US Dispute on Banana: Commission Gives New Impetus to Resolve Banana Dispute, supra note 90.
124 EU/US Dispute on Banana: Commission Gives New Impetus to Resolve Banana Dispute, supra note 90.
125 Lorraine Orlandi, Centam Nations Spurn New EU Banana Rules, Reuters Int’l News Serv., Nov. 10, 1999.
126 Id.
127 US Rejects EU Plan to End Banana Trade Dispute, Reuters Int’l News Serv., Nov. 10, 1999; Commission Proposes to Modify the EU’s Banana Regime, supra note 84.
128 Commission Proposes to Modify the EU’s Banana Regime, supra note 84. Chiquita prefers a tariff-quota system and Dole supports a tariff-only system. Newmann, supra note 8.
129 See EU to Present New Banana Import System, supra note 88.
130 See Commission Proposes to Modify the EU’s Banana Regime, supra note 84.
131 See EU to Present New Banana Import System, supra note 88.
132 EU/US Dispute on Banana: Commission Gives New Impetus to Resolve Banana Dispute, supra note 90.
133 See Commission Proposes to Modify the EU’s Banana Regime, supra note 84.
134 See Fairclough & McDermott, supra note 4.
135 EU to Present New Banana Import System, supra note 88.
136 See Commission Proposes to Modify the EU’s Banana Regime, supra note 84.
137 EU to Present New Banana Import System, supra note 88.