Bitte verwenden Sie diesen Link, um diese Publikation zu zitieren, oder auf sie als Internetquelle zu verweisen: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/184654 
Autor:innen: 
Erscheinungsjahr: 
2018
Quellenangabe: 
[Journal:] Utrecht Law Review [ISSN:] 1871-515X [Volume:] 14 [Issue:] 2 [Publisher:] Utrecht University School of Law [Place:] Utrecht [Year:] 2018 [Pages:] 70-83
Verlag: 
Utrecht University School of Law, Utrecht
Zusammenfassung: 
There has been a polarised debate on the desirability of import restrictions to increase corporate accountability for child labour that occurs in global supply chains. Some scholars have indicated that states in favour of imposing import restrictions could sidestep this debate relying upon the perceptions that people in the importing market might have. They have based this argument on the case law of the World Trade Organization’s Dispute Settlement Mechanism (WTO DSM). The attitude-behaviour gap has, however, been largely overlooked in their analyses. This behavioural phenomenon provides an explanation as to why there is an inconsistency between what people value or believe and what they actually do. This essay revisits the WTO DSM's case law in order to determine whether such values or beliefs might justify import restrictions. On balance, this essay finds that the WTO DSM has not sufficiently taken the attitude-behaviour gap into account in its interpretation of Article III(4) and Article XX(a) 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
Schlagwörter: 
consumer choices
behavioural international law
social clause
labour standards
public morals
JEL: 
J08
P37
P36
F13
F23
D18
Persistent Identifier der Erstveröffentlichung: 
Creative-Commons-Lizenz: 
cc-by Logo
Dokumentart: 
Article
Dokumentversion: 
Published Version
Erscheint in der Sammlung:

Datei(en):
Datei
Größe





Publikationen in EconStor sind urheberrechtlich geschützt.