Further Thoughts on the Role of Regulatory Purpose Under Article Ⅲ of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade A Tribute to Bob Hudec

摘要

Because Ⅰ am a newcomer to trade law, Ⅰ did not have the privilege of a long association with Bob Hudec. But a few years was time enough to learn to admire Bob's work, which spanned the whole spectrum of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and World Trade Organization (WTO) law. Bob combined breadth of knowledge, depth of insight, and plain good sense about the limits of legalism. The one time Ⅰ met Bob in person, Ⅰ learned of his human warmth as well. Ⅰ wish Ⅰ had known him longer. Along with his other virtues, Bob was a prompt and willing reader of draft manuscripts-although he pulled no punches. He was generous in praise of what he liked; he could be extremely blunt in his criticism of what he found inadequate. Of course, the blunt criticism was more useful than the praise, if less fun to receive. Briefly as Ⅰ knew Bob, Ⅰ will miss him. My topic in this article is the role of regulatory purpose under Article Ⅲ of the GATT, and Ⅰ regard Bob as the patron saint of efforts to establish the relevance of purpose. His famous "Requiem for an 'Aims and Effects' Test" may have been called a requiem, but it was reluctant and sceptical. Bob thought dispute settlement tribunals ought to consider the regulator's purpose, and he thought they would do so, whatever they said. As decisions on Article Ⅲ accumulate, we are in the process of learning that he was right on both counts.