THE CONFLICT OF NORMS IN PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW: HOW WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (WTO) LAW INTERACTS WITH OTHER BRANCHES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

ABSTARCT

This particular topic expresses the exclusive, urgent and complex problems of how different branches and norms of international law interact and sometimes conflict with one another, focusing particularly on the relationship between WTO law and other international rules (statues) such as human rights, environmental law, and the law of the sea.

It also addresses the issues related to legal hierarchy, jurisdiction, and challenges trade and non-trade objectives at the international level.

Now, through an analysis of key doctrinal frameworks and authoritative dispute settlement bodies, including the WTO Panels and the International Court of Justice; this article explores how conflicts are defined, identified and resolved.

However, this abstract provides a clear overview of the article’s scope, objectives and significance, setting the stage for a comprehensive discussion suitable for legal scholarship on a complex topic in international law.

INTRODUCTION

This article explores a critical but often overlooked topic in International Law: The conflict of norms between different branches of public international law, with a particular focus on how World Trade Organization (WTO) law interacts with other international legal regimes such as environmental law, human rights law, and customary international law. The international legal system is decentralized and fragmented, composed of diverse treaties, customary norms and principles without a unified legislator. This diversity presents challenges when norms from different areas conflict, raising questions about hierarchy, interpretation, and conflict resolution.

WTO law, governing international trade often intersects with non-trade, international obligations, resulting in normative conflicts that provokes complex legal disputes. This study also examines the theoretical framework proposed by scholars such as Joost Pauwelyn, who highlights the necessity of integrating trade and non-trade objectives in international law. And lastly, it also analyzes judicial approaches to these conflicts, drawing on landmark WTO dispute settlement cases and decisions of international courts and tribunals.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

1. THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION LEGAL FRAMEWORK: this is a legal system primarily anchored by the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization signed in 1994, which succeeded the General Agreement on TariffsTarriffs Trade (GATT) 1947. The WTO agreement serves as a multilateral treaty framework that governs international trade between member states. It is complicated by a series of annexed agreements dealing with trade in goods, services, and intellectual property rights, collectively known as the “Covered Agreement”. Nevertheless, Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) is also a critical component of WTO law, which governs the resolution of disputes between member states alleging violations of WTO obligations. Also, the DSU established an Appellate Body that interprets WTO provisions and issues binding rulings. The DSU process has become a cornerstone of the multilateral trading system, enhancing its judicialized nature and providing predictability. 
2. THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAWS OF TREATIES (VCLT): the VCLT provides authoritative provisions relating to the interpretation, application, and termination of treaties. Particularly relevant are Article 30 – 31 which offer interpretive rules aimed at resolving conflicts; Article 30 establishes the application of successive treaties relating to the same subject matter, providing that a later treaty prevails over the earlier one (Lex posterior), or that a more specific treaty (lex specialis) overrides the general one.

Note: that in federal or recognized monist states, constitutional provisions often govern the implementation and primacy of international law; such as:

Nigeria: Section 12 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 provides that “no treaty between the Federation and any other country shall have force of law except to the extent to which any such treaty has been enacted into law by the National Assembly”

United States: The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that treaties duly made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, potentially giving treaties precedence over state laws but subject to constitutional limits.

LANDMARK DISPUTE SETTLEMENT CASES ADDRESSING NORM CONFLICTS: Several WTO dispute settlement cases have directly confronted these normative clashes: 

Us – Shrimp and Shrimp Products Case [WTO Dispute DS58, 1998]

Fact: The United State enacted section 609 of Public Law, which prohibited the importation of shrimp and shrimp products harvesting using fishing methods that endangered sea turtles. Specifically, the mandated that commercial shrimp trawlers use “turtle excluder devices” (TEDs) designed to reduce incidental capture of endangered sea turtles. To enforce this, the US required foreign shrimp exports to the US to be certified by their governments as having comparable turtle protections in place. Several WTO member states including India, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Thailand challenged this import ban, arguing that it violated WTO rules by discriminating against their shrimp exports. The complainants contended that the US measure was a trade – restrictive prohibition inconsistent with the non-discrimination obligations under GATT and imposed extraterritorial requirements inconsistent with international law.

Legal Issues: The US import ban violated Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994, which prohibits quantitative restrictions on imports;

The US could justify the measure under the general expectations of Article XX of GATT 1994 – specifically clauses (b) (necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health) and (g) (relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources)

The measures complied with the requirements of the chapeau of Article XX which prohibits the arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination and disguised restrictions on international trade.

Court Holding: the WTO panel and later the Appellate Body held the following:

1. Violation of GATT Article XI:1: the import prohibition was a quantitative restriction inconsistent with Article XI:1 and was thus prima facie unlawful
2. Justification under Article XX: The US agrees that the ban was justified under Article XX(b) and (g), and as it aimed to protect endangered sea turtles and conserve natural resources. The appellate body acknowledged that environmental protection is a legitimate ground for an exception under Article XX and that the measure pursued a legitimate objective.
3. Chapeau of Article XX compliance: however, the Appellate Body found that the US measure was applied in a manner that constituted unjustifiable and arbitrary discrimination. The US failed to engage in serious negotiations with the complainant countries to arrive at mutually acceptable solutions and imposed unilateral requirements extraterritorially. The application was therefore inconsistent with the Chapeau of Article XX.
4. Recommendation: The WTO Dispute Settlement Body recommended that the US bring its measure into conformity with WTO rules. The ruling did not reject the principle of environmental exceptions but emphasized that measures must be apply fairly.

EC – Hormones Case [1997 – 1998]

The European community (EC) banned the import and sale of meat and meat products treated with six specific growth – promoting hormones due to concerns over potential risks to human health. The ban was preventive, based on the precautionary principle, as the EC claimed there was scientific uncertainty about the safety of these hormones.

The United States and Canada challenged the ban at WTO, arguing it violated WTO rules particularly the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement because the EC had not conducted the required scientific risk assessment before imposing the ban. The challengers contented that the ban was a unjustified trade restriction as scientific evidence showed the hormones posed on risk to human health.

Court Holding: The WTO panel found the EC’s ban violated the SPS Agreement because it was not supported by a sufficient scientific risk assessment as mandated by Article 5 of the SPS Agreement. The panel ruled that precautionary principle was not specifically incorporated into the SPS Agreement and could not justify trade restrictions without scientific evidence.

On appeal, the WTO Appellate Body upheld the panel’s decision that the EC’s import ban was inconsistent with the WTO obligations but allowed the EC the option to conduct further risk assessment to justify the ban.

Note: subsequent years involved continued scientific reviews and trade disputes, with the EC maintaining the ban on some hormones based on new scientific studies.

RECENT DEVELOPMENT AND WAY FORWARD

In the period from 2020 – 2025, the field of international trade law under the World Trade Organization (WTO) has witnessed important developments marked by policy reforms, legislative measures, and continued scholarly and institutional debates addressing the complex normative conflicts with other branches of international law.

Here are some recent developments recently argued and done upon to avoid conflict of norms in public international law:

1. WTO reforms discussions and Dispute settlement challenge
2. Integration of Environmental and Climate concerns into WTO Law
3. National Policy Reforms Influenced by WTO standards
4. Addressing norm conflict through multilateral cooperation
5. Here are some suggestions (way forward) to make sure to avoid conflict of norms in public international law:Ongoing Debates on Lex Specialis and Treaty Hierarchy

Here are some suggestions (way forward) recently to make sure to avoid conflict of norms in public international law:

1. Strengthen Institutional Coordination and Dialogue
2. Reform WTO Dispute Settlement to Enhance Flexibility and Integration
3. Promote Clearer Treaty Clauses and Hierarchy Rules
4. Incorporate Environmental and Social Considerations into WTO Rules
5. National Legislative and Policy Alignment
6. Academic and Practical Research

CONCLUSION

The exploration of normative conflicts within public international law, particularly the intricate relationship between WTO and other branches of international law, reveals a fundamental challenge in the architecture of the contemporary international legal system. The decentralized nature of international law, characterized by a multiplicity of treaties, customary norms, and principles developed independently and concurrently, often generates overlapping obligations that can conflict in both theories and practice. This essay is particularly to analyzed how WTO law anchored in Marrakesh Agreement and its annexed agreements, encounters normative clashes with international law, human rights treaties, and other non-trade legal regimes. This discussion also focused, emphasize and underscore the doctrinal, institutional and jurisprudential mechanisms designed to manage these tensions, yet revealed significant gaps and areas requiring reform and normative development.

At the doctrinal level international law prescribes several principles to address norm conflicts, such as lex specialis derogat legi generali (specific rules prevail over general laws), lex posterior derogat legi priori (later norms override earlier ones), and systematic integration as embodied in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). These principles serve as interpretative tools for adjudicators and state parties to reconcile conflicting treaty obligations.

The WTO dispute settlement jurisprudence offers pivotal insights regarding norm conflict resolution, illustrated most notably by the US Shrimp and EC Hormones cases. Also, the legal framework governing WTO law, combined with general treaty law principles codified in the VCLT, provides a valuable but sometimes insufficient legal toolkit to resolve conflicts. National constitutional provisions complicate this interplay further. Dualist state like Nigeria require domestic legislation to implementing WTO obligations, adding layers of complexity and raising prospects of internal conflicts between WTO compliance and other constitutional mandates such as environmental protection or human rights guarantees. However, reflecting on ongoing debates and recent policy developments, WTO institutional reforms emerge as a critical avenue for addressing norm conflicts. This reform would hep WTO adjudicate conflicts more integrated understanding of sustainable development imperatives.

In conclusion, the conflict of norms in public international law, especially manifested in WTO’s relationship with other branches of international law, remains a defining challenge of global legal order. The cases analyzed signal both the potential and the limits of existing legal frameworks and dispute settlement mechanisms to achieve legal balance. Hence, evolving doctrines, institutional reforms, and legislative innovations offer promising pathways towards a more coherent, fair, and effective international legal system. Bridging the gap between trade liberalization and environmental protection, human rights, and sustainable development objectives is imperative not only for legal consistency but to safeguard global public goods critical to humanity’s future. Addressing these normative conflicts demands concerted effort from states, international organizations, scholars, and practitioners to craft a pluralistic but harmonized international law capable of meeting 21st century challenges.

REFERENC(S):

CASES

• United States – import prohibition of certain Shrimp and Shrimp product 

(US – Shrimp) (Panel and Appellate Body Reports) WTO Dispute DS58, 12 October 1998.

• European communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products 

(Hormones) (EC – Hormones) (Panel and Appellate Body Reports) WTO Dispute DS26, 13 February 1998.

TREATIES AND LEGAL INSTRUMENT

• Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization 

(WTO Agreement) (Marrakesh, 15 April 1994) 1867 UNTS 154 (entered into force 1 January 1995).

• Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties (VCLT) 

(Opened for signature 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980) 1155 UNTS 33.

• General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1994), annexed to the WTO agreement.
• Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) (Part of WTO Annex 1A).

NATIONAL CONSTITUTION

• The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999