In August of 1990 the Mexican government along with several other nations brought forth a case against the U.S charging America with levying illicit embargos against Mexico’s Tuna import industry stemming from Americas own environmental regulations. Mexico’s main argument was that America issuing of the tuna import embargo had violated part of the (GATT) General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which dictated that a country could not take trade actions in an effort to enforce its own domestic laws upon another country. The general issue arose from America’s implementation of the (MMPA) The US Marine Mammal Protection Act, which dictated standards for protecting marine animals, which were in conflict with the lower marine mammal standards of
…show more content…
The Migratory bird Treaty act of 1918 was an agreement issued between the U.S and Great Britain, which sought to protect the depleting population of the migratory birds that traversed between Canada and the U.S. The treaty was one of the first multistate wildlife protective treaties in North America and it set an early precedent of wildlife protection superseding economic gains from sales and trades. The Missouri v Holland case is just as important to the understanding of the international law behind the Mexico V U.S tuna –dolphin case as the actual 1918 treaty itself, as it introduced the concept that in certain cases animal protection rights trumped individual state rights when the states maintained little concern for the welfare of the wildlife. When applying the migratory bird treaty and its subsequent court case to the U.S tuna embargo levied against Mexico and its distributors it becomes apparent that Mexico shares substantial parallels with the states who opposed the migratory bird treaty. Missouri the state in migratory bird treaty dispute disagreed with the notion that an outside party could dictate the wildlife regulations of a sovereign land much like Mexico disagreed with the coerced regulation power of the U.S introduced through the embargo. The tuna trade embargo forced Mexico along with several other countries to either submit to America’s standards for wildlife regulations and change their tuna fishing practices or suffer significant economic repercussions from embargo from one of their largest importers. The 1918 treaty in comparison to the tuna embargo offered a higher level of enforcement due both nations involved reaching a mutual agreement on the treaty as opposed to the MMPA
The Migratory bird Treaty act of 1918 was an agreement issued between the U.S and Great Britain, which sought to protect the depleting population of the migratory birds that traversed between Canada and the U.S. The treaty was one of the first multistate wildlife protective treaties in North America and it set an early precedent of wildlife protection superseding economic gains from sales and trades. The Missouri v Holland case is just as important to the understanding of the international law behind the Mexico V U.S tuna –dolphin case as the actual 1918 treaty itself, as it introduced the concept that in certain cases animal protection rights trumped individual state rights when the states maintained little concern for the welfare of the wildlife. When applying the migratory bird treaty and its subsequent court case to the U.S tuna embargo levied against Mexico and its distributors it becomes apparent that Mexico shares substantial parallels with the states who opposed the migratory bird treaty. Missouri the state in migratory bird treaty dispute disagreed with the notion that an outside party could dictate the wildlife regulations of a sovereign land much like Mexico disagreed with the coerced regulation power of the U.S introduced through the embargo. The tuna trade embargo forced Mexico along with several other countries to either submit to America’s standards for wildlife regulations and change their tuna fishing practices or suffer significant economic repercussions from embargo from one of their largest importers. The 1918 treaty in comparison to the tuna embargo offered a higher level of enforcement due both nations involved reaching a mutual agreement on the treaty as opposed to the MMPA