Fishy SPS Measures? The WTO's Korea-Radionuclides Dispute

Rachel Brewster*, Carolyn Fischer

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

34 Downloads (Pure)


The Korea-Radionuclides case addresses Korean SPS measures imposed on Japanese fishery products after the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant meltdown in 2011. Japan challenged these measures as more restrictive than necessary under the SPS Agreement. The panel agreed with Japan, but this ruling was largely reversed by the Appellate Body. Korea's victory at the Appellate Body was based on procedure. The panel accepted Korea's appropriate level of protection (ALOP), which included both quantitative and qualitative elements. However, the Appellate Body found that the panel only addressed the quantitative aspect of Korea's ALOP and reversed on that basis. The Appellate Body's ruling did not affirmatively find that Korea's SPS measures were legal under WTO rules. Instead, the Appellate Body found that panel had not sufficiently addressed Korea's arguments and, thereby, the panel could not determine that the SPS measures were more restrictive than necessary. The case highlights the need for the Appellate Body to be able to conduct its own factual analysis, a power it could be given if the dispute settlement system is reformed. Without independent fact-finding power, the Appellate Body cannot correct panels' mistakes, and respondents can prevail based on panel error.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)524-532
Number of pages9
JournalWorld Trade Review
Issue numberSpecial Issue 4
Early online date11 Jun 2021
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2021

Bibliographical note

Volume 20, Special Issue 4: WTO Case Law.

Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press.

Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.


  • Appropriate Level of Protection
  • SPS Agreement
  • WTO


Dive into the research topics of 'Fishy SPS Measures? The WTO's Korea-Radionuclides Dispute'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this