The Tuna-dolphin case was brought by countries such as Mexico and others against the United States of America under the general agreements on tariffs and trade (GATT). The dispute was based on environmental regulations to protect the dolphins in the Tuna fishing grounds. The united states marine mammal protection act(MMPA) issued a ban on imports of Tuna from various nations that did not have an efficient and running system protection mechanism for dolphins in the Tuna fishing areas. Therefore, based on this case it is morally right to say that the embargo of the United States to bar Mexico and other nations from the trade was a right course of protecting and conserving the environment since the environmental impact seems to cross the national boundaries. On the other hand, according to the GATT trading terms and conditions, Mexico alleged that the United States embargo of Tuna exports was inconsistent with the provisions of the act. The argument of the dispute was aimed to stop nations attempting to impose ethical or moral standards on other states with which they have no jurisdiction.
I would recommend that the environmental concerns policies should be embedded under the GATT laws and regulations for trade. The international trade tariffs should strive to protect the environment and impose environmental policy regulations on participating countries. In this case, more finishing of Tuna resulted in more deaths of Dolphins hence a threat to their population. Therefore, any nations participating in the trade block would first ensure that they have the right mechanism for the conservation of the environment. The United States through the MMPA should push the GATT to consider the environment and make laws that would protect it within the trade block since any environmental problem should be a global concern.
The government should not prioritize trade about environment but instead should put the environment at the forefront. The various advocates of the environmental protection argued that unregulated economic activities such as trade have resulted in extreme environmental problems that have affected the world such as the cases of global warming. Therefore, the trade should not be a priority while the society as a whole is at risk of the environmental problems that are caused by the absence of regulatory policies within the trading block. The government should ensure that it enters into a trade treaty that has environmental issues at heart and is their priority. Thus, having such initiative will make the world a better place for life.
According to research carried out, it is clear that most of industries and countries that have to adjust to the environmental regulations always face disruption and higher cost affecting their competitive ability and position in the market field. I believe that no nation would want to be less competitive in the market. For example, Mexico and other countries lost united states as their trading partner due to lack of environmental consideration. These ended up causing problems and a lot of cases that needed to be solved. Based on this, the United States government plays an essential role by having environment issues at hand before trade consideration. Therefore, I would say that when there has to be something to be compromised, then it should be traded. The case involves the ethical side of every economic activity that should be taken seriously by all the nations involved, and they should proceed in multilateralism.
There are no particular and direct solutions to invasive species at this time. Despite this, the case of the Burmese python, some things can be done to reduce and control the damage. Therefore, the issue of invasive species problem can be solved using various processes. These include restrictions in the importation processes, acquisition, transportation and possession of the species that deemed injurious to the local human and the species. In the case of the Burmese python, importation and acquisition has already been done and hence cannot help the situation at the moment, and thus nothing can be done based on the factors. First, I think banning the importation of the species to Florida since it’s the source of the threat. Secondly, those who have the Python should hand over to Everglades for habitation instead of releasing them to the wetland. Third, the Everglade wildlife should design a method to trap the Python in the wetland and enclose them to avoid them harming the society.
Moreover, to prevent similar problems from happening in the future, the transportation and possession of the species should be banned. The government should enact a law to forbid the importation or domestic taming of the species since it is not a friendly course. Even though Florida people have a right intention and love the species as their pets, the effects to the society should be considered. This is because when they release them to the wetland they become a threat to the whole community killing people and other animals. Therefore, it not only becomes an individual problem but a societal issue. The government should consider talking to people to choose a different species as their pets other than Burmese python. The Pet owners should reconsider their taste for the animal and cling to the reality of their harm. Despite the harmless state at the beginning, the pet changes to something else affecting the ecosystem.
Additionally, the government through the national wildlife research department should come up with a way to make the Python harmless. This solution should be based on the fact that Florida government benefits much on the importation of the species. Moreover, this assists in maintain the agreement of trade between the two nations or other trading blocks. Therefore, in the absence of getting the solution through the research team, the government should be prepared to reconsider and withdraw the agreements of trade to protect the lives of the people. Therefore, the life of people should be a priority in this case than any other agreement.
“World environmental summit delegates call for new world environmental agency.” People’s Daily Online 4 February 2007. http://english.people.com.cn/200702/04/eng20070204_347389.html.