Ah, but we're not placing a tariff on any particular country nor banning goods from a particular country. Rather we're targeting multi-national corporations. And part of that targeting includes an increased wages requirement. A minimum wage gap. So countries are really going to protest us insisting that companies that want to sell goods in the US pay their citizens more? I would they'd be willing to take the environmental standards if they came linked with a significant increase in pay.
Re:Let’s Be Less Productive
by politician on Monday May 28, 2012 @04:34PM
(#4034838)
When the US outlawed US-based financial institutions from honoring transactions originating from the worldwide online gambling industry, Antigua sued the US at the WTO and won the right to violate ~$21M worth of copyrights (annually, IIRC).
This case illustrates two points, first, targeting companies or industries rather than their host nations is irrelevant from the perspective of the WTO. Second, the WTO has some very powerful tools for forcing member nations into compliance with its rulings.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21i...
Rather than unilaterally barring goods from entering the US which do not comply with our labor and environmental laws, a better approach could be to work within the WTO framework to establish common labor and environmental standards.
Of course, this is strongly resisted by developing nations who justifiably see the strict pollution controls as a way to prevent their transition from vassal states to competitive members of the global economy (see: Carbon Taxes).