…
7.51 The United States further argues that the complainants confuse the difference between extra-jurisdictional application of a country's law and the application by a country of its law, within its jurisdiction, in order to protect resources located outside its jurisdiction. However, we note that we are not basing our finding on an extra-jurisdictional application of US law. Many domestic governmental measures can have an effect outside the jurisdiction of the government which takes them. What we found above was that a measure cannot be considered as falling within the scope of Article ⅩⅩ if it operates so as to affect other governments’ policies in a way that threatens the multilateral trading system, as described in paragraph 7.45 above. For instance, a US requirement, that US norms regarding the characteristics of a given product be met for that product to be allowed on the US market, would not constitute such a threat. Such types of measures are contemplated by the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. However, requiring that other Members adopt policies comparable to the US policy for their domestic markets and all other markets represents a threat to the WTO multilateral trading system. As affirmed by the Appellate Body in its report in the Gasoline case, “Members have a large measure of autonomy to determine their own policies on the environment …, their environmental objectives and the environmental legislation they enact and implement”, circumscribed only, so far as concerns the WTO, by the need to respect the requirements of the General Agreement and the other covered agreements. Therefore, a Member's measure which conditions access to its market on the adoption by the exporting Member of certain conservation policies is a denial of such autonomy.