There is also a legal reason for the EU's different approach. WTO law permits border restrictions to enforce domestic measures. But for this, the domestic measure has to be non-discriminatory. If the ban is on placing forced labour products on the market, it is formally (de jure) non-discriminatory in the sense that it does not matter where these products are made. There is a question about whether this is still de facto discriminatory, given that some imports will be more likely to be made using forced labour than others, or than domestic products, though (to some people's surprise) there is quite a bit of forced labour everywhere. But that aside, this is closer to non-discrimination than a ban on imports that are made *using* forced labour per se. It is difficult to argue that such an import ban enforces a domestic measure, even if the domestic measure is a ban on using forced labour. Second, a ban on sale makes an exception easier to justify, because the harm being targeted is to consumers, not to the workers (Art XX(d) GATT). Nobody now needs to worry about inadvertently buying forced labour products. This is in addition to a public morals defence (Art XX(a)). There are a few other details, but the overall message is this: if you want to ban something, ban sale + imports, not just imports. This has been known to trade lawyers since the Tuna-Dolphin cases in the early 1990s (which the US lost).
Yes -- agree! Inferred this in the post and agree it does make sense. Of the many different measures floating about at the moment, this seems to be on stronger legal footing than most of the others.
There is also a legal reason for the EU's different approach. WTO law permits border restrictions to enforce domestic measures. But for this, the domestic measure has to be non-discriminatory. If the ban is on placing forced labour products on the market, it is formally (de jure) non-discriminatory in the sense that it does not matter where these products are made. There is a question about whether this is still de facto discriminatory, given that some imports will be more likely to be made using forced labour than others, or than domestic products, though (to some people's surprise) there is quite a bit of forced labour everywhere. But that aside, this is closer to non-discrimination than a ban on imports that are made *using* forced labour per se. It is difficult to argue that such an import ban enforces a domestic measure, even if the domestic measure is a ban on using forced labour. Second, a ban on sale makes an exception easier to justify, because the harm being targeted is to consumers, not to the workers (Art XX(d) GATT). Nobody now needs to worry about inadvertently buying forced labour products. This is in addition to a public morals defence (Art XX(a)). There are a few other details, but the overall message is this: if you want to ban something, ban sale + imports, not just imports. This has been known to trade lawyers since the Tuna-Dolphin cases in the early 1990s (which the US lost).
Yes -- agree! Inferred this in the post and agree it does make sense. Of the many different measures floating about at the moment, this seems to be on stronger legal footing than most of the others.