Book contents
- The Shifting Landscape of Global Trade Governance
- The Shifting Landscape of Global Trade Governance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- Part I New and Old Challenges
- 2 The Elephant in the Negotiation Room
- 3 Corporate Strategy in Times of Anti-Trade Sentiment
- 4 Understanding and Shaping Trade Rules for the Digital Era
- 5 The Need for Better Disciplines on Rules of Origins in the WTO
- 6 For Whom the Bell Tolls
- Part II Trade Policy and Trade-Related Concerns
- Part III Development Angles
- Part IV Diffusion across Economic Treaties
- Index
- References
6 - For Whom the Bell Tolls
The WTO’s Third Decade
from Part I - New and Old Challenges
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2019
By
Book contents
- The Shifting Landscape of Global Trade Governance
- The Shifting Landscape of Global Trade Governance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- Part I New and Old Challenges
- 2 The Elephant in the Negotiation Room
- 3 Corporate Strategy in Times of Anti-Trade Sentiment
- 4 Understanding and Shaping Trade Rules for the Digital Era
- 5 The Need for Better Disciplines on Rules of Origins in the WTO
- 6 For Whom the Bell Tolls
- Part II Trade Policy and Trade-Related Concerns
- Part III Development Angles
- Part IV Diffusion across Economic Treaties
- Index
- References
Summary
The chapter focuses on the WTO’s current crisis, most visibly manifested in the forced vacancies on the Appellate Body and the foreseeable disappearance of what used to be described as the “jewel in the crown” of the WTO. Hahn is of the opinion that this crisis will only be ended, if the members can agree on a number of reform steps relating to the broader governance of the system. The author predicts that without those changes, the organization will wither away like a picture of Dorian Gray. Hahn describes the different issues that need to be addressed that range from privileging a multi-speed WTO, the status of developing countries, the intellectual property approach by China as well as changes in anti-dumping and anti-subsidy laws.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Shifting Landscape of Global Trade GovernanceWorld Trade Forum, pp. 121 - 154Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Acheson, D. 1969. Present at the Creation, My Years in the State Department. New York: W. Norton.Google Scholar
Alford, R. P. 2006. “Reflections on US – Zeroing: A Study in Judicial Overreaching by the WTO Appellate Body,” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 45:196–220.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. D. and Müller, A. C.. 2017. “The Revised WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA): Key Design Features and Significance for Global Trade and Development,” WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2017-04.Google Scholar
Bacchus, J. 2017. “The Case for a WTO Climate Waiver,” Centre for International Governance Innovation. Special Report published November 2, 2017. www.cigionline.org/publications/case-wto-climate-waiverGoogle Scholar
Bacchus, J. 2018. “The Content of a WTO Climate Waiver,” Centre for International Governance Innovation. CIGI Papers No. 204 published December 4, 2018. www.cigionline.org/publications/content-wto-climate-waiverGoogle Scholar
Bellmann, C. 2014. “The Bali Agreement: Implications for Development and the WTO,” International Development Policy [Online], 5.2. http://journals.openedition.org/poldev/1744, last accessed November 12, 2018.Google Scholar
Bungenberg, M., Hahn, M., Herrmann, C. and Müller-Ibold, T.. (Eds.) 2018. The Future of Trade Defence Instruments: Global Policy Trends and Legal Challenges. European Yearbook of International Economic Law. Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
China’s Position Paper on WTO Reform, published November 29, 2018.Google Scholar
Condon, B. J. and Sinha, T.. 2014. “The Role of International Economic Law in Addressing Climate Change,” In: Connecting to Global Markets – Challenges and Opportunities: Case Studies Presented by WTO Chair-holders. Geneva: WTO.Google Scholar
Davey, W. J. 2009. “The Limits of Judicial Processes,” In: Bethlehem, D., McRae, D., Neufeld, R. and Van Damme, I. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of International Trade Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 460–80.Google Scholar
Dawar, K. 2017. “The Government Procurement Agreement, the Most-Favored Nation Principle, and Regional Trade Agreements,” In: Georgopoulos, A., Hoekman, B. and Mavroidis, P. C. (Eds.), The Internationalization of Government Procurement Regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 111–39.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2018. COM(2018) 561 final. 36th Annual Reports from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the EU’s Anti-Dumping, Anti-Subsidy and Safeguard activities, July 31, 2018. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2018:0561:FIN:EN:PDF, last accessed December 8, 2018.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2018. L 181/39-83. Commission Implementing Regulation 2018/1013 of July 17, 2018 imposing provisional safeguard measures with regard to imports of certain steel products, July 18, 2018. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018R1013&from=EN, last accessed October 23, 2018.Google Scholar
EU Statement at the Heads of Delegations meeting by European Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmström 2018. Buenos Aires, Argentina, 11th Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), December 13, 2017. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2017/december/tradoc_156464.pdf, last accessed October 1, 2018.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2018. 2018/C111/10. Notice of initiation of a safeguard investigation concerning imports of steel products of March 26, 2018. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:JOC_2018_111_R_0010&from=EN, last accessed December 8, 2018.Google Scholar
European Parliament. 2018. EU Regulation No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 25, 2012 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2012/978/oj, last accessed December 6, 2018.Google Scholar
European Parliament’s Resolution of November 29, 2018 on WTO: The Way forward. 2018. 2018/2084(INI). www.consilium.europa.eu/media/37247/buenos_aires_leaders_declaration.pdf, last accessed December 8, 2018.Google Scholar
GATT Doc. L/4903. 1979. Differential and more favourable treatment – Reciprocity and fuller participation of developing countries, Decision of November 28, 1979. www.wto.org/gatt_docs/English/SULPDF/90970166.pdf, last accessed November 27, 2018.Google Scholar
GATT MIN.DEC. 1986. Ministerial Declaration on the Uruguay Round of September 20, 1986, www.wto.org/gatt_docs/English/SULPDF/91240152.pdf, last accessed November 26, 2018.Google Scholar
G20. 2018. G20 Leaders’ declaration: Building consensus for fair and sustainable development. Buenos Aires, December 1, 2018, https://g20.org/sites/default/files/buenos_aires_leaders_declaration.pdf.Google Scholar
Häberli, C. 2016. “WTO Rules Can Prevent Change Mitigation for Agriculture,” Society of International Economic Law (SIEL), Fifth Biennial Global Conference Working Paper No. 2016/06.Google Scholar
Hahn, M. 2019. “We’ll Always Have Geneva: The Existential Crisis of the US-led Multilateral Trading System and the EU Reactions”, In: Govaere, I. and Garben, S. (Eds.), The Interface Between EU and International Law – Contemporary Reflections, Hart Publishing, pp. 269–92.Google Scholar
Hahn, M. 2018. “The Multilateral an EU Legal Framework on TDIs: An Introduction,” In: Bungenberg, M., Hahn, M., Herrmann, C. and Müller-Ibold, T. (Eds.), The Future of Trade Defence Instruments: Global Policy Trends and Legal Challenges. European Yearbook of International Economic Law. Switzerland: Springer, pp. 3–16.Google Scholar
Hahn, M. and Holzer, K.. 2016. “Special Agreement and Energy: Filling the Gaps,” In: Matsushita, M. and Schoenbaum, T. J. (Eds.), Emerging Issues in Sustainable Development: International Trade Law and Policy Relating to Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment. Tokyo: Springer, pp. 259–77.Google Scholar
Howse, R. 2016. “The World Trade Organization 20 Years On: Global Governance by Judiciary,” The European Journal of International Law 27(1):9–77.Google Scholar
ICTSD. 2018. “Achieving Progress in Multilateral Trade Negotiations on Agriculture,” WTO: Paths Forward. Policy Brief. September 2018, Geneva: ICTSD.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. H. 1998. The World Trade Organization. London: The Royal Institute of International Affairs.Google Scholar
Kaszubska, K. 2016. “Deconstructing India’s Position on the Trade in Services Agreement,” ORF Issue Brief No. 146, www.orfonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/ORF-IssueBrief_146_Kaszubska.pdf, last accessed November 27, 2018.Google Scholar
Matsushita, M., Schoenbaum, T. J., Mavroidis, P. C. and Hahn, M.. 2017. The World Trade Organization: Law, Practice, and Policy. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mavroidis, P. and Janow, M.. 2017. “Free Markets, State Involvement, and the WTO: Chinese State-Owned Enterprises in the Ring,” World Trade Review 16(4):571–81.Google Scholar
Morin, J.-F., Pauwelyn, J. and Holloway, J.. 2017. “The Trade Regime as a Complex Adaptive System: Exploration and Exploitation of Environmental Norms in Trade Agreements,” Journal of International Economic Law 20(2):365–90.Google Scholar
Payosova, T., Hufbauer, G. C. and Schott, J. J.. 2018. “The Dispute Settlement Crisis in the World Trade Organization: Causes and Cures,” Peterson Policy Brief, March 2018.Google Scholar
Piérola, F. 2014. The Challenge of Safeguards in the WTO. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ptashkina, M. 2018. “Facilitation 2.0: E-Commerce and Trade in the Digital Age,” RTA Exchange. Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) and Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). www.ictsd.org/sites/default/files/research/rta_exchange_-_ptashkina_-_facilitation_2.0_-_e-commerce_-_ptashkina_0.pdf, last accessed December 1, 2018.Google Scholar
Shaffer, G. C., Elsig, M. and Pollack, Mark A.. 2018. “U.S. Threats to the WTO Appellate Body,” UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No. 1.Google Scholar
Sutherland, P., Bhagwati, J., Botchwey, K., FitzGerald, N., Hamada, K., Jackson, J.H., Lafer, C. and de Montbrial, T.. 2004. “The Future of the WTO: Addressing Institutional Challenges in the New Millennium,” Report by the Consultative Board to the Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi, Geneva: World Trade Organization.Google Scholar
TN/RL/GEN/188. World Trade Organization. 2017. Communication from the European Union on Improving Disciplines on Subsidies Notification of May 30, 2017.Google Scholar
USTR. 2018a. Joint Statement on Trilateral Meeting of the Trade Ministers of the United States, Japan, and the European Union. May 31, 2018. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2018/may/joint-statement-trilateral-meeting, last accessed December 3, 2018.Google Scholar
USTR. 2018b. Joint Statement on Trilateral Meeting of the Trade Ministers of the United States, Japan, and the European Union. September 25, 2018. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2018/september/joint-statement-trilateral, last accessed December 3, 2018.Google Scholar
USTR. 2018c. 2017 Report to Congress on the China’s WTO Compliance. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Press/Reports/China%202017%20WTO%20Report.pdf, last accessed December 4, 2018.Google Scholar
USTR. 2018d. Findings of the investigation into China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 of March 22, 2018. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Section%20301%20FINAL.PDF, last accessed December 8, 2018.Google Scholar
USTR. 2018e. Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report of the President of the United States on the Trade Agreements Program Office, March 2018, https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/reports-and-publications/2018/2018-trade-policy-agenda-and-2017, last accessed October 17, 2018.Google Scholar
Van den Bossche, P. and Zdouc, W.. 2017. The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, R. H. 2015. “Digital Trade and E-Commerce: Challenges and Opportunities of the Asia-Pacific Regionalism,” Asian Journal of WTO and International Health Law and Policy 10(2):321–48.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization. 2017. 20 Years of the Information Technology Agreement: Boosting Trade, Innovation and Digital Connectivity. Geneva: WTO.Google Scholar
WT/AB/27. Appellate Body Annual Report for 2016, May 16, 2017, www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/ab_an_rep_e.htm, accessed on October 17, 2018.Google Scholar
WT/AB/WP/1. Appellate Body. Working Procedures for Appellate Review, February 15, 1996.Google Scholar
WT/AB/WP/6. Appellate Body. Working Procedures for Appellate Review, August 16, 2010.Google Scholar
WT/DSB/M/412, restricted: Dispute Settlement Body, April 27, 2018, Minutes of Meeting, WTO Doc., 1 August 2018 (18-4575), China – Certain Measures Concerning the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights (DS542).Google Scholar
WT/DSB/W/609. Appellate Body Appointments. Proposal by Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Honduras, Hong Kong, China; Mexico, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, the Russian Federation, Singapore, Switzerland, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; Turkey, Uruguay and Viet Nam, dated November 9, 2017.Google Scholar
WT/DS24/18. US Communication of the June 12, 2006. United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins (“Zeroing”). June 16, 2006.Google Scholar
WT/DS121/9. Appellate Body Report. Argentina – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear, adopted January 12, 2000.Google Scholar
WT/DS248, WT/DS249, WT/DS251, WT/DS252, WT/DS253, WT/DS254, WT/DS258, WT/DS259. Appellate Body Report. United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products, adopted December 10, 2003.Google Scholar
WT/DS246/16/Add.3. Appellate Body Report. European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries, adopted April 20, 2004.Google Scholar
WT/DS296/AB/R. Appellate Body Report. United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) from Korea, adopted July 20, 2005.Google Scholar
WT/DS294/46. Panel Report. United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins (Zeroing), adopted May 9, 2006.Google Scholar
WT/DS294/46. Appellate Body Report. United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins (Zeroing), adopted May 9, 2006.Google Scholar
WT/DS427/R. Panel Report. China – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products from the United States, adopted September 25, 2013.Google Scholar
WT/DS397/25. Appellate Body Report. European Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China - Recourse to article 21.5 of the DSU by China, adopted February 12, 2016.Google Scholar
WT/DS453/AB/R. Appellate Body Report. Argentina – Measures Relating to Trade in Goods and Services, adopted May 9, 2016.Google Scholar
WT/DS473/AB/R, Appellate Body Report. European Union – Anti-Dumping Measures on Biodiesel from Argentina, WT/DS473/17/Add.4, adopted October 26, 2016.Google Scholar
WT/DS542/1, IP/D/38. China – Certain Measures Concerning the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights. Request for Consultations by the United States, dated March 23, 2018.Google Scholar
WT/DS542/2. China – Certain Measures Concerning the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights. Request to Join Consultation. Communication from Japan, dated April 3, 2018.Google Scholar
WT/DS542/3. China – Certain Measures Concerning the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights. Request to Join Consultations. Communication from the European Union, dated April 4, 2018.Google Scholar
WT/L/641. Amendment of the TRIPS Agreement. Decision adopted on December 6, 2005, dated December 8, 2005.Google Scholar
WT/MIN(13)/DEC. World Trade Organization. Bali Ministerial Declaration adopted on December 7, 2013, dated December 11, 2013.Google Scholar
WT/MIN(15)/45 - WT/L/980, 2015. World Trade Organization. Ministerial Decision of December 19, 2015, on Export Competition, dated December 21, 2015.Google Scholar
Wu, M. 2017. “Digital Trade-Related Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements: Existing Models and Lessons for the Multilateral Trade System,” RTA Exchange. Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). http://e15initiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/RTA-Exchange-Digital-Trade-Mark-Wu-Final.pdf, last accessed December 1, 2018.Google Scholar
Zhou, W. 2018a. “Appellate Body Report on EU – Biodiesel: The Future of China’s State Capitalism under the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement,” World Trade Review 17(4):609–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, W. 2018b. “EU – Price Comparison Methodologies (DS516): Challenging the Non-Market Economy Methodology in Light of the Negotiating History of Article 15 of China’s WTO Accession Protocol,” Journal of World Trade 52(3):505–533.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by