Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T07:16:24.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Getting Your Ducks in a Row: The Case for More Inclusive Renegotiations in EU–Poultry Meat (China)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2019

DAVID R. DEREMER  and
FEDERICO ORTINO
DAVID R. DEREMER*
Affiliation:
International School of Economics, Kazakh–British Technical University, Kazakhstan
FEDERICO ORTINO*
Affiliation:
Kings College London
*
*Email: drd2108@columbia.edu.
**Email: federico.ortino@kcl.ac.uk.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper critiques a Panel ruling that was permissive in allowing the EU to exclude China from the renegotiations of several tariff lines of poultry meat and the related allocation of new tariff-rate quotas (TRQs). The EU's basis for exclusion was that China lacked a principal or substantial supplying interest in the modified tariff lines. The Panel's ruling supported China for only two tariff lines in which China eventually served 50% of the EU market after certain SPS measures expired, on the narrow basis that this import increase should have been considered a special factor in the TRQ allocation. The paper argues that the Panel ruled too narrowly by disregarding China's broader claims for a principal or substantial supplying interest. An interpretation consistent with the object and purpose of the GATT supports utilizing a broader set of evidence in China's claim as a principal or substantial supplier for renegotiations of tariff schedules. Allowing nations to use TRQs to prevent emerging markets from achieving a substantial supplying interest is a significant obstacle to the WTO's purpose. The Panel's ruling will be important for future TRQ renegotiations, such as those that would be necessary under Brexit.

Type
Original Articles
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , April 2019 , pp. 309 - 326
Copyright
Copyright © David R. Deremer and Federico Ortino 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The authors thank the participants at the EUI workshop, ‘WTO Case Law of 2017’, including our discussant Niall Meagher, Kristy Buzard, Rob Howse, Tatiana Yanguas, Arie Reich, Petros Mavroidis, Bernard Hoekman, and Chad Bown. The authors additionally thank participants at the Applied Economics Workshop of ISE-KBTU.

References

Allen, T., Arkolakis, C., and Takahashi, Y. (forthcoming), ‘Universal Gravity’, Journal of Political Economy.Google Scholar
Bagwell, K. and Staiger, R. W. (1999), ‘An Economic Theory of GATT’, American Economic Review, 89: 215–248.Google Scholar
Downes, C. (2017), ‘The Post-Brexit Management of EU Agricultural Tariff Rate Quotas’, Journal of World Trade, 51: 741–762.Google Scholar
Evenett, S. and Jara, A. (2014), ‘Settling WTO disputes without solving the problem: Abusing compensation’, VoxEU.org, https://voxeu.org/article/settling-wto-disputes-without-solving-problem-abusing-compensation.Google Scholar
Horn, H. and Weiler, J. H. H. (2005), ‘European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines: Textualism and its Discontent’, in Horn, H. and Mavroidis, P. C. (eds.), The WTO Case Law of 2002: The American Law Institute Reporters’ Studies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krugman, P. R., Obtsfeld, M., and Melitz, M. (2014), International Economics: Theory and Policy 10th edition, Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Ludema, R. and Mayda, A. M. (2009), ‘Do Countries Free Ride on MFN?’ (with Anna Maria Mayda), Journal of International Economics, 77: 137–150.Google Scholar
Ludema, R. and Mayda, A. M. (2013), ‘Do Terms-of-Trade Effects Matter for Trade Agreements? Theory and Evidence from WTO Countries’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(4): 1837–1893.Google Scholar
Maggi, G. and Staiger, R. W. (2015), ‘Optimal Design of Trade Agreements in the Presence of Renegotiation’, American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 7: 109–143.Google Scholar
Maggi, G. and Rodriguez-Clare, A. (2007) , ‘A Political Economy Theory of Trade Agreements’, American Economic Review, 97: 1374–1406.Google Scholar
Mavroidis, P. (2016), The Regulation of International Trade – Volume 1 GATT, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ossa, R. (2011), ‘A New Trade Theory of GATT/WTO Negotiations’, Journal of Political Economy, 199: 122–152.Google Scholar
Pelc, K. J. (2010), ‘Eluding Efficiency: Why Do We Not See More Efficient Breach at the WTO?’, World Trade Review, 9: 629–642.Google Scholar
Schropp, S. A. B. and Palmeter, D. (2010), ‘Commentary on the Appellate Body Report in EC–Bananas III (Article 21.5): Waiver-Thin, or Lock, Stock, and Metric Ton?’, World Trade Review, 9: 7–57.Google Scholar