Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword
- A Note on the American Law Institute
- American Law Institute Reporters
- 1 Introduction
- 2 European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India (AB-2000-13, WT/DS141/AB/R:DSR 2003: III, 965): Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by India
- 3 United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan (AB-2003-5, WT/DS244/AB/R): A Legal and Economic Analysis of the Appellate Body Ruling
- 4 United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (WT/DS217/AB/R: DSR 2003:I,375)
- 5 European Community – Antidumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil (WT/DS219/AB/R: DSR 2003:VI, 2613)
- 6 United States – Final Determination with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada (AB-2003-6, WT/DS257/AB/R)
- 7 United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products (WT/DS259; WT/DS252; WT/DS248; WT/DS249; WT/DS251; WT/DS258; WT/DS254; WT/DS253: DSR 2003:VII, 3117)
- 8 Mexico – Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services (WT/DS204/R): A Comment on “El mess in TELMEX”
- 9 European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries (WT/DS246/AB/R)
- 10 United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 (Original Complaint by the European Communities) – Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS136/ARB, 24 February 2004: A Legal and Economic Analysis
- 11 Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples (AB-2003-4): One Bad Apple? (DS245/AB/R): A Comment
- Index
- References
9 - European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries (WT/DS246/AB/R)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 July 2010
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword
- A Note on the American Law Institute
- American Law Institute Reporters
- 1 Introduction
- 2 European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India (AB-2000-13, WT/DS141/AB/R:DSR 2003: III, 965): Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by India
- 3 United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan (AB-2003-5, WT/DS244/AB/R): A Legal and Economic Analysis of the Appellate Body Ruling
- 4 United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (WT/DS217/AB/R: DSR 2003:I,375)
- 5 European Community – Antidumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil (WT/DS219/AB/R: DSR 2003:VI, 2613)
- 6 United States – Final Determination with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada (AB-2003-6, WT/DS257/AB/R)
- 7 United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products (WT/DS259; WT/DS252; WT/DS248; WT/DS249; WT/DS251; WT/DS258; WT/DS254; WT/DS253: DSR 2003:VII, 3117)
- 8 Mexico – Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services (WT/DS204/R): A Comment on “El mess in TELMEX”
- 9 European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries (WT/DS246/AB/R)
- 10 United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 (Original Complaint by the European Communities) – Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS136/ARB, 24 February 2004: A Legal and Economic Analysis
- 11 Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples (AB-2003-4): One Bad Apple? (DS245/AB/R): A Comment
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
The WTO case brought by India in 2002 to challenge aspects of the European Communities' Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) brings fresh scrutiny to a policy area that has received little attention in recent years – trade preferences for developing countries. The idea for such preferences emerged from the first United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in 1964. The ensuing negotiations led to Resolution 21(ii) at the second session of UNCTAD in 1968, acknowledging “unanimous agreement” in favor of the establishment of preferential arrangements. Tariff discrimination violates the most-favored nation (MFN) obligation of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Art. I, however, and thus the legal authority for preferential tariff schemes had to await a GATT waiver of this obligation, which came in 1971. The waiver was to expire after 10 years, but the authority for preferences was extended by the GATT Contracting Parties Decision of November 28, 1979 on Differential and More Favorable Treatment, Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of Developing Countries, popularly known as the “Enabling Clause,” and now incorporated into the law of the WTO along with the GATT itself.
While trade discrimination favoring developing countries is the essence of any GSP scheme, India's WTO complaint raised the question of what type of discrimination is permissible – must all developing countries be treated alike, or can preference-granting nations discriminate among them based on various sorts of criteria?
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The WTO Case Law of 2003The American Law Institute Reporters' Studies, pp. 220 - 253Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2006
References
and (2002). The Economics of The World Trading System, Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
and (2004). Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Bilateral Opportunism and the Rules of GATT, Journal of International Economics 63, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1981). The EC's Generalized System of Preferences, The Hague: Martinus Nijhof Publishers.Google Scholar
(1987). General Equilibrium Effects of the US Generalized System of Preferences, Southern Economic Journal 54, 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1989). Trade and Welfare Effects of the European Schemes of the Generalized System of Preferences, Economic Development and Cultural Change 37, 757–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1992). Outward-Oriented Developing Economies Really Do Grow More Rapidly: Evidence from 95 LDC's, 1976–85, Economic Development and Cultural Change 40, 523–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1993). Openness, Trade Liberalization, ad Growth in Developing Countries, Journal of Economic Literature 31, 1358–1393.Google Scholar
Finger, J. M. and Winters, L. A. (1998). What Can the WTO Do for Developing Countries? In , ed., The WTO as an International Organization, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 365–392.Google Scholar
Grossman, G. M. and Mavroidis, P. C. (2003). United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom: Here Today, Gone Tomorrow? Privatization and the Injury Caused by Non-Recurring Subsidies. In and , eds., The WTO Case Law of 2001, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 170–200.Google Scholar
and (2004). Fooling Ourselves: Evaluating the Globalization and Growth Debate, NBER Working Paper No. 10244, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
(2003). India's WTO Challenge to Drug Enforcement Conditions in the European Community Generalized System of Preferences: A Little Known Case with Major Repercussions for “Political” Conditionality in US Trade Policy, Chicago Journal of International Law 4, 385–405.Google Scholar
and (1986). The Generalized System of Preferences: A Quantitative Assessment of the Direct Trade Effects and of Policy Options, UNCTAD Discussion Paper 18, UNCTAD, Geneva.Google Scholar
and (2004). Special and Differential Treatment in the WTO: Why, When and How?, WTO Staff Working Paper ERSD-2004-03.Google Scholar
(2005). Preferential Trade Agreements as Stumbling Blocks for Multilateral Trade Liberalization: Evidence for the US, Centre for Economic Policy Research Discussion Paper No. 4884, London UK.Google Scholar
and (1991). The Trade Effects of the US Generalized System of Preferences, Atlantic Economic Journal 19, 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1977). Trade Preferences for Developing Countries, New York: John Wiley and Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD Secretary General, (1983). The Generalized System of Preferences: Review of the First Decade, Paris: Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development.
and (2003). The Perversity of Preferences: GSP and Developing Country Trade Policies, 1976–2000, World Bank Working Paper 2955, The World Bank.Google Scholar
and (2001). Trade Policy and Economic Growth: A Skeptic's Guide to Cross-National Evidence, NBER Macroeconomic Annual 15, 261–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1995). Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integration, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1, 1–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, A. and Lundberg, L. (1984). The US Generalized System of Preferences and its Impacts. In and , eds., The Structure and Evolution of Recent US Trade Policy, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 195–231.Google Scholar
Schwartz, W. F. and Sykes, A. O. (1997). The Economics of the Most Favored Nation Clause. In and , eds., Economic Dimensions of International Law: Comparative and Empirical Perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 34–79.Google Scholar
(1981). Operation and Effects of the Generalized System of Preferences, Fifth Review, New York, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.Google Scholar
(1999). Quantifying the Benefits Obtained by Developing Countries from the Generalized System of Preferences, New York, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.Google Scholar