China as a WTO developing member, is it a problem? CEPS Policy Insights No 2019/16, November 2019

The developing member status is an area identified for WTO reform by the US, the EU and the Trilateral Trade Ministerial Cooperation. The grievance is that some of the world’s top trading nations that declared themselves as developing members are taking advantage of the 155 special and deferential treatment provisions embedded to date across the range of WTO agreements, resorting to weaker commitments, undermining the functioning of the multilateral trading system and impeding the negotiation of future agreements. The developing member status per se is not a problem in relation to China’s commitments undertaken at its WTO accession, neither following accession as far as the three agreements that China participated in are concerned. China relinquished most special and differential treatment provisions at its accession, and many of its commitments are WTO-plus in nature. Within this remit, the problem lies in China’s lack of faithful compliance with certain accession commitments, such as notification and transparency. However, China’s developing member status could be a problem for the ongoing fisheries subsidies negotiations, especially given its world-leading fishing capacity. This presumption could also be true for other negotiations, for example those regarding the joint initiative on the trade-related aspects of ecommerce. China’s persistent claim of developing member status at the WTO may be understood as a result of political positioning, too, because championing “South-South cooperation” is a strategic priority for China’s diplomacy

Water Rights and Water Allocation: Issues and Challenges for Asia

The primary audience for this report is management and staff working in water resources agencies in Asia, particularly those in river basin organizations (RBOs) in their various forms. The roles and responsibilities of RBOs vary considerably and are evolving as pressureson water resources are becoming more severe. Although this report seeks to share knowledge about the fundamentals and application of waterrights and allocation, it attempts to do so with a practical focus

Migration Governance and Migration Rights in the Southern African Development Community (SADC): Attempts at Harmonization in a Disharmonious Region

This paper examines prospects for enhanced regional migration governance and protection of migrants’ rights in the Southern African Development Community (SADC). Migration in this region is substantial in scale and diverse in nature, incorporating economic, political and mixed migration flows. In addition to movements between countries within the region, migrants also come from across the African continent and even further afield. At its foundation in 1992, SADC as an institution initially embraced a vision of intra-regional free movement, but this has not become a reality. If anything, there has been a hardening of anti-migrant attitudes, not least in the principal destination country of South Africa. There have also been serious violations of migrants’ rights. Attempts at regional coordination and harmonization of migration governance have made limited progress and continue to face formidable challenges, although recent developments at national and regional levels show some promise. In conjunction with the 2003 SADC Charter of Fundamental Social Rights and 2008 Code on Social Security, incorporation of migrants into the SADC 2014 Employment and Labour Protocol could signal a shift towards more rights-based migration governance. The paper concludes by arguing that there can be no robust rights regime, either regionally or in individual countries, without extension of labour and certain other rights to non-citizens, nor a robust regional migration regime unless it is rights-based

No. 18: The Draft Protocol on the Facilitation of Movement of Persons in SADC: Implications for State Parties

The migration of persons across international boundaries in search of better opportunities or as a result of war, conflict and political instability has risen substantially over the years. The UN Population Division estimates that there are currently 175 million people living outside of their country of origin which is more than twice the number a generation ago (United Nations Population Division 2002). As communications and transport infrastructure become more sophisticated and cheaper, this trend is likely to continue in the foreseeable future. This movement of persons from their own countries of nationality or citizenship, to another country where they take up temporary or permanent residence and may even become citizens, significantly challenges the notions of individual, group or national identity associated with nation-states. Even in multicultural and diverse societies such as those found in most Southern African countries, nationality and citizenship are over-riding features that define those who belong and those who do not belong. There is an emerging consensus that if migration is properly managed by both countries of origin and countries of destination, that it can have a positive developmental impact. What is often referred to as the \u27nexus between migration and development\u27 is becoming a familiar refrain in the global debates about migration with the essence of this approach being that, rather than viewing and responding to migration as a problem that challenges states economically, politically, socially and culturally, that it should be channeled and managed in a manner that maximises its positive impact, particularly in the economic sphere (IOM 2005). This debate often takes place in conjunction with the globalisation debate - the idea that the countries of the world are becoming more inter-dependant and that higher levels of co-operation are required if all countries, developed and developing, are to benefit. Implicit in this debate is the recognition that migration is inevitable, but at the same time there is an expressed need for it to be managed, rather than just allowing it to increase as a result of globalisation (IOM 2005). But, the argument that migration should be managed as part of a developmental framework is often seen to be at odds with predominant notions within nationstates about who the beneficiaries of such development ought to be. It is at this intersection of migration, citizenship and national identity and development that the concepts related to the free movement of persons become complex, and sometimes controversial. The importance of migration in the context of development in African states is clearly recognised by the African Union in its Strategic Framework for a policy on migration in Africa, which was drafted in the wake of a series of resolutions and recommendations that were adopted by various meetings of African Heads of State and other political leaders. The AU Framework takes as one of its key imperatives, the New Partnership for Africa\u27s Development (NEPAD) strategy that is aimed at promoting the development of the African continent. While acknowledging that NEPAD does not consider migration as a \u27sectoral priority\u27, it nevertheless makes the point that NEPAD has the potential to contribute to the solution of many of the root causes of migration by promoting socio-economic and political development (African Union [no date], p. 6). In framing the need for a comprehensive continental set of migration policies, the AU document states the following: ... [W]ell-managed migration has the potential to yield significant benefits to origin and destination States... However, mismanaged or unmanaged migration can have serious consequences for States\u27 and migrants\u27 well-being, including potential destabilising effects on national and regional security, and jeopardising inter-State relations. Mismanaged migration can also lead to tensions between host communities and migrants, and give rise to xenophobia, discrimination and other social pathologies. This AU statement, while emphasising the developmental potential of migration, clearly recognises the complexities of managing migration in relation to notions of \u27insiders\u27 and \u27outsiders\u27 and citizen opinions about those who belong and who should benefit from development and those who do not belong and should not benefit