Trade and competition interlinkages: The case of Telecom

The commitments entered into in the WTO Telecommunications Agreement include a fairly elaborate set of principles designed to encourage and protect competition in this newly liberalising market. This paper analyses these commitments, to see first of all what they mean for the telecommunications sector. In addition, the paper inquires after the implications of these additional commitments for the ongoing debate in WTO whether a more encompassing agreement ought to be drafted on competition law

Services Liberalization from a WTO/GATs Perspective: In Search of Volunteers

Most existing commitments are confined to guaranteeing the levels of access that existed in the mid-1990s, when the Agreement entered into force, in a limited number of sectors. The only significant exceptions are the accession schedules of recent WTO Members and the negotiating results in two sectors (financial services and, in particular, basic telecommunications) that were achieved after the Uruguay Round. The offers tabled so far in the ongoing Round would not add a lot of substance either. Apparently, negotiators are ‘caught between a rock and a hard place’. For one thing, the traditional mercantilist paradigm, relying on reciprocal exchanges of concessions, seems to be provide less momentum than in the goods area. For another, there are additional - technical, economic and political - frictions that tend to render services negotiations more complicated, time-consuming and resource-intensive. The novelty of the Agreement adds an additional element of legal uncertainty from a negotiator’s perspective. This paper discusses various options that might help to overcome the ensuing reticence to engage. Few appear within reach at present, however. The bare minimum that would need to be achieved is to revive work on scheduling and classification issues with a view to putting both existing commitments and new offers on a safer footing, and to improve compliance with long-existing information/notification obligations

Trade Conflicts: Whither the WTO?

The WTO is in a state of crisis. Yet its problems did not start with the Trump Administration. And although this has been the focus of much criticism from the United States, the Appellate Body should not be the priority in reforming the WTO. More differentiation amongst its members and its rules is needed, to reflect varying levels of development. In addition, more room for plurilaterals ought to be created. China’s atypical economic model ought to be reconciled with the WTO’s market-orientation. This can be done through an update of its Protocol of Accession to the WTO, or perhaps through a newly conceived plurilateral agreement. Such a bridging mechanism would reflect a renewed engagement of China with the WTO, and could help to recommit the United States to a rules-based system. The EU should take initiatives to make this happen. Appellate Body, China, Developing countries, Dispute settlement, EU trade policy, Made in 2025, Non-market economy, Plurilaterals, Protocol of Accession to the WTO, Special and Differential Treatment, State capitalism, State-owned enterprises, US trade policy, WTO-crisis</jats:p

Private Appeals to WTO Law: An Update

At first glance there seem to be few opportunities for private parties to raise objections to government regulation based on World Trade Organization (WTO) law. The WTO still appears to be largely a forum for governments to negotiate or litigate. In fact, there are various ways in which private parties can invite governments to engage with their WTO law obligations, and these are surveyed in this article. First, I illustrate the immediate obstacles facing private parties that want to challenge a government measure on the basis of WTO law. I then take a closer look and discuss different means for private parties to appeal to WTO law, today or perhaps in the not too distant future. There have been several recent developments that suggest that such private complaints should be taken more seriously. This discussion covers the position of private parties before the WTO, before their own government and before domestic courts. To the extent I refer to experiences drawn from a domestic context I will mostly refer to European law, though I have occasion also to mention precedents from US law and Chinese law.</jats:p