The Structural Impediments Initiative: An Example of Bilateral Trade Negotiation

In June 1990, the governments of the United States and Japan concluded the Structural Impediments Initiative ( SII ), a series of bilateral trade negotiations. The SII came about as a result of a large trade imbalance between the two countries in favor of Japan, which, despite many efforts, the United States and Japan had been unable to reduce. It was the U.S. government\u27s perception that the real cause of the trade imbalance was not Japan\u27s protective border measures in the form of tariffs or quantitative restrictions, such as import quotas on agricultural and leather products, but rather the oligopolistic industrial sector in which large companies linked together by stock-holdings and interlocking directorates exclude outside parties from transactions. This perception on the part of the United States was what initiated the SII

Basic Principles of the WTO and the Role of Competition Policy

Both competition policy and the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) aim to promote and maintain a free and open trading system. The WTO’s task is to establish an international trading system based on a free and open market, and competition policy that covers both domestic and international markets. However, the similarity of their purposes and objectives is unmistakable. The WTO tries to reduce and eliminate governmental trade barriers, such as tariffs and quantitative restrictions. Under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (“GATT”) of 1947, eight trade negotiations were conducted, the last of which was the Uruguay Round (1986-1993). The WTO was created as a result of the Uruguay Round, which was about fifty years after the proposals for the Havana Charter and International Trade Organization failed. As will be discussed later, the WTO is based on the principles of mostfavored- nation treatment (“MFN”), national treatment, and transparency. These three principles are the most fundamental principles of the WTO, and all are designed to establish and maintain non-discrimination and openness in the international market. The principles of MFN and national treatment establish “a level playing field” among participants in international trade in different nations by eliminating discriminatory measures adopted by Member governments. The principle of transparency as incorporated in Article X of the GATT, Article III of the GATS and Article 63 of the TRIPs Agreement ensures the openness of governmental regulations and thereby helps maintain predictability for players in international trade. The coverage of competition policy extends not only to international trade but also to the purely domestic market. The objectives of competition policy vary from country to country. Competition policy aims at controlling not only the activities of private enterprise but also governmental restrictions. In this latter respect, competition policy shares a common goal with the GATT/WTO. The goal of Competition Policy is to establish and maintain the freedom of enterprises, the equality of the competitive conditions under which they compete, and the openness of markets. A striking similarity exists between the objectives of the WTO and those of competition policy. The key concepts common to both are, inter alia, promotion of an open market, provision of fair and equal business opportunities to every participant in the market, transparency and fairness in the regulatory process, the promotion of efficiency, and the maximization of consumer welfare

Japanese View of United States Trade Laws, A

The purpose of this Article is to present a Japanese view of United States trade laws, concentrating on the differences between the United States and the Japanese laws. This Article will address the questions of whether United States trade laws have been used for protectionist purposes and whether there are inconsistencies and conflicts within United States trade laws. Finally, this Article will discuss Japanese suggestions for the enforcement of United States trade laws. The views expressed here are neither those of the Japanese business community nor those of the Japanese government; they are solely the views of the author, who is an observer and student of Japanese-United States trade laws

Japanese View of United States Trade Laws, A

The purpose of this Article is to present a Japanese view of United States trade laws, concentrating on the differences between the United States and the Japanese laws. This Article will address the questions of whether United States trade laws have been used for protectionist purposes and whether there are inconsistencies and conflicts within United States trade laws. Finally, this Article will discuss Japanese suggestions for the enforcement of United States trade laws. The views expressed here are neither those of the Japanese business community nor those of the Japanese government; they are solely the views of the author, who is an observer and student of Japanese-United States trade laws

International Cooperation in the Enforcement of Competition Policy

It is the nature of business to cut across national boundaries. Private enterprises export, invest, transfer technology, and engage in all sorts of business activities across national boundaries in pursuit of profit. Such activities tend to increase the wealth of trading nations, which was the original objective of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Today the international trading system consists of the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and other international institutions that aim to maximize the wealth of nations. At the same time, the nation-state system is still the reality throughout the world, and the legal or regulatory framework to control trade is that of national governments. National objectives and competition law and policy differ from country to country. This may create tension among trading nations, which, in turn, may create instability for enterprises that conduct business across national boundaries