Bangkok or Paris?

I have earlier blogged about the ACWL - the advisory centre that assists developing and least developed countries in navigatig the complex world of WTO law - both advice as well as dispute settlement.

Similar calls for an advisory centre for investment dispute settlement have been on the cards and in the works. I have blogged about it here.

Now, a recent piece  in CCSI on where that centre should be located caught my attention. Not in the cool environs of Geneva (ACWL deals with WTO so a natural choice), but elsewhere since ISDS cases can be anywhere. So the authors propose the headquarters as Bangkok and Paris as a regional centre.

I have often wondered on how setting up international organisations in local economies can spur economic activity - more secretarial jobs, indirect employment, the country gets a flavour of the working of the international organization, the country is more invested in international rule making and the local population too gets to know a litttle bit about international affairs!

Any more takers for the investment dispute advisory centre?

A common person's guide to investment treaties and dispute settlement

 A comprehensive guide on international investment treaties and the famed dispute settlement mechanism - ISDS can be found here in this report by IISD.

Some great facts and figures:

This is definitely a trend showing a rethink on the use of investment treaties.

The issue of compensation claims is definitely an issue in ISDS.

The report does chalk out some reform efforts from redrafting treaties to moving away from investment protection to having carve outs for certain sectors.

It is definitely a space to watch for policy makers.

Some interesting weekend reads

 Some weekend readings on international economic law and policy:

1. With withdrawals from international organisations making headlines, the possibility of the US' withdrawal from the World Trade Organization and what is in store, this brief piece by William Alan Reinsch in CSIS offers the odds and what may be in store. 

2. For a more complicated econometric analysis of how domestic politics influences participation in international organizations, this NBER paper by T. Renee Bowen J. Lawrence Broz Christina J. Schneider titled "Domestic Politics and International Organizations" is a must read. A very difficult read at that, I must admit. Try deciphering this:

3. A brief overview of the possible reactions of countries to tariff plans of the US as well as what is in store in this succinct piece by Alan Wm. Wolff.

4. The issue of ISDS and its legitimacy is often a topic on this blog. This piece studies the appointment of arbitrators as a subject of discussion and whether only state nominees as arbitrators instead of parties to the arbitration deciding the arbitrators could enhance the legitimacy.

Tariff disputes reach the WTO sooner than expected?

The tariff war has reached the multilateral trade body - the World Trade Organization. 

Canada and China have chosen the dispute settlement route for the moment to take on the issue of tariffs imposed by the United States. Requesting consultation is the first stage of the dispute settlement procedure.

What are Canada's main grounds in the request for consultations relating to violations of GATT (they had a Trade Facilitation Agreement violation argument too):

1. The US has imposed an ad valorem duty of 25% on non-energy goods from Canada and 10% on energy goods. These are tariffs in addition to what the US imposes according to its tariff schedule under the GATT commitments. This fails the MFN test.

2.  The treatment to Canadian goods are less favourable than what the US GATT commitments are.

3. They are in excess of the bound rates that the US committed at the WTO

And here are China's main grounds for seeking consultation:

1. The 10% additional tariff on all goods from China fails the MFN test.

2. It is in excess of the bound rates of the US committed at the WTO.

3. They are protectionist and discriminatory.

Will the national security exception under Article XII GATT come to the rescue as the measures are allegedly related to the national emergency of "alleged influx of synthetic opioids into the United States"? 

What is teh security exception?

Article XXI 

Security Exceptions 

Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed 

(a) to require any contracting party to furnish any information the disclosure of which it considers contrary to its essential security interests; or 

(b) to prevent any contracting party from taking any action which it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests 

(i) relating to fissionable materials or the materials from which they are derived; 

(ii) relating to the traffic in arms, ammunition and implements of war and to such traffic in other goods and materials as is carried on directly or indirectly for the purpose of supplying a military establishment;

 (iii) taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations; or 

(c) to prevent any contracting party from taking any action in pursuance of its obligations under the United Nations Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Is a "self-judging" exception going to be tested again in the panel? Will it be an appeal in the void again later? I had blogged about the self-judging nature of the exception here.

Latest reports on the dispute are here and here.