Friday, May 2, 2025

Future of world trading rules and ISDS - some reads

 Some interesting reads on international arbitration, the future of world trade and my favourite - ISDS!

1. International investment treaties entered into between States throw open challenges of domestic measures to international arbitral scrutiny if there are ISDS clauses. The terms of the treaty become critical in that context. How it is interpreted depends on what the wording of the clauses are. Differences in clauses could lead to varied interpretations. This piece in the Kluwer Arbitration Blog, in the context of the Steel legislation in the UK, on whether expropriation has taken place and whether it is subject to international arbitration highlights the importance of treaty language. A single sentence can change the way a treaty is implemented. again, the devil si always in the details of the provisions of the provisos!

2. What is the future of world trade in today's context. Do multilateral trade negotiations have a role? Can bilateral tariff negotiations lead to an international consensus? How can the WTO be reformed and made more relevant? Alan Wolff outlines his ideas on what needs to be done in this piece in the Peterson Institute blog. I liked the way he highlighted the core WTO principles of bound tariffs, MFN and transparency in simple terms. 

3Andrew Elek in this piece suggests that reiteration of major economies of the principles of multilateralism and global trade rules is necessary at this stage. 

4. Does this UN Model Convention on taxation oust the jurisdiction of ISDS in tax matters? This piece explores the issue - but the larger point is that taxation has been at the heart of many international arbitration disputes.

Monday, April 14, 2025

Trade in services data - some help here

Data is critical in all feilds fo work. International trade policy is no exception. While goods trade has reliable and robust data (global value chains notwithstanding), services sector trade lags behind in accurate data. For ost part, the balance of payment data in national economies has been the source of data for international trade in services - in terms of sectors and types of services trade.

Came across this database on the WTO website related to services trade - TISMOS. A more detailed account of the preparation of the dataset and its features are found here.

There is more information on international trade data sets here. Capacity to negotiate as well as engage in meaningful trade policy formulation depends on how one analyses data and uses it. Developing countries often lack that capacity. Wonder if these datasets are being effectively utilised to shape a country's thinking, strategy and position in international trade negotiation. Bilateral or regional trade negotiations, I meant.

Sunday, April 13, 2025

Let us move to some non-tariff barriers

There is so much tariff news all around. But there is also a discussion on what non-tariff trade barriers. That is barriers that are not linked to customs duties but are behind the border. All countries have them in different forms. However, all may not be against WTO rules while some may be.

The USTR's National Trade Estimate Report is a comprehensive account of how the US perceives other trading nation's non-tariff trade barriers. The latest 2025 NTE report is here.

And here is the list of what it perceives to be non-tariff barriers:

  • Import policies (e.g., tariffs and other import charges, quantitative restrictions, import licensing, customs barriers and shortcomings in trade facilitation, and other market access barriers);Technical barriers to trade (e.g., unnecessarily trade restrictive standards, conformity assessment procedures, or technical regulations, including unnecessary or discriminatory technical regulations or standards for telecommunications products); 

• Sanitary and phytosanitary measures (e.g., measures that unnecessarily restrict trade without furthering safety objectives because they are applied beyond the extent necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or health, not based on science, or maintained without sufficient scientific evidence);

 • Government procurement (e.g., “buy national” policies and closed bidding);

 • Intellectual property protection (e.g., inadequate patent, copyright, trade secret, and trademark regimes and inadequate enforcement of intellectual property rights);

 • Services barriers (e.g., prohibitions or restrictions on foreign participation in the market, discriminatory licensing requirements or regulatory standards, local-presence requirements, and unreasonable restrictions on what services may be offered); 

• Electronic commerce / digital trade barriers (e.g., barriers to cross-border data flows, discriminatory practices affecting trade in digital products, restrictions on the provision of Internet-enabled services, and other restrictive technology requirements); 

• Investment barriers (e.g., limitations on foreign equity participation and on access to foreign government-funded research and development programs, local content requirements, technology transfer requirements and export performance requirements, and restrictions on repatriation of earnings, capital, fees and royalties); 

• Subsidies, including export subsidies (e.g., export financing on preferential terms and agricultural export subsidies that displace U.S. exports in third country markets) and import substitution subsidies (e.g., subsidies contingent on the purchase or use of domestic rather than imported goods); 

• Anticompetitive practices (e.g., government-tolerated anticompetitive conduct of state-owned or private firms that restricts the sale or purchase of U.S. goods or services in the foreign country’s markets or abuse of competition laws to inhibit trade, and fairness and due process concerns by companies involved in competition investigatory and enforcement proceedings in the country); 

• State-owned enterprises (e.g., actions by SOEs and by governments with respect to SOEs involved in the manufacture or production of non-agricultural goods or in the supply of services that constitute significant barriers to, or distortions of, U.S. exports of goods and services, U.S. investments, or U.S. electronic commerce, which may negatively affect U.S. firms and workers. These actions include subsidies and non-commercial advantages provided to and from SOEs and practices with respect to SOEs that discriminate against U.S. goods or services, or actions by SOEs that are inconsistent with commercial considerations in the purchase and sale of goods and services);

• Labor (e.g., concerns with failures by a government to protect internationally recognized worker rights 1 or to eliminate discrimination in respect of employment or occupation, in cases where these failures influence trade flows or investment decisions in ways that constitute significant barriers to, or distortions of, U.S. exports of goods and services, U.S. investment, or U.S. electronic commerce, which may negatively affect U.S. firms and workers); 

• Environment (e.g., concerns with a government’s levels of environmental protection, unsustainable stewardship of natural resources, and harmful environmental practices that constitute significant barriers to, or distortions of, U.S. exports of goods and services, U.S. investment, or U.S. electronic commerce, which may negatively affect U.S. firms or workers); and 

• Other barriers (e.g., barriers or distortions that are not covered in any other category above or that encompass more than one category, such as bribery and corruption, or that affect a single sector).

There is long country wise list of perceived barriers thereafter.

The statement of India at the IMF recently provide's it's perspective on non-tariff measures (NTMs).

In this regard, we draw the staff attention to our buff statement of the previous year, wherein it has been shown that India’s non-tariff measures (NTM) are significantly lower than leading economies. This is also buttressed by the latest UNCTAD’s TRAINS database besides the World Bank’s World Integrated Trade Solution (WITS) database. The significantly higher NTMs in leading economies particularly impact India’s service sector, limiting the utilisation of India’s comparative advantage to benefit the global economy. Second, in erecting trade barriers, countries face the trade-off between tariffs, which are transparent and objective, and NTMs, which are, by definition, non-transparent and subjective in interpretation. Thus, while most economies – including the leading ones have chosen to resolve this trade-off through intensive use of the opaque and subjective NTMs, India uses the only lever, which is transparent and objective. Finally, India’s tariff structure needs to be seen in the context of trade barriers to global services vis-à-vis goods, the removal of which could help realise India’s demographic dividend. 

Will the focus now shift to non-tariff barriers? This is a far more complex and diverse areas spanning sectors and regulations. A trade policy enthusiast's paradise!

Tuesday, March 18, 2025

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?

Saturday, March 15, 2025

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.


Sunday, March 9, 2025

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.

Thursday, March 6, 2025

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.