Currency Reform Bill gains ground?

Is the Currency undervaluation and trade debate going to take centre stage again? I have blogged about it here, here and here.

Trade Reform has this interesting take:

"Because of your emails to Congress, we are now at a new high of 106 co sponsors to the House currency manipulation bill (HR 1276 - Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act).  We’re getting closer."

A distinct possibility? What impact would this move have on proposals at the WTO regarding currency misalignment and trade?

US on Russia's WTO commitments

The USTR's first annual report on "Report on WTO Enforcement Actions:Russia" is out. Stewart and Stewart has this brief analysis of the Report.After Russia's entry into the WTO after more than a decade of accession efforts, it is time compliance challenges are gradually faced. Though all issues may not lead to disputes, it will be raised at various fora and opportunities by other WTO members.

I have earlier blogged here and here about a potential challenge of a Russian regulation regarding motor vehicle re-cycling duty that allegedly discriminates foreign and domestic car manufacturers. I was curious to know what this report stated about recycling fee issue.

Here it is:

"Motor Vehicle Recycling Fee

In September 2012, Russia introduced a “recycling fee” on sales of wheeled vehicles for the announced purpose of covering the cost of establishing a recycling industry. Domestic manufacturers of wheeled vehicles, however, do not have to pay the fee if they agree to assume the responsibility to recycle the vehicle at the end of its life. Both bilaterally as well as in meetings of the WTO Council for Trade in Goods, the United States, along with other Members, has objected strenuously to the apparent discriminatory nature of the fee. The United States also has registered its concern with the amount of the fee itself, particularly on large construction vehicles, and submitted written questions to the Russian delegation seeking further information about implementation of the program. In response to these concerns, on May 30, the Russian Duma published proposed amendments to the recycling law that would revise the program and apply the fee to domestically produced vehicles as well as to imports. USTR will monitor carefully the implementation of this stated commitment to ensure that our objectives are achieved."

So as of now, it is potentially open to challenge? No WTO dispute for now but a potential dispute settlement case, perhaps the first one for Russia? Business Beyond the Reef seems to think the modification should work.

Currency manipulation and trade agreements

In trade policy circles currency manipulation, undervaluation as well as exchange rate mismanagement are not strictly seen as issues that are to be dealt by the multilateral trading system, especially the WTO.I have blogged about it here, here and here. 

I was struck by this Reuters report of currency manipulation issues making its way into regional trade agreement negotiations.

"Nearly 200 U.S. lawmakers have signed a letter urging President Barack Obama to insist on new rules against currency manipulation in a proposed trade agreement with Japan and 10 other countries in the Asia-Pacific region. 

"As the United States continues to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership, it is imperative that the agreement address currency manipulation," the letter said, according to a copy obtained by Reuters on Thursday."

Currency issues gradually making their way into international trade law and policy?

Is this compliance cool?

The COOL dispute (DS384) is back again. I had blogged about it here, here and here. New regulations by the US in order to comply with the WTO ruling have been issued. They are found here. OpenMarket.org has a detailed account of the latest compliance issues here.

Canada states that it does not amount to compliance of the WTO decision.

A long battle over what constitutes compliance? A la the Airbus Boeing dispute?

Of negotiated settlements and international economic law

As reports of China, US and EU apparently reaching a settlement on the solar panels trade dispute trickled in, another dispute seems to be making an entry - EU initiating a suo moto anti-dumping and anti-subsidy enquiry into imports of telecommunication equipment from China. 

The EU statement is here:

""The European Commission has today taken a decision in principle to open an ex officio anti-dumping and an anti-subsidy investigation concerning imports of mobile telecommunications networks and their essential elements from China. This decision will not be activated for the time being to allow for negotiations towards an amicable solution with the Chinese authorities. I will revert to the College of Commissioners in due course."

Will this dispute go the negotiated settlement way too? Consultations and negotiations are an integral part of the international trade setting. However, this CATO piece was critical of a negotiated settlement. It highlights the multiplicity of stakeholders - consumers, industry invoked in downstream activities like installation as well as institutional users of these equipments, apart from the producers of these panels ofcourse.

I was just struck by the CATO piece of the usage of the term "un-trade agreement". Can negotiated settlements be contrary to principles of international law? In other words, can there be a settlement that violates the provisions of an Agreement? I am sure countries do it all the time - but strictly in legal terms, isn't it still a violation?

Bio-Ethanol - The next big dispute at the WTO?

A dispute between EU and the US over anti-dumping duties on US Ethanol seems to be brewing. In a letter to the USTR some US Senators have raised the issue of this move by the EU imposing a 5 year duty on ethanol produced in the US. More news about the $83.03 per metric ton tariff on US produced ethanol is found here and here.The EU has essentially determined that US produced ethanol has been dumped in the EU - the average normal price is less that the average export price.

The EU notification imposing the definitive anti-dumping duty on US produced bio-ethanol is found here.

Would this be the next big WTO dispute between the US and the EU?

Local jeans, tariffs and WTO disputes

Reports of an EU tariff on US made jeans was in the news recently. This is a result of a longstanding dispute which has reached the compliance stage - the EU measures are in relation to non-compliance by the US of the WTO decision in DS217 (United States — Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000) in relation to the Byrd Amendment.The dispute itself had many other complainants (9 of them).Would the impact be much more if all these complainants imposed retaliatory tariffs?

I had blogged months ago about the urge to "but local". 

Some lessons from this dispute:

1. Compliance in WTO disputes need not always result in doing away with the challenged measure.the measure can continue but the country must be prepared to face the trade consequences.

2. WTO disputes, at times, are lengthy propositions - compliance and retaliation can take years. We have seen many disputes that are pending for ages.

3. The WTO dispute settlement system does have teeth - non-compliance can lead to retaliatory tariff. One can ignore implementing a WTO decision. But retaliation can be a consequence.

Chinese citizen sues the US Fed over devaluation!

Currency devaluation is often seen by countries as a tool to boost one's exports by undervaluing one's own currency. While this has not yet reached the doorsteps of the dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO as some have suggested it should, an abnormal case of a Chinese intending to sue the US Federal Reserve (the US Central Bank) for the fall in the value of the US dollar due to monetary easing made for some interesting reading!

The case was reported here and here.

Currency undervaluation does have it's challenges!

Airbus subsidies - it goes on!

For those following the epic Airbus dispute (DS 316) at the WTO it seems to be a never ending case. From the Panel to an Appellate body decision and now to a lengthy compliance proceedings - the dispute has seen it all. The recent move of Airbus to locate a plant in the US does not seem to have cooled down tempers. Many have argued that only a political settlement between the two countries can end this long standing dispute.Apart from the legal intricacies involved, the case reiterates the role subsidies play in boosting industries - and subsidies are not limited to the developing world. it cuts across economies and geographies.

(http://www.airbus.com/company/americas/us/locations/)

The latest oral submission of the US in the case at the WTO gives an overview of what the US feels are the subsidies Airbus receives. The submission made in the compliance proceedings is rather hard hitting so had to quote some of it here:

"1. What is most remarkable about this dispute is how little has changed in the last eight years. In spite of the longest, most complex WTO dispute ever, and the largest-ever findings of subsidization and serious prejudice, the EU has done nothing to change its WTO-inconsistent behavior. It has withdrawn only a few tiny subsidies, and has taken no meaningful steps to remove the adverse effects of the $15 billion in subsidized financing that it left untouched. And then, just as the original panel was completing its work, the EU granted Airbus more than $4 billion in subsidized financing for the A350 XWB with the same core terms as LA/MSF for earlier aircraft, and once again with a massive benefit. 

2. The market situation has not changed in a meaningful way, either. Where subsidies caused Airbus’s market share to skyrocket in the years leading up to 2006, they have allowed Airbus to retain that market share today. Thanks to subsidies, Airbus overcame major setbacks, including the A380 production and design flaws, the failure of its initial proposal for the A350, and the failure and premature end of the A340 program in 2011. Thanks to the EU’s relentless subsidies, the U.S. large civil aircraft industry continues to lose billions of dollars’ worth of sales and market share to Airbus every year.

3. Instead of taking meaningful compliance action, the EU seeks to convince the Panel that the same arguments it raised before the original Panel now justify inaction in the face of the DSB recommendations and rulings rejecting those arguments. Its arguments are certainly lengthy, but that does not mask their fundamental lack of substance. ..."

This case is not only a landmark case to understand the concept of subsidization under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures but is also a reminder of the fact that a dispute settlement proceeding need not necessarily offer immediate remedies of removal of subsidies that may be adversely impact one's industry.

  

         

Antigua case - An illogical ruling?

I have blogged about the US Online Gambling case here.

Stewart and Stewart, while making a detailed analysis of the dispute here, argue that the measure of cross-retaliation in this case is an illogical step and could harm the WTO system.

"As explained above, this case presents a unique situation in which a WTO member has responded to an adverse WTO ruling by seeking to amend its WTO commitments to make clear that its obligations do not apply to the domestic policy which had been found problematic. To obtain this amendment, the U.S. was required to provide compensation to all affected WTO members, not only those who would have been entitled to retaliate if they had brought the original dispute. As noted above, the U.S. was able to reach agreements with each of the countries that requested compensation except for Antigua. If agreement had been reached with Antigua, or if arbitration under Article XXI of the GATS had settled the amount of compensation to be provided, the U.S. would now be in compliance with its amended WTO obligations even with its domestic gambling policies still in place, and Antigua (along with other countries) would be compensated for the withdrawn concession.

Instead, because WTO rules permit Antigua to withdraw benefits for the on-going violation under the DSU even as arbitration under the GATS remains suspended, the U.S. is now faced with the prospect of open-ended retaliation for on-going violations it is unable to address through a renegotiation of its commitments. In short, the U.S. may have to pay two times to resolve one problem – once to amend its obligations to reflect what it thought it had originally agreed to when it negotiated the GATS, and once as a result of retaliation authorized in the course of a dispute launched before that amendment was made."

The above submission raises the important point of domestic policy space to amend past commitments in the context of a dispute.This piece however seems to support Antigua. Interesting...

Antigua, the U.S and a rule based system of dispute settlement

The proceedings of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body in a recent meeting throws light on the Online Gambling case (DS 285). While WTO watchers are keenly awaiting Antigua's proposed moves in relation to the cross-retaliation in this case, the use of cross-retaliatory measure in the field of IP has evoked strong reactions.

Some excerpts from the meeting indicate the strong, divergent viewpoints held as well as possible outcomes:

"Dominica, speaking on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda, said that Antigua and Barbuda was disappointed at the lack of compliance by the US and its failure to identify a single measure designed to implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings.  Furthermore, Antigua and Barbuda was concerned that, at the January 2013 DSB meeting, the US had used terms such as “theft of intellectual property” and “government-authorised piracy” in relation to the lawful and expressly authorised use of trade remedies provided for in the WTO agreements. 

In Antigua and Barbuda’s view, the use of such intemperate and dismissive language by the US was a fundamental challenge to the WTO and a reputational assault both on the DSB that had given the approval for intellectual property (IP) suspensions and on Antigua and Barbuda that had sought its right to exercise it.  Antigua and Barbuda called on members to defend the WTO’s fundamental principles and to ensure that its rulings are applied equally by all countries despite their size. 

...

The United States noted that Antigua and Barbuda had assured the DSB that it would notify and provide specific details about how it would implement the suspension of concessions and that Antigua and Barbuda would not encourage or allow itself to become a haven for IP piracy. With regard to the status of the dispute, the US did not agree with Antigua and Barbuda’s view that the US had been unwilling to negotiate in good faith.  The US had been following the established, multilateral WTO process for responding to the DSB’s findings and had, in 2007, begun the process of modifying its Schedule of Specific Commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).  The US had offered substantial compensatory adjustments in other service areas and every member had agreed to the compensation package except Antigua and Barbuda.  The US had also sought to offer Antigua and Barbuda elements other than new services concessions.  The US remained open and ready to engage with Antigua and Barbuda to find a solution."

What will the result be n this case:

1. A negotiated, amicable settement or a compensatory package?

2. Protracted dispute settlement proceedings on what constitutes compliance and claims of compliance and non-compliance?

3. A strong cross-retaliatory move by Antigua suspending rights of US IP holders?

4. Proceedings disputing the validity of the measures undertaken to cross-retaliate?

5. No action by Antigua and letting the dispute seeing no end?

Will it also be a case where the "rule-based" nature of the dispute settlement will be established? Or will it go the way that political economy of relations often force it to? The dispute in many ways is the test of the multilateral institutions rule based dispute settlement system - in terms of its efficacy, remedies and compliance.

Cross retaliation and dispute settlement

International economic law experts watch with keen anxiety the next steps Antigua would take to effectuate the cross-retaliation sanction it has received from the WTO in the  US- Online Gambling case at the WTO. 

This NYT opinion preferred a negotiated deal rather than the execution of cross-retaliation. Simon Lester suggests in this blogpost that Antigua should adopt a non-abusive, reasonable way of retaliation by putting works that have received excessive protection in the public domain. Scott Lincicome highlights the strong impact the threat of cross retaliation can have in the context of non-complied WTO disputes in this view.

While many conjecture on how Antigua would implement the cross-retaliation option (many also feel that it would ultimately lead to a negotiated settlement) Shamnad Basheer in this piece offers a tiered approach to cross retaliation essentially contending that cross-retaliation should be considered a mainstream retaliatory technique rather than a secondary one. Calling it the "Tiered IP suspension model" he proposes:

"Whilst the notion of IP “cross-retaliation” has been doing the rounds for a while, there is considerable uncertainty regarding how this concept will be operationalized and implemented. Developing countries urgently need to work out an optimal model that helps assess losses to the foreign IP owner in a reasonably objective way—this way there is no time lost between the procuring of a favorable order from the WTO sanctioning cross-retaliation and the actual cross- retaliation itself. The lack of a credible domestic model has no doubt caused Antigua’s threat of cross retaliation to be taken less seriously by the US. 

This paper seeks to fill this lacuna by proposing a tiered suspension mechanism as a viable option. That the model lacks technical precision in terms of computing losses to IP owners accurately is not fatal since the current WTO framework only requires a broadly objective model that does not reek of arbitrariness. Further, the aim of this paper is to evolve a model that will help in securing compliance or a settlement. Given that the IP lobbies in countries such as the US and the EU are powerful, the likelihood of a settlement or compliance is very strong. Particularly, since the model advocates an automatic compulsory license after the offending measures have been removed. In other words, the likelihood of a country having to operationalize the IP suspension model is very remote. Any infirmities in the model ought to be evaluated, bearing this over- arching assumption in the model. Further, the current WTO framework only requires that broad equivalence be achieved and not that the retaliating state compute the losses to suspended IP owners in a technically accurate manner."

While one would have to wait to see how Antigua takes it forward, it is clear that cross-retaliation has brought back into focus the issue of compliance under the dispute settlement process. Will it lead to enhanced compliance or more complex negotiated settlements?

Cyberespionage and the WTO now!

Now a study that looks at cyberespionage as an economic issue and warranting action under the WTO! 

James A.Lewis contends in his study for the Centre for Strategic and International Studies titled "Conflict and Negotiation in Cyberspace"  that the issue is of such importance that it justifies remedy under Article XXI (Security exception) of GATT.

"WTO rules include security exceptions that clarify that the agreed should not be construed as preventing “a Member from taking any action which it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests.” The exception provides the vehicle for the United States and its allies to move outside the constraints of the WTO to address cyber espionage. It would be a significant reinterpretation of this exception to use it to justify a vigorous response (or to threaten a vigorous response) to cyber espionage. Many in the trade community would oppose this kind of dramatic action, but a public discussion of it by U.S. officials and initial steps may be necessary to change the behavior of other states."

I am not a security expert, but using the WTO Agreement to move out of the WTO framework caught my attention. Interesting...
 

Of flags and domestic content

While national Olympic uniforms for the US team made in China created a lot of controversy and debate in the US during the London Olympics about which I had blogged here and here, will the news of flags at the US President's inauguration being made in Belgium rather than domestically made create a flutter again?

(A US flag being made in Belgium ..Courtesy yahoo news http://news.yahoo.com/obamas-inauguration-stars-stripes-made-belgium-181946720.html)

The flag bearers of a globalized, interconnected, "made in the world" theory may like this fact, nevertheless...

WTO dispute settlement and China-US trading relations

The dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO has been hailed as the crown jewel of the multilateral system providing an avenue for trading partners to resolve intricate and complex trade disputes within a rule based system. It is often compared to the more 'political' power based negotiation process wherein relative economic strengths and other factors influence decision making.

A good insight into China-US trading relations in the context of their disputes at the WTO is found in this piece by Ka Zeng which essentially argues how the dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO has averted any major trade war between the two trading superpowers.It has also been used by both the countries effectively to pursue their national interests.

"All this suggests that the WTO DSM has become the primary means for handling politically salient issues for both countries.  If this is the case, the growing utilization of the DSM in the past decade may have helped to channel the tensions surrounding the bilateral trade relationship and prevented intense interest group pressure from impairing overall U.S.-China trade relations. In the absence of the DSM, it is possible that major bilateral trade disputes resulting from China’s ever-growing trade surplus with the U.S. and allegations of the undervaluation of the Chinese currency could have generated far more acrimony and tensions in bilateral economic relations."

Her full article on this interesting aspect of China-U.S trading relations is found here. 

U.S. challenges India's renewable energy program

It seems to be the week of renewable energy in international trade law circles with the United States requesting consultations with India in relation to domestic content requirements in India's national solar program.

The USTR carried this piece:

"United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk announced today that the United States has requested World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement consultations with the Government of India concerning domestic content requirements in India’s national solar program. India’s program appears to discriminate against U.S. solar equipment by requiring solar energy producers to use Indian-manufactured solar cells and modules and by offering subsidies to those developers for using domestic equipment instead of imports. These forced localization requirements of India’s national solar program restrict India’s market to U.S. imports. Tackling these barriers is a top priority of the Obama Administration. 

... 

On January 11, 2010, India launched its national solar policy, the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission (JNNSM). Phase I of that national policy is composed of two parts: Batch 1 and Batch 2. Under Batch 1, India required developers of solar photovoltaic (“PV”) projects employing crystalline silicon technology to use solar modules manufactured in India. Subsequently, under Batch 2, India expanded this domestic sourcing requirement to crystalline silicon solar cells as well. In its draft policy for Phase II of the JNNSM, India has stated that it is considering expanding the scope of the domestic content requirements further to include solar thin film technologies, which currently comprise the majority of U.S. solar exports to India. India also offers solar energy developers participating in the JNNSM a guarantee that the government will purchase a certain amount of solar power at a highly subsidized tariff rate, provided that they use domestically manufactured solar equipment instead of imports. 

These elements of India’s national solar policy appear to be inconsistent with India’s obligations under the WTO agreements. These obligations include Article III of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), which generally prohibits measures that discriminate in favor of domestically produced goods versus imports; Article 2 of the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures, which prohibits trade-related investment measures that are inconsistent with GATT Article III; Article 3 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement), which prohibits conditioning a subsidy on the use of domestic over imported goods; and Article 5 of the SCM Agreement, which prohibits causing adverse effects on other WTO Members through subsidies that discriminate against imported goods."

The case has been widely reported here, here and here.With Canada appealing the feed in tariff case at the WTO (that came to a finding that domestic content requirements int he Ontario context were violative of Canada's obligations under TRIMS and GATT) and the US requesting for consultations on this issue, will 2013 be the year where renewable energy support programs around the world will be challenged at the dispute settlement mechanism?

Antigua, gambling and a dispute

The US-Gambling case (DS 285) more popularly known as the Antigua case makes for an interesting case study of a WTO dispute settlement case.Yet another Caribbean country taking on the US, very similar to the rum cases that I had blogged about here. While I am not going into the legal aspects of the GATS violations in this blog post (it basically related to the interpretation of commitments that the US had undertaken under the GATS), the case brings to the fore many aspects of the nature of the dispute settlement process itself. For a brief summary of the dispute see this synopsis here.The AB essentially held that US measures of totally prohibiting online betting and gambling services of Antigua were inconsistent with the obligations it had undertaken under GATS.

Some observations about the dispute:

1. Long standing dispute - The request for consultations by Antigua was made in 2003. It is 2013 and the dispute has not reached a final conclusion to the satisfaction of the complainant even after the AB had ruled in its favor in 2007. This raises the issue of the efficacy of the dispute settlement system to provide efficacious remedies in a time-bound manner.

2. Evidence of a rule-based system - The case has been heralded by some as evidence that both smaller and large trading countries have equal rights in the system. As mentioned by Antigua's lawyer here:

"With Antigua, it’s $21 million. Maybe with China it’s going to be U.S. $21 billion. One of the messages we want to get across is that the WTO was sold to smaller countries as a level playing field and a way for them to expand the reach of commerce, subject to a set of rules that apply to everybody. I think more than anything else, this case is about fairness. The WTO is supposed to be fair.”

This goes back to the point that the dispute settlement mechanism, which is considered as as the crown jewel of the the WTO system, is based on rules and not on power politics. Countries irrespective of their trading and geo-political strength can challenge larger, more powerful trading partners at the dispute settlement. However, the inability of Antigua to meaningfully implement the WTO decision raises questions about the fairness of the system. Of what use is a rule-based system if the complainant cannot implement a decision or bear the fruits of it. Is the threat of other sanctions or the reality of trade much more overbearing that a judicial decision?

3. Landmark GATS case - This case is also considered as one of the few (there are only 23 cases that cite the GATS Agreement out of the over 400 WTO cases) cases where the commitments under the GATS were scrutinized by the dispute settlement mechanism. With services trade gaining in importance, this percentage is definitely going to grow.

4. Cross-Retaliation - The WTO has authorized Antigua to retaliate against the U.S. due to the latter's failure to comply with the decision. Antigua has threatened to retaliate in another sector - intellectual property - by ignoring copyrights of US holders by selling material on a website.This is an interesting strategy of retaliating in a sector not a subject matter of the dispute (the case was about GATS commitments, but the retaliation is proposed under copyrights) but which is a very strongly guarded right in the US. Will this strategy be used by other countries in their disputes? What implications does the suspension of obligations under TRIPS have for the legal framework that protects these rights? Shamnad Basheer has this detailed study of how a cross-retaliation model can be used by developing countries to ensure compliance in WTO cases. The USTR seemed concerned at the prospect of a suspension of obligations under TRIPS:

"The United States is concerned, however, that the Arbitrator agreed with Antigua’s request to suspend WTO concessions not just with respect to services, but also with respect to intellectual property rights (IPR).  Any authorization pursuant to the award would be strictly limited to Antigua; every other WTO Member remains obliged to protect U.S. IPR under WTO rules, including enforcement against any IPR-infringing goods.  Moreover, even with respect to Antigua, it would establish a harmful precedent for a WTO Member to affirmatively authorize what would otherwise be considered acts of piracy, counterfeiting, or other forms of IPR infringement.  Furthermore, to do so would undermine Antigua’s claimed intentions of becoming a leader in legitimate electronic commerce, and would severely discourage foreign investment in the Antiguan economy."

The Gambling case is an interesting case reflecting the many challenges that the dispute settlement mechanism faces. It also brings us back to the question as to what constitutes "compliance" in a case, which the US claims to be undertaking. We faced that in the long drawn Airbus-Boeing subsidies case too.

Shamnad Basheer has a great blogpost on the dispute on SpicyIP here.

For a different take, see Eyes on Trade blogpost which believes that this is yet another example of trampling of US domestic policy space by the WTO (after Tuna safe dolphins, COOL decision and Clove Cigarettes case) and it also sees "tiny" countries used as pawns by business interests to take on the major markets.

"The delicious and tsunami-scale irony is that now Antigua (population 88,000 and GDP $1 billion) is being "borrowed" by gambling interests to cross-retaliate against the United States - by removing intellectual property rights from U.S. products in the first use of such a sanction. Except, wait, didn't Ralph Nader warn against just this scenario of some commercial interest finding a tiny country to attack U.S. public interest policies back when the WTO was being debated?"

Another classic case study for the international trade law books?

It is Argentina's turn now

Argentina had requested for consultations with the EU and US in 3 cases regarding importation of lemons, beef and biodiesel. I have blogged about the rising tensions between Argentina and its trading partners here. Now it seems that the consultations have not borne fruit and reports of Argentina deciding to file a WTO complaint in this regard. The three disputes where the request for consultation were made are DS 443, DS 447 and DS 448. News reports of Argentina going ahead with the complaints are found here and here.

Argentina has been criticized for putting up protectionist measures about which I have blogged here.Panama recently filed a dispute (DS 453/1) against Argentina at the dispute settlement  body. These cases seem to be in retaliation to those allegations.I have done a detailed piece about the possible WTO violations in the case of biodiesel here.

We again see the WTO dispute settlement mechanism playing out as a forum for resolution of disputes without being seen as causing a "trade war" or "imbroglio". Argentina has been active in the WTO dispute settlement process being a complainant in 20 cases beginning in 1996. 

Things are heating up at the dispute settlement forum with more countries seeking trade remedies and taking on their trading partners. News of EU contemplating a WTO complaint against the new member Russia is the topic of my next post. Good news for a rule based resolution of disputes?

Trade Policy Review of the U.S.

Trade Policy Reviews (TPR) are another important area of functioning of the WTO, other than the dispute settlement process, wherein trade policies of member countries are scrutinized and commented upon. The process of TPR is mentioned on the WTO website here. 

The Trade Policy review of United States took place recently. While I am not going into the details of the review I found this interesting aspects of the WTO Secretariat report in relation to US participation in the WTO processes:

"6.              According to the U.S. Trade Policy Agenda, the United States is "committed to preserving and enhancing the WTO's irreplaceable role as the primary forum for multilateral trade liberalization, for the development and enforcement of global trade rules, and as a key bulwark against protectionism".[1]  The United States continues to support, participate and pursue trade initiatives and further liberalization through the WTO's multilateral trade framework.  Furthermore, the United States is committed to contributing constructively and creatively to the functioning of the WTO, in particular, acknowledging that the WTO Doha Round is at an impasse, it is committed to fresh and credible approaches to new market-opening trade initiatives.[2] 

7.              As an original Member of the WTO, the United States adheres to all the multilateral agreements and disciplines, and participates in several plurilateral agreements, i.e. the Agreement on Civil Aircraft, Agreement on Government Procurement, and the Information Technology Agreement.  The United States has further liberalized certain goods and services sectors, participating in the pharmaceuticals initiative, Uruguay Round zero-for-zero sectorals, and additional commitments on telecommunications and financial services. 

8.              The United States is active in all aspects of WTO work, including the on-going negotiations, regular Committee work, reporting and monitoring, development aspects, accessions, and in the dispute settlement arena.  During 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2012, the United States submitted 22 proposals or communications to the negotiating groups;  the majority of these concerned the Negotiating Group on Market Access.  During the same period, the United States was a respondent in eight dispute settlement cases, was a complainant in seven cases, and participated as a third party in seven panel proceedings.  The United States was involved in seven appeals processes and involved in three implementation or arbitration matters (Table AII.1). 

9.              The United States also contributes to improving the transparency of the WTO, its trade rules, and creating a clear and effective system by providing information through the WTO notification process and promoting the use of open and transparent meetings and hearings.  Of the 11 panels that have permitted open hearings at the request of the parties to the dispute, the United States was involved as a complainant or respondent in 9.  Similarly, the United States was an appellant or appellee in 7 of the 8 public hearings that have been held by the Appellate Body.  In addition, the United States was a party in both instances where an Arbitrator held open hearings."

The points highlighted were US' commitment to multilateralism, adherence to multilateral agreements, active participants in on-going negotiations, active participant in the dispute settlement process and promoting transparency in the functioning of the WTO. While voices of dissent within the country to the WTO trampling domestic policy space of the WTO (US has lost the Cloves, Dolphin safe tuna fish and COOL cases recently) are often heard in the aftermath of a loss of a dispute at the WTO, the US continues to actively participate in the multilateral trading system. Is the opposition then too minor and irrelevant?

Declaring the centrality of the WTO in multilateral trade, US Ambassador to the WTO stated here:

'A central pillar of U.S. trade policy is our enduring commitment to open markets and to the rules-based multilateral trading system embodied in the WTO.  International trade and investment policies have long played a critical role in the U.S. economy.  This is especially true now, as the United States and other Members seek to strengthen their economies and to address new challenges following the shocks of the global economic crisis."

Trade Policy Reviews are important opportunities to understand positions and policies of member countries towards trade and multilateralism. It offers a birdseye view of a country's trade policies and provides an account of what needs to be done in terms of compliance with multilateral trade rules. While countries may have a wide variance of what the policy says and what is implemented on the ground, they at least provide the basis for an understanding of complex domestic policy initiatives.