Loading…
Regulatory convergence and dispute settlement in the WTO
Purpose – This paper aims to examine the issues faced by the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement system in disputes involving questions of regulatory convergence. The traditional focus of the WTO has been on increasing market access and eliminating discrimination in trade. Now, as tari...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of international trade law & policy 2015-09, Vol.14 (3), p.157-162 |
---|---|
Main Author: | |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | 162 |
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 157 |
container_title | Journal of international trade law & policy |
container_volume | 14 |
creator | Meagher, Niall |
description | Purpose
– This paper aims to examine the issues faced by the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement system in disputes involving questions of regulatory convergence. The traditional focus of the WTO has been on increasing market access and eliminating discrimination in trade. Now, as tariffs have been all but eliminated and Members rarely impose obviously discriminatory trade barriers, attention increasingly turns to questions of regulatory convergence. Leaving aside questions as to the overall benefits of regulatory convergence between markets, these developments pose a significant challenge to the organs of the WTO dispute settlement – and it is here that this paper focuses.
Design/methodology/approach
– While General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)/WTO law has fairly well-developed tools for identifying discrimination in trade, the tools necessary for assessing whether regulatory measures maintain the requisite balance or proportionality between sovereign/domestic concerns and trade concerns are less clear. The paper discusses this latter point.
Findings
– The WTO agreements are frequently not clear on where or how this balance between sovereign/domestic concerns and trade concerns is to be determined. To date, WTO panels and the Appellate Body have preferred to focus on whether they can identify any discriminatory aspects of a measure. However, they will increasingly be called to pronounce on non-discriminatory regulatory policy choices of Members.
Originality/value
– This paper contributes to the literature on the Appellate Body, and argues that Members will need to develop a credible and consistent balance between policy space and trade restrictiveness. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1108/JITLP-11-2015-0041 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1108_JITLP_11_2015_0041</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2138052408</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c299t-dcd482ba005d39a5ad1e295057e312fa6f5de3344d603d907afcd51813009cf73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkE1Lw0AQhhdRsFb_gKeA59WZ_Ug2Ryl-VAoVqXhc1uyktqRJ3d0I_fem1ovgaYbhfWaYh7FLhGtEMDdP08XsmSNyAag5gMIjNhKgNFeyyI_ZCFVRDHOhTtlZjGuAXJlcj5h5oWXfuNSFXVZ17ReFJbUVZa71mV_FbZ8oi5RSQxtqU7Zqs_RB2dtifs5OatdEuvitY_Z6f7eYPPLZ_GE6uZ3xSpRl4r7yyoh3B6C9LJ12HkmUGnRBEkXt8lp7klIpn4P0JRSurrxGgxKgrOpCjtnVYe82dJ89xWTXXR_a4aQVKA1oocAMKXFIVaGLMVBtt2G1cWFnEezekP0xNLR2b8juDQ0QHqDht-Aa_z_zx6r8Bl0AZvQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2138052408</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Regulatory convergence and dispute settlement in the WTO</title><source>Social Science Premium Collection</source><source>ABI/INFORM Global</source><source>Politics Collection</source><source>Emerald:Jisc Collections:Emerald Subject Collections HE and FE 2024-2026:Emerald Premier (reading list)</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Meagher, Niall</creator><contributor>James C Hartigan, Petros C Mavroidis, and Joseph McMahon, Profs</contributor><creatorcontrib>Meagher, Niall ; James C Hartigan, Petros C Mavroidis, and Joseph McMahon, Profs</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
– This paper aims to examine the issues faced by the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement system in disputes involving questions of regulatory convergence. The traditional focus of the WTO has been on increasing market access and eliminating discrimination in trade. Now, as tariffs have been all but eliminated and Members rarely impose obviously discriminatory trade barriers, attention increasingly turns to questions of regulatory convergence. Leaving aside questions as to the overall benefits of regulatory convergence between markets, these developments pose a significant challenge to the organs of the WTO dispute settlement – and it is here that this paper focuses.
Design/methodology/approach
– While General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)/WTO law has fairly well-developed tools for identifying discrimination in trade, the tools necessary for assessing whether regulatory measures maintain the requisite balance or proportionality between sovereign/domestic concerns and trade concerns are less clear. The paper discusses this latter point.
Findings
– The WTO agreements are frequently not clear on where or how this balance between sovereign/domestic concerns and trade concerns is to be determined. To date, WTO panels and the Appellate Body have preferred to focus on whether they can identify any discriminatory aspects of a measure. However, they will increasingly be called to pronounce on non-discriminatory regulatory policy choices of Members.
Originality/value
– This paper contributes to the literature on the Appellate Body, and argues that Members will need to develop a credible and consistent balance between policy space and trade restrictiveness.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1477-0024</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2045-4376</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1108/JITLP-11-2015-0041</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><subject>Agreements ; Conflict resolution ; Cooperation ; Developing countries ; Discrimination ; Disputes ; GATT ; International business ; International business law ; International trade ; LDCs ; Markets ; Regulation ; Strategy ; Tariffs ; Trade barriers ; Trade policy</subject><ispartof>Journal of international trade law & policy, 2015-09, Vol.14 (3), p.157-162</ispartof><rights>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</rights><rights>Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2138052408/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2138052408?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,11688,12845,21387,21394,27866,27924,27925,33611,33985,36060,43733,43948,44363,74221,74468,74895</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>James C Hartigan, Petros C Mavroidis, and Joseph McMahon, Profs</contributor><creatorcontrib>Meagher, Niall</creatorcontrib><title>Regulatory convergence and dispute settlement in the WTO</title><title>Journal of international trade law & policy</title><description>Purpose
– This paper aims to examine the issues faced by the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement system in disputes involving questions of regulatory convergence. The traditional focus of the WTO has been on increasing market access and eliminating discrimination in trade. Now, as tariffs have been all but eliminated and Members rarely impose obviously discriminatory trade barriers, attention increasingly turns to questions of regulatory convergence. Leaving aside questions as to the overall benefits of regulatory convergence between markets, these developments pose a significant challenge to the organs of the WTO dispute settlement – and it is here that this paper focuses.
Design/methodology/approach
– While General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)/WTO law has fairly well-developed tools for identifying discrimination in trade, the tools necessary for assessing whether regulatory measures maintain the requisite balance or proportionality between sovereign/domestic concerns and trade concerns are less clear. The paper discusses this latter point.
Findings
– The WTO agreements are frequently not clear on where or how this balance between sovereign/domestic concerns and trade concerns is to be determined. To date, WTO panels and the Appellate Body have preferred to focus on whether they can identify any discriminatory aspects of a measure. However, they will increasingly be called to pronounce on non-discriminatory regulatory policy choices of Members.
Originality/value
– This paper contributes to the literature on the Appellate Body, and argues that Members will need to develop a credible and consistent balance between policy space and trade restrictiveness.</description><subject>Agreements</subject><subject>Conflict resolution</subject><subject>Cooperation</subject><subject>Developing countries</subject><subject>Discrimination</subject><subject>Disputes</subject><subject>GATT</subject><subject>International business</subject><subject>International business law</subject><subject>International trade</subject><subject>LDCs</subject><subject>Markets</subject><subject>Regulation</subject><subject>Strategy</subject><subject>Tariffs</subject><subject>Trade barriers</subject><subject>Trade policy</subject><issn>1477-0024</issn><issn>2045-4376</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>DPSOV</sourceid><sourceid>M0C</sourceid><sourceid>M2L</sourceid><recordid>eNptkE1Lw0AQhhdRsFb_gKeA59WZ_Ug2Ryl-VAoVqXhc1uyktqRJ3d0I_fem1ovgaYbhfWaYh7FLhGtEMDdP08XsmSNyAag5gMIjNhKgNFeyyI_ZCFVRDHOhTtlZjGuAXJlcj5h5oWXfuNSFXVZ17ReFJbUVZa71mV_FbZ8oi5RSQxtqU7Zqs_RB2dtifs5OatdEuvitY_Z6f7eYPPLZ_GE6uZ3xSpRl4r7yyoh3B6C9LJ12HkmUGnRBEkXt8lp7klIpn4P0JRSurrxGgxKgrOpCjtnVYe82dJ89xWTXXR_a4aQVKA1oocAMKXFIVaGLMVBtt2G1cWFnEezekP0xNLR2b8juDQ0QHqDht-Aa_z_zx6r8Bl0AZvQ</recordid><startdate>20150921</startdate><enddate>20150921</enddate><creator>Meagher, Niall</creator><general>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150921</creationdate><title>Regulatory convergence and dispute settlement in the WTO</title><author>Meagher, Niall</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c299t-dcd482ba005d39a5ad1e295057e312fa6f5de3344d603d907afcd51813009cf73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Agreements</topic><topic>Conflict resolution</topic><topic>Cooperation</topic><topic>Developing countries</topic><topic>Discrimination</topic><topic>Disputes</topic><topic>GATT</topic><topic>International business</topic><topic>International business law</topic><topic>International trade</topic><topic>LDCs</topic><topic>Markets</topic><topic>Regulation</topic><topic>Strategy</topic><topic>Tariffs</topic><topic>Trade barriers</topic><topic>Trade policy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Meagher, Niall</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Journal of international trade law & policy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Meagher, Niall</au><au>James C Hartigan, Petros C Mavroidis, and Joseph McMahon, Profs</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Regulatory convergence and dispute settlement in the WTO</atitle><jtitle>Journal of international trade law & policy</jtitle><date>2015-09-21</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>157</spage><epage>162</epage><pages>157-162</pages><issn>1477-0024</issn><eissn>2045-4376</eissn><abstract>Purpose
– This paper aims to examine the issues faced by the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement system in disputes involving questions of regulatory convergence. The traditional focus of the WTO has been on increasing market access and eliminating discrimination in trade. Now, as tariffs have been all but eliminated and Members rarely impose obviously discriminatory trade barriers, attention increasingly turns to questions of regulatory convergence. Leaving aside questions as to the overall benefits of regulatory convergence between markets, these developments pose a significant challenge to the organs of the WTO dispute settlement – and it is here that this paper focuses.
Design/methodology/approach
– While General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)/WTO law has fairly well-developed tools for identifying discrimination in trade, the tools necessary for assessing whether regulatory measures maintain the requisite balance or proportionality between sovereign/domestic concerns and trade concerns are less clear. The paper discusses this latter point.
Findings
– The WTO agreements are frequently not clear on where or how this balance between sovereign/domestic concerns and trade concerns is to be determined. To date, WTO panels and the Appellate Body have preferred to focus on whether they can identify any discriminatory aspects of a measure. However, they will increasingly be called to pronounce on non-discriminatory regulatory policy choices of Members.
Originality/value
– This paper contributes to the literature on the Appellate Body, and argues that Members will need to develop a credible and consistent balance between policy space and trade restrictiveness.</abstract><cop>Bingley</cop><pub>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</pub><doi>10.1108/JITLP-11-2015-0041</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1477-0024 |
ispartof | Journal of international trade law & policy, 2015-09, Vol.14 (3), p.157-162 |
issn | 1477-0024 2045-4376 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1108_JITLP_11_2015_0041 |
source | Social Science Premium Collection; ABI/INFORM Global; Politics Collection; Emerald:Jisc Collections:Emerald Subject Collections HE and FE 2024-2026:Emerald Premier (reading list); PAIS Index; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Agreements Conflict resolution Cooperation Developing countries Discrimination Disputes GATT International business International business law International trade LDCs Markets Regulation Strategy Tariffs Trade barriers Trade policy |
title | Regulatory convergence and dispute settlement in the WTO |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T01%3A32%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Regulatory%20convergence%20and%20dispute%20settlement%20in%20the%20WTO&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20international%20trade%20law%20&%20policy&rft.au=Meagher,%20Niall&rft.date=2015-09-21&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=157&rft.epage=162&rft.pages=157-162&rft.issn=1477-0024&rft.eissn=2045-4376&rft_id=info:doi/10.1108/JITLP-11-2015-0041&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2138052408%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c299t-dcd482ba005d39a5ad1e295057e312fa6f5de3344d603d907afcd51813009cf73%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2138052408&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |