Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:26:59.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries (WT/DS246/AB/R)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2015

Gene M. Grossman  and
Alan O. Sykes
Gene M. Grossman
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Alan O. Sykes
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The WTO case brought by India in 2002 to challenge aspects of the European Communities’ Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) brings fresh scrutiny to a policy area that has received little attention in recent years – trade preferences for developing countries. The idea for such preferences emerged from the first United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in 1964. The ensuing negotiations led to Resolution 21(ii) at the second session of UNCTAD in 1968, acknowledging “unanimous agreement” in favor of the establishment of preferential arrangements. Tariff discrimination violates the most-favored nation (MFN) obligation of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Art. I, however, and thus the legal authority for preferential tariff schemes had to await a GATT waiver of this obligation, which came in 1971. The waiver was to expire after 10 years, but the authority for preferences was extended by the GATT Contracting Parties Decision of November 28, 1979 on Differential and More Favorable Treatment, Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of Developing Countries, popularly known as the “Enabling Clause,” and now incorporated into the law of the WTO along with the GATT itself.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 5 , Special Issue S1: WTO Case Law of 2003 , 2006 , pp. 220 - 253
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

References

K, Bagwell. and R. W, Staiger. (1999). An Economic Theory of GATT, American Economic Review 89, 215–248.Google Scholar
K, Bagwell. and R. W, Staiger. (2002). The Economics of The World Trading System, Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
K, Bagwell. and R. W, Staiger. (2004). Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Bilateral Opportunism and the Rules of GATT, Journal of International Economics 63,1–29.Google Scholar
A, Borrmann., C, Borrmann. and M, Steger. (1981). The EC’s Generalized System of Preferences, The Hague: Martinus Nijhof Publishers.Google Scholar
D. K, Brown. (1987). General Equilibrium Effects of the US Generalized System of Preferences, Southern Economic Journal 54,27–47.Google Scholar
D. K, Brown. (1989). Trade and Welfare Effects of the European Schemes of the Generalized System of Preferences, Economic Development and Cultural Change 37, 757–776.Google Scholar
D, Dollar. (1992). Outward-Oriented Developing Economies Really Do Grow More Rapidly: Evidence from 95 LDC’s, 1976–85, Economic Development and Cultural Change 40, 523–544.Google Scholar
S, Edwards. (1993). Openness, Trade Liberalization, ad Growth in Developing Countries, Journal of Economic Literature 31, 1358–1393.Google Scholar
J. M, Finger. and L. A, Winters. (1998). What Can the WTO Do for Developing Countries? In Krueger, A.O., ed., The WTO as an International Organization, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 365–392.Google Scholar
J. A, Frankel. and D, Romer. (1999). Does Trade Cause Growth, American Economic Review 89, 379–399.Google Scholar
G. M, Grossman. and P. C, Mavroidis. (2003). United States — Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom: Here Today, Gone Tomorrow? Privatization and the Injury Caused by Non-Recurring Subsidies. In Horn, H. and Mavroidis, P.C., eds., The WTO Case Law of 2001, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 170–200.Google Scholar
J. C, Hallak. and J. A, Levinsohn. (2004). Fooling Ourselves: Evaluating the Globalization and Growth Debate, NBER Working Paper No. 10244, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
R, Howse. (2003). India’s WTO Challenge to Drug Enforcement Conditions in the European Community Generalized System of Preferences: A Little Known Case with Major Repercussions for “Political” Conditionality in US Trade Policy, Chicago Journal ofInternational Law 4, 385–405.Google Scholar
G, Karsenty. and S, Laird. (1986). The Generalized System of Preferences: A Quantitative Assessment of the Direct Trade Effects and of Policy Options, UNCTAD Discussion Paper 18, UNCTAD, Geneva.Google Scholar
A, Keck. and P, Low. (2004). Special and Differential Treatment in the WTO: Why, When and How?, WTO Staff Working Paper ERSD-2004-03.Google Scholar
N, Limão. (2005). Preferential Trade Agreements as Stumbling Blocks for Multilateral Trade Liberalization: Evidence for the US, Centre for Economic Policy Research Discussion Paper No. 4884, London UK.Google Scholar
C. R, MacPhee. and V. I, Oguledo. (1991). The Trade Effects of the US Generalized System of Preferences, Atlantic Economic Journal 19,19–26.Google Scholar
T, Murray. (1977). Trade Preferences for Developing Countries, New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
OECD Secretary General, (1983). The Generalized System of Preferences: Review of the First Decade, Paris: Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
Ç, Özden. and E, Reinhardt. (2003). The Perversity of Preferences: GSP and Developing Country Trade Policies, 1976–2000, World Bank Working Paper 2955, The World Bank.Google Scholar
Rodíguez, F. and Rodrik, D. (2001). Trade Policy and Economic Growth: A Skeptic’s Guide to Cross-National Evidence, NBER Macroeconomic Annual 15, 261–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sachs, J. D. and Warner, A. M. (1995). Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integration, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1, 1–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, A. and Lundberg, L. (1984). The US Generalized System of Preferences and its Impacts. In Baldwin, R. E. and Krueger, A. O., eds., The Structure and Evolution of Recent US Trade Policy, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 195–231.Google Scholar
Schwartz, W. F. and Sykes, A. O. (1997). The Economics of the Most Favored Nation Clause. In Bhandani, J. S. and Sykes, A. O., eds., Economic Dimensions of International Law: Comparative and Empirical Perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 34–79.Google Scholar
UNCTAD (1981). Operation and Effects ofthe Generalized System ofPreferences, Fifth Review, New York, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.Google Scholar
UNCTAD (1999). Quantifying the Benefits Obtained by Developing Countries from the Generalized System ofPreferences, New York, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.Google Scholar