At the Vanishing Point of Law: Rebalancing, Non-Violation Claims, and the Role of the Multilateral Trade Regime in the Trade Wars

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 721-742
Author(s):  
Nicolas Lamp
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Security Measures ◽  
Trade Regime ◽  
Multilateral Trade ◽  
Legal Structure ◽  
Course Of Action ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Trade Retaliation ◽  
Trade Wars

ABSTRACT What role can the multilateral trade regime play in the trade wars triggered by the USA under the Trump administration? This article argues that the traditional goal of dispute settlement in the WTO—the positive resolution of disputes—has become largely unattainable in the circumstances of the trade wars, but that the regime can still play a valuable role by providing a framework for the rebalancing of obligations among the participants. Using the regime in this way would defuse tensions among the participants, would ensure that any new equilibrium that they achieve is integrated into the legal structure of the trade regime, and would provide the participants the opportunity to use the trade regime’s tools for solving disagreements at the margins, thereby lowering the risk that trade retaliation will spiral out of control. The article uses the example of non-violation claims in the context of national security measures to illustrate the potential for and benefits of re-integrating the trade wars into the multilateral trade regime. The article provides a detailed discussion of the legal justification for non-violation complaints in response to national security measures and argues that such claims provide an alternative course of action that is less confrontational than unilateral retaliation or violation claims, and faster to adjudicate than violation claims.

The Effectiveness of the World Trade Organization’s Dispute Settlement System

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Soo Yeon Kim
Keyword(s):  
World Trade ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
Trade Disputes ◽  
Trade Regime ◽  
Multilateral Trade ◽  
The World ◽  
Dispute Settlement System

The World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement system is its judicial arm and enforcement mechanism, designed to assist members in resolving trade disputes that arise between them. Its design reflects a move toward greater legalization in trade governance under the multilateral trade regime. Compared with the dispute settlement system of its predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the WTO’s dispute settlement provided a more structured and formal process with clearly defined stages and more discipline in the timetable of the dispute so as to resolve trade disputes as efficiently as possible. Most important, the WTO’s dispute settlement provides for virtually automatic adoption of panel rulings: a respondent losing a case can block the adoption only if it can persuade all members of the WTO not to do so. The legal basis for the WTO’s dispute settlement system is the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), which provides the principles and procedures by which members may bring their trade disputes to the multilateral trade regime for resolution. Overseeing the dispute settlement process is the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), which consists of all WTO members and meets regularly to receive and to adopt reports of disputes at their various stages of progress. How effective is the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism? Effectiveness can be conceptualized as success in attaining the objectives of the dispute settlement under the WTO in three areas: the efficiency of dispute settlement; inclusiveness of the dispute settlement process, especially as it concerns developing country participation; and compliance with legal obligations resulting from arbitration. The existing scholarship on this topic features key debates and frontiers for future research on firms and global production networks/value chains that have the potential to advance our state of knowledge concerning this “crown jewel” of the multilateral trade regime.

Investment Wars: Contestation and Confusion in Debate About Investment Liberalization

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 629-654 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Bonnitcha
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Technology Transfer ◽  
National Security ◽  
Investment Policy ◽  
Explanatory Framework ◽  
Investment Liberalization ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Policy Objectives ◽  
Trade Wars ◽  
Trump Administration

ABSTRACT Questions of investment governance are central to current trade wars. The USA complains of China’s use of restrictions on US investment as a lever to force technology transfer, while China complains of the review of investment in the USA on national security grounds. This article examines the place of these debates about investment liberalization within the trade wars. The focus is on US conduct, as the instigator of the trade wars. I argue that the USA is pursuing diverse and partially inconsistent in relation to investment liberalization. In some contexts, the USA is continuing to pursue the objective of removing impediments to outward investment, which was the principal objective of US investment policy for the decades prior to the Trump administration. In other contexts, the USA is seeking to encourage the repatriation of US outward investment and to regulate inward and outward investment according to ill-defined security rationales. I argue that prevailing materialist accounts of the trade wars struggle to explain these inconsistencies. Instead, I suggest that constructivist political economy provides a more promising explanatory framework. According to this view, inconsistency in policy objectives stems from foundational uncertainty about the nature of the ‘problem’ of investment liberalization.

scholarly journals Nations and Markets

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 793-815
Author(s):  
Harlan Grant Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
National Security ◽  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
Foreign Investments ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Automotive Parts ◽  
Global Welfare ◽  
Trade Wars ◽  
The Relationship

ABSTRACT Economics and security seem increasingly intertwined. Citing national security, states subject foreign investments to new scrutiny, even unwinding mergers. The provision of 5G has become a diplomatic battleground—Huawei at its center. Meanwhile, states invoke national security to excuse trade wars. The USA invoked the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade national security exception to impose steel and aluminum tariffs, threatening more on automotive parts. Russia invoked that provision to justify its blockade of Ukraine, as did Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to excuse theirs of Qatar. And with the spread of COVID-19, states are invoking national security to scrutinize supply lines. Multiplying daily, such stories have led some observers to dub the era one of geoeconomics. Nonetheless, these developments remain difficult to judge, and the relationship between economics and national security remains confused and slippery. The essay seeks clarity in the deeper logic of these labels, revealing a fundamental choice between the logics of markets and the logics of state. Whether invoked to ‘secure’ borders, privacy, health, the environment, or jobs, ‘national security’ is a claim about the proper location of policymaking. Appeals to economics, with their emphasis on global welfare and global person-to-person relationships, are such claims as well. Resolving disputes, this essay argues, requires recognizing these root choices.

Sanctions of the USA and the Policy of Bank of Russia:double Blow to the National Economy

2014 ◽  
pp. 13-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Glazyev
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Economic Sanctions ◽  
Capital Flight ◽  
Practical Advice ◽  
The Us ◽  
Monetary Authorities ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Simultaneous Adoption ◽  
The Eu

This article examines fundamental questions of monetary policy in the context of challenges to the national security of Russia in connection with the imposition of economic sanctions by the US and the EU. It is proved that the policy of the Russian monetary authorities, particularly the Central Bank, artificially limiting the money supply in the domestic market and pandering to the export of capital, compounds the effects of economic sanctions and plunges the economy into depression. The article presents practical advice on the transition from external to domestic sources of long-term credit with the simultaneous adoption of measures to prevent capital flight.

Exploring the World Trade Organisation's Trade and Environment/Public Health Jurisprudence as a Model for Incorporating a Trade–Labour Linkage into the Organisation's Multilateral Trade Regime: Should African Countries Accept a Policy Shift?

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-65
Author(s):  
Tapiwa V. Warikandwa ◽  
Patrick C. Osode
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Developing Countries ◽  
World Trade ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Trade Regime ◽  
Multilateral Trade ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
The World ◽  
Labour Standards ◽  
The Impact

The incorporation of a trade-labour (standards) linkage into the multilateral trade regime of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) has been persistently opposed by developing countries, including those in Africa, on the grounds that it has the potential to weaken their competitive advantage. For that reason, low levels of compliance with core labour standards have been viewed as acceptable by African countries. However, with the impact of WTO agreements growing increasingly broader and deeper for the weaker and vulnerable economies of developing countries, the jurisprudence developed by the WTO Panels and Appellate Body regarding a trade-environment/public health linkage has the potential to address the concerns of developing countries regarding the potential negative effects of a trade-labour linkage. This article argues that the pertinent WTO Panel and Appellate Body decisions could advance the prospects of establishing a linkage of global trade participation to labour standards without any harm befalling developing countries.

Russian Federation and the United States of America: geostrategic directions to manage the Ukrainian crisis

2019 ◽  
pp. 123
Author(s):  
Attarid Awadh Abdulhameed
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
National Security ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Ukrainian Crisis ◽  
Zero Sum

Ukrainia Remains of huge importance to Russian Strategy because of its Strategic importance. For being a privileged Postion in new Eurasia, without its existence there would be no logical resons for eastward Expansion by European Powers.  As well as in Connection with the progress of Ukrainian is no less important for the USA (VSD, NDI, CIA, or pentagon) and the European Union with all organs, and this is announced by John Kerry. There has always ben Russian Fear and Fear of any move by NATO or USA in the area that it poses a threat to  Russians national Security and its independent role and in funence  on its forces especially the Navy Forces. There for, the Crisis manyement was not Zero sum game, there are gains and offset losses, but Russia does not accept this and want a Zero Sun game because the USA. And European exteance is a Foot hold in Regin Which Russian sees as a threat to its national security and want to monopolize control in the strategic Qirim.

Mediation Effectiveness in Sharia Economic Dispute Settlement: Phenomenology in Bukittinggi Religious Court

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 78
Author(s):  
Riska Fauziah Hayati ◽  
Busyro Busyro ◽  
Bustamar Bustamar
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Legal Culture ◽  
Analysis Framework ◽  
Legal Structure ◽  
Inhibiting Factors ◽  
The Law ◽  
Mediation Effectiveness

<p dir="ltr"><span>The main problem in this paper is how the effectiveness of mediation in sharia economic dispute resolution based on PERMA No. 1 of 2016 at the Bukittinggi Religious Court, and what are the inhibiting factors success of mediation. To answer this question, the author uses an inductive and deductive analysis framework regarding the law effectiveness theory of Lawrence M. Friedman. This paper finds that mediation in sharia economic dispute resolution at the Bukittinggi Religious Court from 2016 to 2019 has not been effective. The ineffectiveness is caused by several factors that influence it: First, in terms of legal substance, PERMA No.1 of 2016 concerning Mediation Procedures in Courts still lacks in addressing the problems of the growing community. Second, in terms of legal structure, there are no judges who have mediator certificates. Third, the legal facilities and infrastructure at the Bukittinggi Religious Court have supported mediation. Fourth, in terms of legal culture, there are still many people who are not aware of the law and do not understand mediation well, so they consider mediation to be unimportant.</span> </p><p><em>Tulisan ini mengkaji tentang bagaimana efektivitas mediasi dalam penyelesaian sengketa ekonomi syariah berdasarkan PERMA Nomor 1 Tahun 2016 di Pengadilan Agama Bukittinggi dan apa saja yang menjadi faktor penghambat keberhasilan mediasi. Untuk menjawab pertanyaan tersebut, penulis menggunakan kerangka analisa induktif dan deduktif dengan mengacu pada teori efektivitas hukum Lawrence M. Friedman. </em><em>Tulisan ini menemukan bahwa m</em><em>ediasi dalam p</em><em>enyelesaian sengketa ekonomi syariah di Pengadilan Agama Bukittinggi </em><em>dari tahun 2016 sampai 2019 </em><em>belum efektif</em><em>. Hal ini karena dipengaruhi oleh beberapa faktor. </em><em> </em><em>Pertama, dari segi substansi hukum, yaitu PERMA No. 1 Tahun 2016 tentang Prosedur Mediasi di Pengadilan masih memiliki kekurangan dalam menjawab persoalan masyarakat yang terus berkembang. Kedua, dari segi struktur hukum, belum adanya hakim yang memiliki sertifikat mediator. Ketiga, sarana dan prasarana hukum di Pengadilan Agama Bukittinggi sudah mendukung mediasi. Keempat, dari segi budaya hukum, masih banyaknya masyarakat yang tidak sadar hukum dan tidak mengerti persoalan mediasi dengan baik, sehingga menganggap mediasi tidak penting.</em><em></em></p>

“Constitutionalization” and Dispute Settlement in the wto: National Security as an Issue of Competence

1999 ◽  
Vol 93 (2) ◽  
pp. 424-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannes L. Schloemann ◽  
Stefan Ohlhoff
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Uruguay Round ◽  
Significant Shift ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement System ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

The 1994 Uruguay Round revision of the dispute settlement mechanism under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade/World Trade Organization (GATT/WTO) has made it a forum both for traditional trade issues and for interests ranging from environmental protection to national security. The limits of GATT jurisdiction have become important issues of dispute settlement within the WTO, especially as the emergence of the WTO and its rule-based, quasi-obligatory dispute settlement system has spurred a significant shift toward legalism. Constitutional structures are developing much faster in international trade law than in any other area of international law and, in the aftermath of the Uruguay Round, are integrating ever more aspects of economic relations among states. Within the WTO regime the dispute settlement mechanism established by the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) plays a prominent role in enforcing its rules and reconciling a wide array of the members’ interests. The limits of the reach of the dispute settlement mechanism, given its obligatory character, are, to a certain degree, the limits of the constitutionalization of the organization as a whole.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document