TY - JOUR
T1 - Looking beyond the Doha negotiations
T2 - A possible reform of the WTO agricultural subsidies rules
AU - Kim, Minju
AU - Lee, Hyo Young
N1 - Funding Information:
In conclusion, the dual track approach has deepened the legal asymmetry in the GATT/WTO subsidies regime. The two subsidies agreements are stipulating discrepant objectives in their respective preambles, and the AA which was detached from the SCM Agreement during the UR negotiations embodies policy measures that are inconsistent with its regulatory origin. This inconsistency is supported by the AA’s regulatory design of the qualified allowance of export subsidies as well as special safeguards on agricultural products. Furthermore, the drafters of the AA created an unprecedented policy measure within the AA—domestic support and the Peace Clause—and remained passive in designing a policy measure in harmony with the existing SCM Agreement—import substitution subsidy on agricultural products. The two agreements consequently contain irreconcilable structures despite their commonality as rules on subsidies with different regulatory mechanisms.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 National Taiwan University (IEEB). All rights reserved.
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - The World Trade Organization (WTO) has treated agricultural subsidies as exceptional. This paper delves into the historical origin of the agricultural subsidies rules of the GATT/WTO. During the era of the GATT 1947, agricultural subsidies were subject to rules for general subsidies with a few exceptions. Under the Uruguay Round Agreement (UR Agreement), subsidies in general were regulated under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement), while agricultural subsidies were separately regulated under the Agreement on Agriculture (AA). Institutionalization of the dual track approach under the UR Agreement enabled various policy measures to be developed inconsistently within the twofold regulatory framework. The special status of agricultural products stands out even more in the Peace Clause (Article 13 of the AA), yet its detailed relationship to the SCM Agreement is unanswered in the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. This paper suggests that convergence of the SCM Agreement and the Agreement on Agriculture is eventually required for resolving the structural inconsistency in the GATT/WTO subsidies regime.
AB - The World Trade Organization (WTO) has treated agricultural subsidies as exceptional. This paper delves into the historical origin of the agricultural subsidies rules of the GATT/WTO. During the era of the GATT 1947, agricultural subsidies were subject to rules for general subsidies with a few exceptions. Under the Uruguay Round Agreement (UR Agreement), subsidies in general were regulated under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement), while agricultural subsidies were separately regulated under the Agreement on Agriculture (AA). Institutionalization of the dual track approach under the UR Agreement enabled various policy measures to be developed inconsistently within the twofold regulatory framework. The special status of agricultural products stands out even more in the Peace Clause (Article 13 of the AA), yet its detailed relationship to the SCM Agreement is unanswered in the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. This paper suggests that convergence of the SCM Agreement and the Agreement on Agriculture is eventually required for resolving the structural inconsistency in the GATT/WTO subsidies regime.
KW - Agreement on agriculture
KW - Agreement on subsidies
KW - Agricultural subsidies
KW - Countervailing measures
KW - GATT/WTO
KW - Institutional convergence
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047517540&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85047517540&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85047517540
SN - 1819-5164
VL - 12
SP - 171
EP - 200
JO - Asian Journal of WTO and International Health Law and Policy
JF - Asian Journal of WTO and International Health Law and Policy
IS - 1
ER -