Regional trade agreements, neither building blocks nor stumbling blocks: dismantling a tired dichotomy

The proliferation of regional trade agreements (RTAs) has continued unabated since the early 1990s.[1] In December 2008, the World Trade Organization (WTO) had been notified of 421 RTAs.[2] “There is a serious and long-lived tension between seeking freer trade in a non-discriminatory manner through the [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade] 1994 and the other WTO Agreements, and by way of regional trade agreements,” observes Professor John H. Jackson.[3]

In the eyes of many, regionalism and multilateralism stand stubbornly pitted against one another, despite implicit recognition of the “desirability” of RTAs in Art. XXIV:4 of the 1947 version of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).[4]

Since the establishment of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA) in 1996, the WTO has scrambled to find ways to effectively control the impact of RTAs. This futile mission to tighten RTA regulation has been driven by a persistent fear of trade diversion, as well as by the assumption that regionalism—and the agreements springing from it—is subordinate to the multilateral regime.

WTO regulation of RTAs has evolved since 1947, notably with the introduction of the 1994 Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 and the creation of the Transparency Mechanism for RTAs in 2006. These regulations remain however, narrow and ambiguous. Article XXIV thus continues its long history of being systematically flouted by member states with the WTO as little more than “an innocent bystander” to the…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Fear and Loathing of E-Vegas

There’s no such thing as problem gambling. I should know – during the Winter Olympics alone I won over $7,000 by gambling, and that’s not even including my wagers on Olympic sports. Of course I spent $22,000, but you have to understand that winning comes in cycles, and I think I’m heading back into a hot streak now. It’s complicated – the point is people who enjoy gambling have things under control.

Why, therefore, do we need laws regulating or banning gambling? The fact that problem gambling is a myth takes care of a Hartian positivist/utilitarian justification. This leaves only Fuller and his “natural law”, which in this case amounts to antiquated Victorian morality. With such a foundation, I’d bet that today’s gambling laws are little different in substance from those of a hundred years ago.[1]

Such questions are all the more relevant today because of the rise of online gambling. Anyone who has watched movies on Megavideo knows that there are two rules: 1) there’s a 72-minute limit, and 2) popup ads for a certain gambling website – let’s call it “MartyMoker.com” – are ubiquitous. But are these kinds of betting sites legal? The truth is that in Canada today the answer is not entirely clear.

The situation is complex because online gambling by its nature involves cross-border transactions. It is clear that running an unregulated online casino from within Canadian territory…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Power, Politics, and the Adoption of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS)

Intellectual Property Watch (IP Watch) recently reported that discussions of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO) Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) broke down due to disagreement between developed and developing countries.[i] This is but a current example of the ongoing conflict between developed and developing countries over international patent law. The recent origins of this conflict stem from adoption of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1994. Under TRIPs, the approximately 150 member states of the WTO committed to adopt, inter alia, global minimum standards for intellectual property (IP) laws.

TRIPS has been controversial from the start. Developing countries and advocates for the ‘intellectual commons’ are of the view that TRIPS jeopardizes developing country access to knowledge and essential medicines that are critical to their well-being and growth.[ii] In contrast, some developed countries, in particular the US, are of the view that TRIPS did not go far or fast enough in establishing a global IP regime: the US is pushing developing countries to accept standards that go further than TRIPS in the bilateral and regional free trade agreements that have flourished as WTO negotiations have stalled.[iii]

The developing countries have legitimate concerns. They are net technology importers and must thus establish and maintain IP systems which will be of little benefit to them in the short term, while reducing their…

Continue reading this entry ➔

The ideological battle between Google and the People’s Republic of China

Two weeks ago, Google publicly opposed the Chinese government by declaring that it would no longer censor its online services in China. It made this announcement shortly after a cyber-attack targeted the Google email accounts of Chinese dissidents, an attack which reports suggest may have originated from the Chinese government. Google went so far as to threaten to leave China if the government does not relax its internet censorship laws, sparking an angry response.

This latest crisis in Sino-Google relations has taken on international significance beyond just the opening of another front in the ongoing trade disputes between China and the United States, and it represents more than just the latest development in the long-lasting ideological clash between the Chinese government and western internet service providers Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft. And while this isn’t the first time an American corporation has sought to impose its will on a foreign government, this may be the first such standoff that has an ideological or public international law dimension to it. Among other things, it prompted US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to declare last week that the United States intends to advance “internet freedom” at the United Nations.

One interesting question that comes out of this is whether corporations of Google’s stature will be able to shape the policies of state actors in much the same manner as they can those of industry players. For…

Continue reading this entry ➔

A Primer to Economic Regional Integration in Africa

“Africa could rightly be described as the major theatre of contemporary cases of shared sovereignty.”[1]

It is the hope of many African leaders that greater cohesion in African trade will lead to more firm patterns of national development. Formalizing the international trade sector within Africa could lead to greater national tax revenues, a freer exchange of ideas, labour and technology across borders, the stabilization of regional agricultural and natural resource markets, and greater cooperation over shared infrastructure projects such as the creation of highways, waterways development, and even the deployment of green technology such as wind energy projects.[2]

While more flamboyant African leaders such as Muammar Gaddafi stress the need for pan-African unity (Gaddafi even calling for a United States of Africa), smaller regional unification bodies are already active. Most Westerners might be surprised that much of West Africa, the nations of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), already has a unified currency between fifteen nations. Since its creation by treaty in 1993, ECOWAS trade commissioners from a diverse array of fields attempt to integrate trans-national policies on social affairs, water resources, energy, and security matters. Just as NATO intervenes in foreign conflicts, when civil unrest unfolds in member states, such as recently in Guinea, ECOWAS applies strong diplomatic and military pressure to uphold the rule of law.

The East African Community (EAC) was first launched in 1967, but was then…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Bill C-300 – A National Law with International Ramifications

Scarborough-Guildwood Liberal MP John McKay has introduced a private members bill to Parliament that has been stirring up controversy in the global mining and natural resource sector. Bill C-300 asks mining companies that seek financing from Canadian markets to disclose to Export Development Canada (EDC) a wide array of information having to do with their human rights practices, labour standards, and environmental policies. If they fail to meet this requirement, or if their standards do not conform with pre-established norms, these companies will not be eligible to receive public pension plan investment dollars and other public monies from EDC. Perhaps this does not sound like a major deal, but 85% of international extractive projects seek financing at the Vancouver and Toronto stock exchanges. This is a case where a domestic law could have a very international reach.

McKay has brought the bill forward in the hopes that it will alter what he sees as an inexcusable state of affairs concerning the global mining industry’s effects on the populations of developing nations.[1] Detractors of the bill note that the extractive sector of Canada has already enacted very stringent Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) guidelines after the National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility of 2006. For them, more regulation simply re-invents the wheel.[2]

Bill C-300 takes both a ‘reflexive’ and ‘de-centred’ approach to international law. David Doorey describes the role of reflexive law:

“The theory is that a state can influence…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Last Week in International Law

1. Prosecutor v. Karadzic

On November 5, the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia postponed the trial against former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic until March 2010. Karadzic ended his boycott of the proceedings earlier this week, saying it would be “criminal” if he had “to enter a trial for which I am not prepared.”

As discussed last week, Karadzic’s boycott of the trial led judges to begin hearing the prosecution’s case and warning Karadzic to appear in court or risk being tried in absentia.  Besides postponing the trial, the tribunal has also appointed a lawyer to represent Karadzic.

Karadzic has vowed to resist the imposition of counsel.  He has seven days to apply for permission to appeal the ruling, and another seven days thereafter to file an appeal.

2. Lisbon Treaty

The Lisbon Treaty was officially ratified by the last European Union member state, the Czech Republic, on 3 November 2009. It is expected to officially become law in December.

The treaty is an attempt to make the EU more cohesive and influential on the worldwide stage, though some critics have seen it as a threat to national sovereignty. The treaty grants new powers to the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice.  Legislation will now be decided by “co-decision” by the parliament and the European Council.  A major change regards the president of the Council.  Currently, countries take turns at being president for six…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Stepping Back from Trade Protectionism: the Time is Right

International trade law is often considered one of the more successful areas of international law since it benefits from robust enforcement and dispute mechanisms. However, international trade law faces its own challenges, and a new one may be imminent: the elimination of protectionist sentiment and measures that governments around the world have adopted in response to the global financial crisis. Governments, particularly the G20[1], have acknowledged the issue of rising protectionism.[2] However, in light of several reports examining the measures adopted by G20 governments, the G20 leaders’ commitments following their most recent meeting in September demonstrate that they are not moving fast enough, or far enough, to reign in protectionist tendencies.

As we are all well aware, the international credit crisis, which came to the fore in 2008, resulted in the collapse or near-collapse of financial institutions and sources of credit for businesses around the world – causing trade levels, investment and global output to plummet, and thousands of jobs to disappear. In the fall of 2008, there were fears that a depression similar in intensity to the Great Depression of the 1930s was looming. In response, many states announced significant injections of capital into troubled financial institutions and industrial sectors to avoid their collapse, and to facilitate access to credit by industry. They also adopted measures to stimulate domestic demand.

Global leaders, particularly those representing the G20 group of countries, also moved to…

Continue reading this entry ➔