WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.
Currently browsing entries tagged ‘WTO’
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…
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…
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…
International Competition Regime: New Game. New Rules?
In a recent judgment given by the Australian Federal Court, Singapore Airlines Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ([2009] FCAFC 136 (2 October 2009)), once again the tension between increasingly globalised commercial practices on the one hand and domestic antitrust laws on the other is becoming evident. The Australian Court was required to decide whether the alleged unlawful price fixing which took place in the international markets – outside of the physical boundaries of Australia – violated Australian antitrust laws, and if so, whether the parties could be prosecuted by Australian authorities.
The Australian Court decided that international anti-competitive activity which takes place wholly outside of Australia may still influence the Australian market, and thus Australian law may possibly apply. It should be noted that this approach is by no means unique or new, as other domestic antitrust authorities are empowered by law to prosecute international anti-competitive activity.[1] But when examining the above-mentioned tension between the two conflicting forces, domestic regulation and an international problem, a more complex picture is revealed.
On the one hand, it is true that due to the lack of an international governing body or antitrust prosecution authority, the Australian authorities do not have much choice but to try and regulate international anti-competitive activity which affects Australian markets. On the other hand, such an approach is not without consequences. Leaving the prosecution of international anti-competitive conduct to local antitrust…
