IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v6y2007i2p42-47.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trade Policy Reform Through Litigation La voie judiciaire pour réformer les politiques commerciales Reform der Handelspolitik durch Rechtsstreitigkeiten

Author

Listed:
  • Joseph A. McMahon

Abstract

Trade Policy Reform Through Litigation The uncertain nature of the Doha negotiations gives rise to the possibility that Members may seek to achieve reforms through litigation rather than negotiations. This article examines two areas of the Common Agricultural Policy that may be the subject of litigation. The first of these areas is the Single Farm Payment (SFP). It is suggested that the SFP may not be fully consistent with the provisions of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture (the Green Box). Although the Appellate Body decision in US ‐ Upland Cotton addressed some of the questions on the interpretation of paragraph 6 of Annex 2, it chose not to address the fundamental requirement for all Green Box policies contained in the introductory paragraph. The second area is export subsidies for processed agricultural products and here the issue is the continuing relevance of Article XVI: 4 of the GATT Whilst a dispute may be the best way forward to determine this particular issue, it is not the best way forward with respect to the Green Box. As this Box is likely to become the primary repository of agricultural support measures, negotiation not litigation offers the best way forward. Les incertitudes liées aux négociations de Doha conduisent à penser que certains membres de l'OMC pourraient essayer d'obtenir satisfaction par la voie judiciaire plutôt que par les négociations. Cet article examine deux domaines de la politique agricole commune qui pourraient faire l'objet d'une telle approche. Le premier est le droit à paiement unique (DPU). Il se pourrait que les DPU ne soient pas complètement en conformité avec les dispositions de l'annexe 2 de l'accord agricole (qui défi nit la boite verte). Même si dans le cas du coton américain, l'organe de règlement des différents a pu donner son interprétation du paragraphe 6 de l'annexe 2, il s'est refuséà examiner l'exigence fondamentale pour toutes les politiques classées dans la boite verte, telle qu'elle est contenue dans le paragraphe introductif Le second domaine concerne les subventions à l'exportation pour les produits agricoles transformés. Ici, le problème est celui de la pertinence de l'article 16‐4 du GATT. Cependant, si la voie judiciaire peut être la meilleure solution dans ce cas particulier, elle n'est sans doute pas la meilleure façon de régler le problème de la boite verte, qui tend à devenir le dépositaire de toutes les mesures de soutien à l'agriculture. Dans ce cas, la négociation est sans doute une meilleure option que la voie judiciaire. Der unsichere Charakter der Doha‐Verhandlungen eröffnet den Mitgliedern die Möglichkeit, Reformen nicht mit Hilfe von Verhandlungen, sondern mittels Gerichtsverfahren durchzusetzen. In diesem Beitrag werden zwei Bereiche der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik untersucht, die zum Zankapfel werden könnten. Beim ersten dieser Bereiche handelt es sich um die Einheitliche Betriebsprämie (Single Far Payment, SFP). Es wird darauf hingewiesen, dass die Einheitliche Betriebsprämie womöglich nicht vollkommen konform geht mit den Bestimmungen in Anhang II des Abkommens über Landwirtschaft (Agreement on Agriculture, AoA) (Green Box). Obwohl die Entscheidung der Rechtsmittelinstanz der WTO (Appellate Body) bezüglich der US‐Subventionen für Upland‐Baumwolle einige Fragen zur Interpretation von Paragraf 6 in Anhang II behandelt hat, kam die grundlegende Voraussetzung aus der Einleitung zur Einordnung von Politikmaßnahmen in die Green Box nicht zur Sprache. Bei dem zweiten Bereich handelt es sich um Exportsubventionen für verarbeitete landwirtschaftliche Erzeugnisse, und die Frage hier lautet, ob Artikel XVI:4 GATT immer noch Bedeutung zukommt. Ein Rechtsstreit kann diese Frage wohl am besten klären, ist jedoch im Hinblick auf die Weiterentwicklung der Green Box nicht empfehlenswert. Da wahrscheinlich die meisten Politikmaßnahmen zur Agrarstützung in die Green Box fallen werden, sind Verhandlungen Gerichtsverfahren vorzuziehen.

Suggested Citation

  • Joseph A. McMahon, 2007. "Trade Policy Reform Through Litigation La voie judiciaire pour réformer les politiques commerciales Reform der Handelspolitik durch Rechtsstreitigkeiten," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 6(2), pages 42-47, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:6:y:2007:i:2:p:42-47
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1746-692X.2007.00063.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-692X.2007.00063.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1746-692X.2007.00063.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benitah, Marc, 2005. "U.S. Agricultural Export Credits after the WTO Cotton Ruling: The Law of Unintended Consequences," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 6(2), pages 1-8.
    2. Swinbank, Alan & Tranter, Richard B., 2005. "Decoupling EU Farm Support: Does the New Single Payment Scheme Fit within the Green Box?," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 6(1), pages 1-15.
    3. Richard H. Steinberg & Timothy E. Josling, 2003. "When the Peace Ends: The Vulnerability of EC and US Agricultural Subsidies to WTO Legal Challenge," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 369-417, June.
    4. Swinbank, Alan, 2006. "The EU’s Export Refunds on Processed Foods: Legitimate in the WTO?," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 7(2), pages 1-16.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alan Swinbank, 2008. "Potential WTO Challenges to the CAP†," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(4), pages 445-456, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alan Swinbank, 2008. "Potential WTO Challenges to the CAP†," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(4), pages 445-456, December.
    2. Anania, Giovanni, 2007. "Multilateral Negotiations, Preferential Trade Agreements and the CAP. What's Ahead?," Working Papers 7283, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    3. Giovanni Anania, 2007. "Multilateral trade negotiations, preferential trade agreements and European Union’s agricultural policies," QA - Rivista dell'Associazione Rossi-Doria, Associazione Rossi Doria, issue 3, July.
    4. Jales, Mário, 2010. "How Would A Trade Deal On Cotton Affect Exporting And Importing Countries?," WTO Doha Round 320115, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD).
    5. Paggi, Mechel S., 2003. "Trade Policy Developments Affecting Cotton," Agricultural Outlook Forum 2003 33214, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Outlook Forum.
    6. Robert Grosse & Jonas Gamso & Roy C. Nelson, 2021. "China’s Rise, World Order, and the Implications for International Business," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 61(1), pages 1-26, March.
    7. Thia Hennessy & Shailesh Shrestha & Stephen Hynes, 2006. "The Effect of Decoupling on Farming in Ireland: A Regional Analysis," Working Papers 0611, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    8. Howley, Peter & Breen, James P. & Donoghue, Cathal O. & Hennessy, Thia, 2012. "Does the single farm payment affect farmers’ behaviour? A macro and micro analysis," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 2(1), pages 1-8, October.
    9. Kogler, Klaus & Saunders, Caroline M., 2006. "Single Farm Payment in the European Union and its Implications on New Zealand Dairy and Beef Trade," 2006 Conference, August 24-25, 2006, Nelson, New Zealand 31953, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    10. Pierre Boulanger & Kirsten Boysen-Urban & George Philippidis, 2021. "European Union Agricultural Support ‘Coupling’ in Simulation Modelling: Measuring the Sustainability Impacts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-17, March.
    11. Swinbank, Alan, 2011. "Fruit and Vegetables, and the Role They Have Played in Determining the EU’s Aggregate Measurement of Support," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 12(2), pages 1-15, September.
    12. Peter Howley & Trevor Donnellan & Kevin Hanrahan, 2009. "The 2003 CAP reform: Do decoupled payments affect agricultural production?," Working Papers 0901, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    13. Frederic Courleux & Herve Guyomard & Fabrice Levert, 2007. "Étude prospective sur le fonctionnement des marchés des droits au paiement et de la réserve nationale mis en place dans le cadre de la réforme de la PAC de juin 2003," Working Papers hal-01595356, HAL.
    14. Rude, James & Meilke, Karl D., 2005. "Implications of the July 2004 WTO Framework Agreement for Canadian Agriculture," Trade Policy Briefs 24150, Canadian Agricultural Trade Policy Research Network.
    15. repec:dau:papers:123456789/1735 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Happe, Kathrin & Balmann, Alfons & Kellermann, Konrad & Sahrbacher, Christoph, 2008. "Does structure matter? The impact of switching the agricultural policy regime on farm structures," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 431-444, August.
    17. Sumner, Daniel A. & Barichello, Richard R. & Paggi, Mechel S., 2004. "Economic Analysis In Disputes Over Trade Remedy And Related Measures In Agriculture, With Examples From Recent Cases," Working Papers 15845, University of British Columbia, Food and Resource Economics.
    18. Tim Josling & Dale E. Hathaway, 2004. "This Far and No Farther? Nudging Agricultural Reform Forward," Policy Briefs PB04-01, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
    19. Embaye, Weldensie T. & Bergtold, Jason S., 2017. "Effect of Crop Insurance Subsidy on Total Farm Productivity of Kansas Farms, US," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258107, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Matthews, Alan & Salvatici, Luca & Scoppola, Margherita, 2017. "Trade Impacts of Agricultural Support in the EU," Commissioned Papers 252767, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    21. Mittenzwei, Klaus & Britz, Wolfgang & Wieck, Christine, 2014. "Does the “green box” of the European Union distort global markets?," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 3(1), pages 1-20, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:6:y:2007:i:2:p:42-47. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.