IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jieclw/v9y2006i1p149-195.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

King Cotton, Developing Countries and the 'Peace Clause': The WTO's US Cotton Subsidies Decision

Author

Listed:
  • Karen Halverson Cross

Abstract

Although the World Trade Organization (WTO) is a powerful vehicle for promoting economic development, the Uruguay Round has been perceived by developing country WTO members as an unequal bargain. Especially with respect to agriculture, the Uruguay Round yielded only limited concessions. In September 2003, Doha Round efforts stalled at Cancún when developing countries coalesced to oppose a proposal that insufficiently liberalized trade in agriculture. In March 2005, the Dispute Settlement Body adopted a panel decision upholding Brazil's legal challenge of US subsidies to cotton producers. The US Cotton Subsidies decision represents a dramatic victory for Brazil and other developing country WTO members. The timing of the decision, coinciding with ongoing Doha Round agriculture negotiations, ensures that it will influence any outcome of the Round. This article examines the US Cotton Subsidies decision, describes the subsidy programs at issue in the dispute, reviews applicable WTO rules, and outlines the major findings of the panel and Appellate Body. The article concludes that Brazil's victory in US Cotton Subsidies may represent a broader shift within the WTO away from a system dominated by the US and EC toward a system that increasingly is influenced by emerging market economies. Copyright 2006, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Karen Halverson Cross, 2006. "King Cotton, Developing Countries and the 'Peace Clause': The WTO's US Cotton Subsidies Decision," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 149-195, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jieclw:v:9:y:2006:i:1:p:149-195
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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:oup:jieclw:v:9:y:2006:i:1:p:149-195. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jiel .

    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.