Read More. Your current browser may not support copying via this button. Subscriber sign in You could not be signed in, please check and try again.
Username Please enter your Username. Password Please enter your Password. Forgot password? Don't have an account? Sign in via your Institution. You could not be signed in, please check and try again.
Sign in with your library card Please enter your library card number. Search within These include provisions relating to cinematographic films, freedom of transit, and restrictions relating to safeguarding balance of payments. More substantive provisions relate to antidumping and countervailing duties, marks of origin, subsidies and State trading.
Some of these were to gain greater prominence with the advent of the WTO. Thus, they sought preferential arrangements. Although there had been some recognition in the original GATT text of the need for economic development, the idea of preferential treatment as a means to that end was controversial. But the action contemplated is for developed States to take account of the particular products of developing countries in negotiating tariff concessions, not to deviate from MFN and provide preferential treatment for developing countries.
But it was an option to grant preferential treatment; there was no obligation to do so. Since GATT was only an interim arrangement pending the entry into force of the ITO, no provisions were made for institutions through which the arrangement would function. Each contracting party was to have one vote and decisions were to be taken by majority vote, although the practice developed of consensus decision-making.
One thing that GATT did address was how disagreements between the parties over the operation of the Agreement were to be dealt with. Article XXII provides for the parties to consult. In such circumstances, the contracting party may make written representations to the other contracting party with a view to achieving a satisfactory settlement of the matter.
Third, article XXIII provides for retaliation against a contracting party that has acted to nullify or impair benefits to another contracting party.
Article XXIII therefore includes a sanctioning system where nullification or impairment has been established. These included the agreements on sanitary and phytosanitary measures, antidumping, subsidies and countervailing measures and safeguards. One of the challenges in interpretation of the WTO multilateral trade agreements has been to articulate their precise relationship to the existing provisions in GATT. There are two other major ways in which GATT provided the basis for a new regime for international trade: first, tariff negotiations and second, dispute settlement.
It also provided that tariff negotiations could be carried on a product-by-product basis and success would depend on the participation of parties which conduct a substantial portion of their trade with each other. This, of course, recognized the centrality of MFN. What those parties agreed to would by virtue of GATT article I be provided to all contracting parties. Tariff reduction through trade negotiations was a major achievement of GATT. These negotiating rounds were dominated by the biggest economies engaged in trade — the United States, European countries, and Japan.
Later negotiating rounds began including commitments to reduce non-tariff barriers to trade. States had to agree specifically to each code and they never received acceptance by all GATT contracting parties. However, these codes laid the basis for the more comprehensive treatment of their subjects in the WTO agreements. GATT panels would receive written submissions from the parties, hold two meetings with them, deliver an interim report to the parties for comment and then deliver a final report.
An impediment to the efficient functioning of dispute settlement under GATT was the practice of decision-making by consensus. A decision to establish a panel required consensus, and a decision to endorse the recommendation of a panel also required consensus.
In each case this meant that the support of the party against which the dispute had been brought, and in the case of the recommendation of the panel report the support of the losing party, was necessary. A major change under WTO dispute settlement was the reversal of the consensus rule so there had to be a consensus against establishing a panel, and a consensus to reject the recommendation of a panel.
Retaliation through the withdrawal of concessions was never really used during GATT. In one case retaliation was authorized but in fact was never undertaken. Then select Subject as the search field and search for one of the following subject headings: Free Trade -- History General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Organization -- History International Trade -- History Uruguay Round World Trade Organization -- History For greater precision, search for a subject heading in the first line and use the remaining lines to search by title or by keyword for additional terms.
I79 H57 V36 D Z45 I These guides may be used for educational purposes, as long as proper credit is given.
0コメント