|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Nov26/01) WTO:
US again thwarts Appellate Body appointments, defying 130 members Geneva, 29 Oct (D. Ravi Kanth) -- For the 101st time, the United States on 27 October blocked a request from 130 members to expeditiously fill all seven vacancies on the World Trade Organization (WTO)'s dysfunctional Appellate Body. This ensures that the enforcement function of the global trade body remains paralyzed due to the seemingly intransigent position adopted by one member, said people familiar with the development. At a regular Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) meeting on 27 October, the US appeared to cling to its position that it does not support the proposed decision tabled by the 130 members, reiterating for the 101st time its main concerns with the WTO dispute settlement system and stating that the joint proposal does not address them. On behalf of the 130 countries, Colombia cited document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.26, dated 6 September 2023, informing the meeting that the joint proposal calls on the DSB to launch the selection processes to fill all the vacancies on the Appellate Body, said people familiar with the discussions. The 130 co-sponsors of the joint proposal include Afghanistan; Angola; Antigua and Barbuda; Argentina; Australia; Bangladesh; Benin; Bolivia; Botswana; Brazil; Brunei Darussalam; Burkina Faso; Burundi; Cabo Verde; Cambodia; Cameroon; Canada; Central African Republic; Chad; Chile; China; Colombia; Congo; Costa Rica; Cote D'Ivoire; Cuba; Democratic Republic of Congo; Djibouti; Dominica; Dominican Republic; Ecuador; Egypt; El Salvador; Eswatini; The European Union; Gabon; The Gambia; Ghana; Guatemala; Guinea; Guinea- Bissau; Honduras; Hong Kong, China; Iceland; India; Indonesia; Israel; Kazakhstan; Kenya; Republic of Korea; Lao People's Democratic Republic; Lesotho; Liechtenstein; Madagascar; Malawi; Malaysia; Maldives; Mali; Mauritania; Mauritius; Mexico; Republic of Moldova; Morocco; Mozambique; Myanmar; Namibia; Nepal; New Zealand; Nicaragua; Niger; Nigeria; North Macedonia; Norway; Pakistan; Panama; Paraguay; Peru; The Philippines; Qatar; Russian Federation; Rwanda; Saint Kitts and Nevis; Saint Lucia; Senegal; Seychelles; Sierra Leone; Singapore; South Africa; Switzerland; Chinese Taipei; Tanzania; Thailand; Togo; Tunisia; Turkiye; Uganda; Ukraine; United Kingdom; Uruguay; Venezuela; Viet Nam; Zambia; and Zimbabwe. Colombia stated that the "agenda item and the extensive number of Members submitting the joint proposal reflect a common interest in the functioning of the Appellate Body and, more generally, in the functioning of the dispute settlement system." According to Colombia, the joint proposal pressed for: (1) starting seven selection processes to respectively choose the Appellate Body members; (2) establishing a Selection Committee; (3) setting a deadline of 30 days for the submission of candidacies; and (4) requesting that the Selection Committee issue its recommendations within 60 days after the deadline for nominations of candidates. The continued blocking of the joint proposal by the US signals that Washington will never allow the restoration of the two-tier dispute settlement system, with the Appellate Body serving as the final arm for resolving global trade disputes, said people familiar with the development. In fact, the continued US blocking of the joint proposal to expeditiously fill the seven vacancies on the Appellate Body also suggests that there is little or no moral or material basis for pursuing WTO reforms across the four tracks when members cannot even restore the Appellate Body due to opposition from one major country, said a trade envoy who asked not to be quoted. Following the US rejection of the call from the 130 countries, Colombia is understood to have made a second intervention, regretting that, for the umpteenth time, members have not been able to launch the selection processes to fill the Appellate Body vacancies, said people familiar with the discussions. It observed that members continue to fail in fulfilling their duties, pointing out that Article 17.2 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) clearly states, "vacancies shall be filled as they arise". Colombia stated that ongoing discussions about reforming the dispute settlement system should not prevent the Appellate Body from continuing to operate fully, adding that members must comply with their obligations under the DSU to fill vacancies as they arise, said people familiar with the discussions. Colombia expressed deep concern that by failing to launch the selection processes, the Appellate Body will continue to be unable to perform its functions, which is against the best interests of all WTO Members, said people familiar with the discussions. Despite sustained efforts by a former chair of the WTO's General Council, Ambassador David Walker of New Zealand, to address the US concerns, no such effort appears to be expended by the current chair, Ambassador Clare Kelly of New Zealand, said a former chair of the General Council who preferred not to be quoted. It is also somewhat inexplicable why the General Council chair has not included dispute settlement reform under her purview, as she did with WTO reform in the four tracks - foundational issues, decision-making, development, and "level playing field" issues, the former trade envoy said. CHINESE TAIPEI-INDIA DISPUTE Meanwhile, the DSB agreed to the requests made by Chinese Taipei and India for additional time to consider the adoption of the panel report circulated on 17 April 2023. The two parties are embroiled in a trade dispute (DS588) launched by Chinese Taipei against India's tariff treatment on certain high-tech goods. Chinese Taipei challenged the tariff treatment that India accorded to certain information and communications technology (ICT) products falling under the following tariff items of India's WTO Schedule: 8517.12; 8517.61; 8517.62; 8517.70 ex01, ex02, and ex03; and 8518.30 ex01. Chinese Taipei claimed that these measures lead, or led at the time of the Panel's establishment, to the application of ordinary customs duties in excess of those set forth in India's Schedule of Concessions, and are or were therefore inconsistent with Articles II:1(a) and (b) of the GATT 1994. According to a WTO summary of the dispute, India argued that: (i) its binding tariff commitments are set forth in the Information Technology Agreement (ITA), and those commitments are static and did not change due to their incorporation into India's WTO Schedule; (ii) pursuant to Article 48 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Vienna Convention), aspects of India's WTO Schedule are invalid as a consequence of an error on the part of India during the transposition of its Schedule from HS 2002 to HS 2007; and (iii) the errors in India's WTO Schedule are of a formal nature and were therefore capable of rectification pursuant to the 1980 Decision, such that Chinese Taipei's objection to India's proposed rectification of its Schedule is inconsistent with the requirements of the 1980 Decision. India also raised several arguments concerning the nature of the conditions attached to certain tariff treatments, as well as the tariff classification of certain products. However, the Panel rejected India's assertions that its binding tariff commitments are set forth in the ITA, and found that: (i) the ITA is not a covered agreement within the meaning of the WTO Agreement and the DSU; and (ii) the ITA is not the source of India's legal obligations in these disputes. The Panel also held that India's WTO tariff commitments are not static in nature. The two sides will have to resolve the issue. The DSB shall adopt the report of the panel no later than 27 April 2027, unless another extension request is made. In another trade dispute, the DSB concurred with the requests from China and Turkiye for additional time to consider the adoption of the panel report circulated on 28 July 2026. The dispute (DS629) was initiated by China regarding measures adopted by Turkiye concerning electric vehicles and certain other types of vehicles originating in China. The new deadline requires the DSB to adopt the panel report in the dispute no later than 24 November 2026, unless another extension request is made. INFORMAL MEETING After the regular DSB meeting, the chair overseeing the discussions on dispute settlement reform convened an informal meeting that included an item on the 25th anniversary of the Geneva-based Advisory Center on WTO Law, during which several members participated, said people familiar with the development. The chair summarized a previously held information session on the "Molina" process (named after the former Guatemalan deputy trade representative Marco Molina, who led the process in 2023-24), based on presentations by delegates who had served as co-conveners in that process. At the informal information session, presentations were made on alternative dispute resolution, featuring delegates who had been active on the issue during the informal reform discussions in the recent past, said people familiar with the discussions. According to several sources, these information exchanges sought to provide an opportunity for members to refresh their institutional memory on past work, with a view to restoring the functionality of the WTO's dispute settlement system. It appears that some members remained cautious, suggesting that the "time is not right" for undertaking actual reform work, while others emphasized that the restoration of the dispute settlement system is an essential and integral aspect of overall WTO reform, said people familiar with the discussions. +
|
||
