Incoterms are international trade rules established by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) to standardize practices and reduce complexities in both domestic and international trade. They define responsibilities, costs, and risks in areas such as transportation, insurance, and customs clearances between buyers and sellers through 11 terms. The Incoterms framework allows parties to adapt the rules to their agreements, thereby harmonizing trade customs. These rules play a crucial role in international goods sales contracts and the pricing of goods. To mitigate the risks associated with long-distance transportation in international trade, marine cargo insurance is frequently utilized. Incoterms CIF (‘Cost, Insurance, and Freight’) and CIP (‘Carriage and Insurance Paid To’) specify obligations related to insurance coverage and premiums between buyers and sellers. The rules have evolved, with the most recent version being Incoterms 2020. However, the revised insurance provisions in Incoterms 2020 CIP have raised unforeseen issues. This study aims to clarify these issues and propose possible solutions. Incoterms 2020, CIF, CIP, International Trade Insurance, ICC2009
{"title":"Article: Study of Marine Cargo Insurance under the Incoterms 2020 CIP Term","authors":"Jincheol Lee, Hong Seung-lin","doi":"10.54648/gtcj2024022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/gtcj2024022","url":null,"abstract":"Incoterms are international trade rules established by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) to standardize practices and reduce complexities in both domestic and international trade. They define responsibilities, costs, and risks in areas such as transportation, insurance, and customs clearances between buyers and sellers through 11 terms. The Incoterms framework allows parties to adapt the rules to their agreements, thereby harmonizing trade customs. These rules play a crucial role in international goods sales contracts and the pricing of goods. To mitigate the risks associated with long-distance transportation in international trade, marine cargo insurance is frequently utilized. Incoterms CIF (‘Cost, Insurance, and Freight’) and CIP (‘Carriage and Insurance Paid To’) specify obligations related to insurance coverage and premiums between buyers and sellers. The rules have evolved, with the most recent version being Incoterms 2020. However, the revised insurance provisions in Incoterms 2020 CIP have raised unforeseen issues. This study aims to clarify these issues and propose possible solutions.\u0000Incoterms 2020, CIF, CIP, International Trade Insurance, ICC2009","PeriodicalId":12728,"journal":{"name":"Global Trade and Customs Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140791737","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Editorial: New Trade Regulatory Barriers and a Look at the WTO- Appellate Body","authors":"João Otávio","doi":"10.54648/gtcj2024016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/gtcj2024016","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":12728,"journal":{"name":"Global Trade and Customs Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140788183","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Negotiations on electronic commerce (e-commerce) or digital trade at the World Trade Organization (WTO) have faced prolonged challenges and yielded limited results thus far. The lack of progress under the Work Programme on E-Commerce spurred like-minded WTO Members to initiate the Joint Initiative on E-Commerce (E-Commerce JI) negotiations in 2019. Currently, ninetyWTO Members are involved in the E-Commerce JI negotiations, and the participants hope to conclude an agreement by the WTO’s 13th Ministerial Conference in February 2024. The goal is to conclude the first near-multilateral digital trade agreement.While common ground has been found on some topics, disagreements persist internally and with some WTO Members that are not part of the negotiations. In contrast, there has been a proliferation of digital trade rulemaking in Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs), which underscores the global interest in regulating this domain. Yet, PTAs, being exclusionary by nature, risk marginalizing countries that are not party to these agreements. This highlights the importance of obtaining some agreement at theWTO. Balancing pragmatism and ambition is crucial to overcoming the challenges and complexities of regulating digital trade for a diverse set of economies and interests at the multilateral level. digital trade, e-commerce, electronic commerce, WTO, Joint Initiative on Electronic Commerce, JI on E-Commerce, negotiations, digital trade rulemaking, preferential trade agreements
{"title":"Article: The Joint Statement on Electronic Commerce: Are We There Yet?","authors":"Kholofelo Kugler, Dacio Castillo","doi":"10.54648/gtcj2024014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/gtcj2024014","url":null,"abstract":"Negotiations on electronic commerce (e-commerce) or digital trade at the World Trade Organization (WTO) have faced prolonged challenges and yielded limited results thus far. The lack of progress under the Work Programme on E-Commerce spurred like-minded WTO Members to initiate the Joint Initiative on E-Commerce (E-Commerce JI) negotiations in 2019. Currently, ninetyWTO Members are involved in the E-Commerce JI negotiations, and the participants hope to conclude an agreement by the WTO’s 13th Ministerial Conference in February 2024. The goal is to conclude the first near-multilateral digital trade agreement.While common ground has been found on some topics, disagreements persist internally and with some WTO Members that are not part of the negotiations. In contrast, there has been a proliferation of digital trade rulemaking in Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs), which underscores the global interest in regulating this domain. Yet, PTAs, being exclusionary by nature, risk marginalizing countries that are not party to these agreements. This highlights the importance of obtaining some agreement at theWTO. Balancing pragmatism and ambition is crucial to overcoming the challenges and complexities of regulating digital trade for a diverse set of economies and interests at the multilateral level.\u0000digital trade, e-commerce, electronic commerce, WTO, Joint Initiative on Electronic Commerce, JI on E-Commerce, negotiations, digital trade rulemaking, preferential trade agreements","PeriodicalId":12728,"journal":{"name":"Global Trade and Customs Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140785270","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Based on anti-dumping (AD) and anti-subsidy (AS) rules within the World Trade Organization (WTO), WTO members are fully entitled to take action unilaterally when ‘unfair’ imports (dumped or subsidized) cause injury to the domestic producers. In the European Union (EU), the imposition of AD and countervailing duties are based on Regulation 2016/1036 and Regulation 2016/1037, respectively, which mirror the WTO standards. The cumulative conditions for the imposition of AD or AS measures under the WTO rules are similar: 1) the existence of dumping or, respectively subsidization; (2) material injury; and (3) the nexus between dumped/subsidized imports and the damage inflicted to the domestic industry. The threat of injury claim forms the basis of a preventive mechanism that prompts the national investigating authorities to preemptively act before actual material injury is inflicted on the domestic industry. While the logic behind is that corrective measures shall be imposed before the damage is inflicted to the domestic industry, such ex-ante injury analysis remains complex and prone to errors. These errors, which are more susceptible to occur in a prospective analysis than in a ‘classic’ actual material injury one, may impact not only the exporting producers in the main AD/AS procedures, but also the rights of importers to subsequently challenge the validity of the protective measures via national courts, if they have locus standi. The author aims at examining the impact that the annulment of AD and AS measures based on a threat of injury claim may have on the national customs cases, in particular as regards the recovery of the duties paid by the EU importers. WTO, anti-dumping investigation, anti-subsidy investigation, countervailing measures, material injury, threat of injury, customs proceedings, recovery of duties, locus standi
{"title":"Article: Annulment of Anti-dumping/Anti-subsidy Measures Imposed in Threat of Injury Investigations: Impact on Customs Cases in the European Union","authors":"F. Dascalescu","doi":"10.54648/gtcj2024021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/gtcj2024021","url":null,"abstract":"Based on anti-dumping (AD) and anti-subsidy (AS) rules within the World Trade Organization (WTO), WTO members are fully entitled to take action unilaterally when ‘unfair’ imports (dumped or subsidized) cause injury to the domestic producers. In the European Union (EU), the imposition of AD and countervailing duties are based on Regulation 2016/1036 and Regulation 2016/1037, respectively, which mirror the WTO standards. The cumulative conditions for the imposition of AD or AS measures under the WTO rules are similar: 1) the existence of dumping or, respectively subsidization; (2) material injury; and (3) the nexus between dumped/subsidized imports and the damage inflicted to the domestic industry. The threat of injury claim forms the basis of a preventive mechanism that prompts the national investigating authorities to preemptively act before actual material injury is inflicted on the domestic industry. While the logic behind is that corrective measures shall be imposed before the damage is inflicted to the domestic industry, such ex-ante injury analysis remains complex and prone to errors. These errors, which are more susceptible to occur in a prospective analysis than in a ‘classic’ actual material injury one, may impact not only the exporting producers in the main AD/AS procedures, but also the rights of importers to subsequently challenge the validity of the protective measures via national courts, if they have locus standi. The author aims at examining the impact that the annulment of AD and AS measures based on a threat of injury claim may have on the national customs cases, in particular as regards the recovery of the duties paid by the EU importers.\u0000WTO, anti-dumping investigation, anti-subsidy investigation, countervailing measures, material injury, threat of injury, customs proceedings, recovery of duties, locus standi","PeriodicalId":12728,"journal":{"name":"Global Trade and Customs Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140763586","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) has introduced a legal regime of antidumping measures (ADMs) since 2004 and amended in 2010 to shield GCC industries from harm caused by dumped imports. Gulf countries also use various protection measures permissible under the WTO agreements which have enhanced the implementation of the Unified Strategy of Industrial Development for the GCC Member States. These measures aim to mitigate unfair trade practices and defend the domestic industries of GCC members against the adverse effects of dumped imported goods. This article critically examines the ADM regime to see whether (a) it can achieve its intended economic objectives; and (b) its legal framework is aligned with the antidumping regime of the WTO. The article highlights the potential influence of these measures on trade relations between the GCC and its trading partners, and the consequences for the Gulf local industry and consumers. International trade, Gulf Cooperation Council, antidumping measures, WTO, GCC antidumping law
{"title":"Article: The Antidumping Regime of the Gulf Cooperation Council: A Critical Appraisal","authors":"M. R. Islam, Mohammad Alhihi","doi":"10.54648/gtcj2024019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/gtcj2024019","url":null,"abstract":"The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) has introduced a legal regime of antidumping measures (ADMs) since 2004 and amended in 2010 to shield GCC industries from harm caused by dumped imports. Gulf countries also use various protection measures permissible under the WTO agreements which have enhanced the implementation of the Unified Strategy of Industrial Development for the GCC Member States. These measures aim to mitigate unfair trade practices and defend the domestic industries of GCC members against the adverse effects of dumped imported goods. This article critically examines the ADM regime to see whether (a) it can achieve its intended economic objectives; and (b) its legal framework is aligned with the antidumping regime of the WTO. The article highlights the potential influence of these measures on trade relations between the GCC and its trading partners, and the consequences for the Gulf local industry and consumers.\u0000International trade, Gulf Cooperation Council, antidumping measures, WTO, GCC antidumping law","PeriodicalId":12728,"journal":{"name":"Global Trade and Customs Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140763673","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study investigates the enhancement of firm resilience through participation in cross-border security certification. We examine three certificationrelated aspects, namely the motivations for participating, costs and benefits, and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. An analysis of interviews with firms from Taiwan revealed that certified firms build security-oriented networks and implement risk-control mechanisms that enhance international trading and reduce the shocks caused by COVID-19-related supply-chain disruptions. Investments in fixed assets or software are required to meet the validation criteria of this security certification. Our results support resilience theory and provide firms with a reference for risk prevention. International trading, Supply Chain, Resilience, Certification, COVID-19, Taiwan
{"title":"Article: From Trading Security to Firm Resilience: The Case of Risk Prevention Through Supply Chain Cross-Border Accreditation in Taiwan","authors":"Shu-Ching Chou, Yu-Hsiu Cheng, Yen-Hui Kuo","doi":"10.54648/gtcj2024018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/gtcj2024018","url":null,"abstract":"This study investigates the enhancement of firm resilience through participation in cross-border security certification. We examine three certificationrelated aspects, namely the motivations for participating, costs and benefits, and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. An analysis of interviews with firms from Taiwan revealed that certified firms build security-oriented networks and implement risk-control mechanisms that enhance international trading and reduce the shocks caused by COVID-19-related supply-chain disruptions. Investments in fixed assets or software are required to meet the validation criteria of this security certification. Our results support resilience theory and provide firms with a reference for risk prevention.\u0000International trading, Supply Chain, Resilience, Certification, COVID-19, Taiwan","PeriodicalId":12728,"journal":{"name":"Global Trade and Customs Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140794197","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Following the request of the Hamburg Fiscal Court of 2 March 2022, 4 K 160/18, the European Court of Justice, in its ruling of 21 September 2023, C-210/22, ECLI:EU:C:2023:693, has now made a decision on the non-preferential origin of seamless stainless steel tubes that is especially significant for the levying of anti-dumping duties on such products originating from China. The general significance of the topic results from the fact that seamless stainless steel tubes are often internationally produced, with the process of hot forming taking place in China and with the process of cold forming taking place in another country, such as South Korea or India. There are currently numerous disputes throughout the European Union if the antidumping duties can be levied on these products. Due to the comments of the ECJ on the relationship between customs tariff law and non-preferential origin law, the new decision is also important for the interpretation of non-preferential origin law in accordance with the rules of origin in the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (further on:UCC-DA)1 in general. The following explanations give the essential reasons of the decision and its legal and economical consequences Non-preferential origin, Union Customs Code, anti-dumping, customs tariff, Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System, primary rule, residual profile, hollow profile, seamless stainless steel tubes, explanatory notes, European Court of Justice, C-210/22, ECLI:EU:C:2023:693, Hamburg Fiscal Court of 2 March 2022, 4 K 160/18
{"title":"Article: Non-preferential Origin of Seamless Stainless Steel Tubes","authors":"Kai Henning Felderhoff","doi":"10.54648/gtcj2024015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/gtcj2024015","url":null,"abstract":"Following the request of the Hamburg Fiscal Court of 2 March 2022, 4 K 160/18, the European Court of Justice, in its ruling of 21 September 2023, C-210/22, ECLI:EU:C:2023:693, has now made a decision on the non-preferential origin of seamless stainless steel tubes that is especially significant for the levying of anti-dumping duties on such products originating from China. The general significance of the topic results from the fact that seamless stainless steel tubes are often internationally produced, with the process of hot forming taking place in China and with the process of cold forming taking place in another country, such as South Korea or India. There are currently numerous disputes throughout the European Union if the antidumping duties can be levied on these products. Due to the comments of the ECJ on the relationship between customs tariff law and non-preferential origin law, the new decision is also important for the interpretation of non-preferential origin law in accordance with the rules of origin in the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (further on:UCC-DA)1 in general. The following explanations give the essential reasons of the decision and its legal and economical consequences\u0000Non-preferential origin, Union Customs Code, anti-dumping, customs tariff, Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System, primary rule, residual profile, hollow profile, seamless stainless steel tubes, explanatory notes, European Court of Justice, C-210/22, ECLI:EU:C:2023:693, Hamburg Fiscal Court of 2 March 2022, 4 K 160/18","PeriodicalId":12728,"journal":{"name":"Global Trade and Customs Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140775480","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In July 2023 Japan’s latest export tightening regulations on semiconductor manufacturing equipment took effect. These export regulations, implemented in coordination with the United States and the Netherlands, are significant in several respects: they have direct legal and potentially financial implications for Japan’s leading equipment suppliers, they represent a departure from Japan’s past approach of implementing in domestic law only those restrictions found in multilateral control lists, and the efficacy of these regulations in achieving their aims is as yet uncertain. Exporters may need to apply for one or more export licenses in order to comply with these regulations, or to try to take advantage of certain exemptions allowed by the law, such as the low-value goods exemption. As these regulations (and related regulations in the United States) are complex, effectively addressing their consequences will require market participants to take a detail-oriented and proactive approach. In the short term, various forces, including these regulations, appear to be driving on-shoring and decoupling of production: multiple Japanese and foreign parties are already investing billions in new semiconductor production in Japan. Semiconductors, Japan, Export Control, Chips, Control List, Lithography, Plurilateral Agreements
{"title":"Article: Japan’s Latest Export Regulations on Semiconductors: A Plurilateral Approach with Bite","authors":"Colin Trehearne, Kunio Miyaoka","doi":"10.54648/gtcj2024017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/gtcj2024017","url":null,"abstract":"In July 2023 Japan’s latest export tightening regulations on semiconductor manufacturing equipment took effect. These export regulations, implemented in coordination with the United States and the Netherlands, are significant in several respects: they have direct legal and potentially financial implications for Japan’s leading equipment suppliers, they represent a departure from Japan’s past approach of implementing in domestic law only those restrictions found in multilateral control lists, and the efficacy of these regulations in achieving their aims is as yet uncertain. Exporters may need to apply for one or more export licenses in order to comply with these regulations, or to try to take advantage of certain exemptions allowed by the law, such as the low-value goods exemption. As these regulations (and related regulations in the United States) are complex, effectively addressing their consequences will require market participants to take a detail-oriented and proactive approach. In the short term, various forces, including these regulations, appear to be driving on-shoring and decoupling of production: multiple Japanese and foreign parties are already investing billions in new semiconductor production in Japan.\u0000Semiconductors, Japan, Export Control, Chips, Control List, Lithography, Plurilateral Agreements","PeriodicalId":12728,"journal":{"name":"Global Trade and Customs Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140760374","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
TheUnited States’ CreatingHelpful incentives to Produce Semiconductors and Sciences Act (CHIPS) Act, introduced in 2022, is a part of the package of new legislations aimed at reindustrialization of the United States (US) and maintaining its position as a hegemon across advanced technology verticals including semiconductors. The Act provides multiple fiscal incentives to entities that wish to set up, modernize or expand facilities engaged in semiconductor production related activities in the US. The Act intends to curb any nexus of beneficiaries with ‘a country of concern’ such as China and it blocks benefits for an entity dealing with such countries. Apart from reshoring capacities the Act also frontlines US strategy to friendshoring semiconductor supply chains.Measures like the CHIPS Act may clash with the international rules-based trading system. Parallelly, the innovative ways to bypass the trade rules may come with their own consequences. They highlight the weakness of the rules-based trading system in providing effective remedies for supply chain issues. In this regard, the article briefly discusses the semiconductor supply chain and traces its sophisticated nature in the context of localization/ally-shoring/onshoring policies. CHIPS Act, Semiconductors, Supply Chains, Friendshoring, Nearshoring, Reshoring, Industrial Policy, International Trade Law, WTO, Supply chain disruption, United States
{"title":"Article: Friendshoring and Reshoring Semiconductor Supply Chains: US CHIPS Act and the Multilateral Trading System","authors":"Arnav Sharma","doi":"10.54648/gtcj2024029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/gtcj2024029","url":null,"abstract":"TheUnited States’ CreatingHelpful incentives to Produce Semiconductors and Sciences Act (CHIPS) Act, introduced in 2022, is a part of the package of new legislations aimed at reindustrialization of the United States (US) and maintaining its position as a hegemon across advanced technology verticals including semiconductors. The Act provides multiple fiscal incentives to entities that wish to set up, modernize or expand facilities engaged in semiconductor production related activities in the US. The Act intends to curb any nexus of beneficiaries with ‘a country of concern’ such as China and it blocks benefits for an entity dealing with such countries. Apart from reshoring capacities the Act also frontlines US strategy to friendshoring semiconductor supply chains.Measures like the CHIPS Act may clash with the international rules-based trading system. Parallelly, the innovative ways to bypass the trade rules may come with their own consequences. They highlight the weakness of the rules-based trading system in providing effective remedies for supply chain issues. In this regard, the article briefly discusses the semiconductor supply chain and traces its sophisticated nature in the context of localization/ally-shoring/onshoring policies.\u0000CHIPS Act, Semiconductors, Supply Chains, Friendshoring, Nearshoring, Reshoring, Industrial Policy, International Trade Law, WTO, Supply chain disruption, United States","PeriodicalId":12728,"journal":{"name":"Global Trade and Customs Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140273130","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Geopolitical considerations are playing an increasingly dominant role in countries’ trade policies over recent years. In the context of geopolitical tension and economic fragmentation, countries are reshaping their global value chains (GVCs) to address their economic security from possible future disruption of supply chains. In recent years, countries, particularly, the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) have taken several legal measures and adopted various policy tools either unilaterally or through bilateral and plurilateral alliances that further the idea of friend-shoring and on-shoring. This paper intends to map those legal and policy tools adopted by the United States and the European Union that further the idea of friend-shoring and on-shoring and analyses those tools in the Indian context. The paper argues that though the EU and the US are the largest trading partners of India and their strategies will likely have an impact on India. Nonetheless, India needs to look beyond these strategies pioneered by the US and EU to cater to the needs of its specific industry concerns. Global Value Chain, Supply Chain, Friend-shoring, Nearshoring, Reshoring, Asia-Pacific
{"title":"Article: Reshaping Global Supply Chain and India: A Quest for Friend-Shoring and On-Shoring","authors":"","doi":"10.54648/gtcj2024026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/gtcj2024026","url":null,"abstract":"Geopolitical considerations are playing an increasingly dominant role in countries’ trade policies over recent years. In the context of geopolitical tension and economic fragmentation, countries are reshaping their global value chains (GVCs) to address their economic security from possible future disruption of supply chains. In recent years, countries, particularly, the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) have taken several legal measures and adopted various policy tools either unilaterally or through bilateral and plurilateral alliances that further the idea of friend-shoring and on-shoring. This paper intends to map those legal and policy tools adopted by the United States and the European Union that further the idea of friend-shoring and on-shoring and analyses those tools in the Indian context. The paper argues that though the EU and the US are the largest trading partners of India and their strategies will likely have an impact on India. Nonetheless, India needs to look beyond these strategies pioneered by the US and EU to cater to the needs of its specific industry concerns.\u0000Global Value Chain, Supply Chain, Friend-shoring, Nearshoring, Reshoring, Asia-Pacific","PeriodicalId":12728,"journal":{"name":"Global Trade and Customs Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140280927","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：