Pub Date : 2018-09-17DOI: 10.1108/JITLP-03-2018-0014
Regis Yann Simo
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to show how the pattern of trade relations between the USA and African countries is gradually shifting toward reciprocity. It therefore demonstrates that the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) was conceived to be a building block toward future bilateral trade agreements. Design/methodology/approach This paper adopts a historical approach to the USA’s policy toward Africa in general and in trade matters in particular. It critically reviews the chronology of US involvement in the continent. Findings Although it was designed as a preferential trade arrangement, AGOA was intended to evolve into reciprocal trade agreements. This is what the USA started doing even prior to the entry into force of the AGOA, by entering into Trade and Investment Framework Agreements with individual countries or blocs. It also transpires that the deployment comes as a response to the European Union which is already engaged in the redefinition of its own trade relations with Africa since 2004. Originality/value The paper is important in many respects. Not only it is a study of the US practice as preference-granting country, but it is also interested in the typology of trade agreements concluded by the USA in other regions of the world. This is important to indicate and analyze the types of provisions African countries should be expected to face when the time of entering into reciprocal binding trade treaties arrives.
{"title":"The AGOA as stepping stone for USA–Africa free trade agreements","authors":"Regis Yann Simo","doi":"10.1108/JITLP-03-2018-0014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JITLP-03-2018-0014","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000The purpose of this paper is to show how the pattern of trade relations between the USA and African countries is gradually shifting toward reciprocity. It therefore demonstrates that the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) was conceived to be a building block toward future bilateral trade agreements.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000This paper adopts a historical approach to the USA’s policy toward Africa in general and in trade matters in particular. It critically reviews the chronology of US involvement in the continent.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000Although it was designed as a preferential trade arrangement, AGOA was intended to evolve into reciprocal trade agreements. This is what the USA started doing even prior to the entry into force of the AGOA, by entering into Trade and Investment Framework Agreements with individual countries or blocs. It also transpires that the deployment comes as a response to the European Union which is already engaged in the redefinition of its own trade relations with Africa since 2004.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000The paper is important in many respects. Not only it is a study of the US practice as preference-granting country, but it is also interested in the typology of trade agreements concluded by the USA in other regions of the world. This is important to indicate and analyze the types of provisions African countries should be expected to face when the time of entering into reciprocal binding trade treaties arrives.\u0000","PeriodicalId":42719,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Trade Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2018-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/JITLP-03-2018-0014","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45089247","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}
Pub Date : 2018-08-01DOI: 10.36514/itl.2018..140.001
김현
{"title":"Opening of Korean Legal Markets: Issues and Suggestions","authors":"김현","doi":"10.36514/itl.2018..140.001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36514/itl.2018..140.001","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42719,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Trade Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2018-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75104174","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}
Pub Date : 2018-08-01DOI: 10.36514/itl.2018..140.002
박태정
{"title":"Various Foreign Investments Protection Clauses in armed conflict under International Investment Treaties: Problems and Solutions","authors":"박태정","doi":"10.36514/itl.2018..140.002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36514/itl.2018..140.002","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42719,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Trade Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2018-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74976128","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}
Pub Date : 2018-04-01DOI: 10.1108/JITLP-12-2017-0052
Suhail Abboushi
This paper aims to examine the early aftermath of Britain’s Referendum to leave the European Union. The study addresses three areas: British public opinion and sentiment with regard to Brexit, Britain’s economy and outlook, and migration.,The study is exploratory in nature, examining data and information available in a variety of public sources that include government statistics, media reports and scholarly research findings.,Analysis of published data and research studies suggest growing disenchantment among the public with regard to Brexit and its consequences, economic and cultural influences on the Referendum, economic uncertainty and potential deterioration, and opposition to and moderation in migration.,The study has not generated original survey data about economic and demographic variables that would make possible statistical analysis of hypothesis.,Recent political developments in developed Western societies point to a rise in popular dismay with globalization, regional integration and multiculturalism. The present study explores and identifies some of the reasons for the trend and the potential consequences to breaking up cross-national alliances as they pertain to the United Kingdom in particular. Similar studies may alert policy makers to the causes and potential economic and political consequences of de-globalization.
{"title":"Britain after Brexit – brief overview","authors":"Suhail Abboushi","doi":"10.1108/JITLP-12-2017-0052","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JITLP-12-2017-0052","url":null,"abstract":"This paper aims to examine the early aftermath of Britain’s Referendum to leave the European Union. The study addresses three areas: British public opinion and sentiment with regard to Brexit, Britain’s economy and outlook, and migration.,The study is exploratory in nature, examining data and information available in a variety of public sources that include government statistics, media reports and scholarly research findings.,Analysis of published data and research studies suggest growing disenchantment among the public with regard to Brexit and its consequences, economic and cultural influences on the Referendum, economic uncertainty and potential deterioration, and opposition to and moderation in migration.,The study has not generated original survey data about economic and demographic variables that would make possible statistical analysis of hypothesis.,Recent political developments in developed Western societies point to a rise in popular dismay with globalization, regional integration and multiculturalism. The present study explores and identifies some of the reasons for the trend and the potential consequences to breaking up cross-national alliances as they pertain to the United Kingdom in particular. Similar studies may alert policy makers to the causes and potential economic and political consequences of de-globalization.","PeriodicalId":42719,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Trade Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2018-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/JITLP-12-2017-0052","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41387490","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}
Pub Date : 2018-04-01DOI: 10.1108/JITLP-07-2017-0024
Yusuf Ayotunde Abdulkareem
This paper draws attention to President Trump’s isolationist policies and aims to show that it is reminiscent of the era of the Smoot–Hawley Tariff of the 1930s. This paper posits that the isolationism coupled with the Trump government’s brash and uneasy relationship with other governments of the world will only harm the US economy because history has shown that isolationism does not work.,This paper briefly discusses the relationship between conflict and international trade and whether trade and economic interdependence are tools that are relevant in preventing the initiation, escalation and settlement of conflicts. It also draws a comparison between President Trump’s increasingly isolationist policies and the political climate of the USA in the 1930s, with particular reference to the Tariff Act of 1930. This paper finally explores the present tensions with other countries and likely consequences for America.,A direct relationship exists between conflict and trade because the presence of good trade relationships does not take away from but only helps to maintain peace and friendly relationships among nations. Furthermore, Trump’s isolationist policies are certainly going to harm the USA in the long run and a big part of that is because of the personality of the President himself.,This paper is an original work of the author and it strives to remind us of a similar past in US history, and warn of the dangers of the present course of the Trump administration.
{"title":"CONFLICT, INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ISOLATIONIST POLICIES","authors":"Yusuf Ayotunde Abdulkareem","doi":"10.1108/JITLP-07-2017-0024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JITLP-07-2017-0024","url":null,"abstract":"This paper draws attention to President Trump’s isolationist policies and aims to show that it is reminiscent of the era of the Smoot–Hawley Tariff of the 1930s. This paper posits that the isolationism coupled with the Trump government’s brash and uneasy relationship with other governments of the world will only harm the US economy because history has shown that isolationism does not work.,This paper briefly discusses the relationship between conflict and international trade and whether trade and economic interdependence are tools that are relevant in preventing the initiation, escalation and settlement of conflicts. It also draws a comparison between President Trump’s increasingly isolationist policies and the political climate of the USA in the 1930s, with particular reference to the Tariff Act of 1930. This paper finally explores the present tensions with other countries and likely consequences for America.,A direct relationship exists between conflict and trade because the presence of good trade relationships does not take away from but only helps to maintain peace and friendly relationships among nations. Furthermore, Trump’s isolationist policies are certainly going to harm the USA in the long run and a big part of that is because of the personality of the President himself.,This paper is an original work of the author and it strives to remind us of a similar past in US history, and warn of the dangers of the present course of the Trump administration.","PeriodicalId":42719,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Trade Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2018-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/JITLP-07-2017-0024","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49233516","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}
Pub Date : 2018-03-19DOI: 10.1108/JITLP-12-2017-0053
Claudia Fernández-Pacheco Theurer, José L. Ruiz, M. Latorre
The purpose of this paper is to review the economic studies on Brexit, highlighting that they have focused mainly on its negative impact on trade. The economic intuition behind these outcomes is provided, explaining why they are asymmetric with the UK being much more harmed than EU-27.,The importance of foreign multinationals in the UK and of UK’s multinationals abroad is shown using a non-standard quantification, which may be preferable than conventional methodologies. In addition, EU trade and investment legislative regimes are explained. Particular attention is paid to the change after the 2009 Lisbon Treaty which transfers foreign investment to the exclusive competence of the EU as opposed to EU states.,The data show that EU-27 is a much less important investment than trade partner for UK.,Although modelling the economy-wide impact of multinationals is challenging, the data and EU legislative framework analyzed suggest it is very much worthwhile. Other considerations about UK’s diminished leveraging power to negotiate after its EU’s withdrawal are also considered.
{"title":"Multinationals’ effects: a nearly unexplored aspect of Brexit","authors":"Claudia Fernández-Pacheco Theurer, José L. Ruiz, M. Latorre","doi":"10.1108/JITLP-12-2017-0053","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JITLP-12-2017-0053","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this paper is to review the economic studies on Brexit, highlighting that they have focused mainly on its negative impact on trade. The economic intuition behind these outcomes is provided, explaining why they are asymmetric with the UK being much more harmed than EU-27.,The importance of foreign multinationals in the UK and of UK’s multinationals abroad is shown using a non-standard quantification, which may be preferable than conventional methodologies. In addition, EU trade and investment legislative regimes are explained. Particular attention is paid to the change after the 2009 Lisbon Treaty which transfers foreign investment to the exclusive competence of the EU as opposed to EU states.,The data show that EU-27 is a much less important investment than trade partner for UK.,Although modelling the economy-wide impact of multinationals is challenging, the data and EU legislative framework analyzed suggest it is very much worthwhile. Other considerations about UK’s diminished leveraging power to negotiate after its EU’s withdrawal are also considered.","PeriodicalId":42719,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Trade Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2018-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/JITLP-12-2017-0053","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43708184","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}
Pub Date : 2018-03-19DOI: 10.1108/JITLP-01-2018-0005
Elimma C. Ezeani
This paper aims to examine the relevance of the theory of comparative advantage in the present realities of a world undergoing de-globalisation, that is, a retreat from closer integration.,This paper presents eight arguments that analyse the theory as posited by Adam Smith and David Ricardo and that theory remains the underpinnings for trade liberalisation as regulated by the World Trade Organisation (WTO).,The arguments do not contend with the role and achievements of the WTO in the era of globalisation. Rather, these call for an acknowledgement of the changing realities of countries in the face of changes in the political, economic and legal landscapes, across the globe.,This is an original submission by the author.
{"title":"Comparative advantage in de-globalisation: Brexit, America First and Africa's continental free trade area.","authors":"Elimma C. Ezeani","doi":"10.1108/JITLP-01-2018-0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JITLP-01-2018-0005","url":null,"abstract":"This paper aims to examine the relevance of the theory of comparative advantage in the present realities of a world undergoing de-globalisation, that is, a retreat from closer integration.,This paper presents eight arguments that analyse the theory as posited by Adam Smith and David Ricardo and that theory remains the underpinnings for trade liberalisation as regulated by the World Trade Organisation (WTO).,The arguments do not contend with the role and achievements of the WTO in the era of globalisation. Rather, these call for an acknowledgement of the changing realities of countries in the face of changes in the political, economic and legal landscapes, across the globe.,This is an original submission by the author.","PeriodicalId":42719,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Trade Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2018-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/JITLP-01-2018-0005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48085884","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}
Pub Date : 2018-01-01DOI: 10.1108/JITLP-06-2017-0020
Mervyn Martin
The recent vote for Britain to exit the European Union and the election of Donald Trump as the President of the USA has been described as events that bring an end to globalization and indeed seen as a reversal of the globalization process. A possible reason for this is that both choices are thought to be premised on inward-looking objectives rather than having global objectives. This paper aims to offer an opinion that this view is flawed. This is because integration, which is used to approach globalization, is not a one-way process seeking greater levels of integration, but rather a tool to address global challenges, which will involve making choices on the degree of integration that is thought necessary at a particular time. In other words, based on what is perceived as necessary at a given time, selective interconnectivity is used to reflect the level of integration desired. Owing to the degree of global income inequality, a high degree of integration will pose difficulties as a shift in production centres. Further, immigration will bring not only economic but also socio-cultural and political implications in even the economically strongest nations.,The paper considers the definition of integration to justify why there are limits placed on the level of integration. In this regard, when the position of individual components is so unequal, there will be limits put on levels of integration due to economic, socio-cultural, and political concerns.,Delocalization does not exist. The Brexit vote and President Trump’s Presidential bid success are all part of the globalization process, where from time to time, the levels of integration will slow down. This does not suggest backtracking on globalization.,The discussion and analysis in this paper are significant as they offer an unexplored perspective into current discussions on the Brexit vote and President Trump’s election into office. The discussion and analysis are rigorous in that they are precise and robust in examining the historical evolution to the international trading system to explain why the predominant view on deglobalization is a misunderstanding of the matters that influence globalization and integration.,The paper offers a practical and logical explanation to concerns regarding what is termed as deglobalization by providing an analysis and insight into the current global challenges, in particular income inequality, as an environment within which choices have to be made.,In the discussion, subsequent to Trump’s successful bid for US presidency and the Brexit vote, there has been a frenzy in opinions regarding the implications of these milestones. This paper debunks the exaggerations offered by explaining how and why these milestones are nothing new by examining the history of the international trading system.,This paper is original as it offers a fresh perspective on the deglobalization debate. It provides a discussion from the global income inequality perspective to explain why and how i
{"title":"Keeping it real: Debunking the deglobalization Myth, Brexit and Trump: “lessons” on integration","authors":"Mervyn Martin","doi":"10.1108/JITLP-06-2017-0020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JITLP-06-2017-0020","url":null,"abstract":"The recent vote for Britain to exit the European Union and the election of Donald Trump as the President of the USA has been described as events that bring an end to globalization and indeed seen as a reversal of the globalization process. A possible reason for this is that both choices are thought to be premised on inward-looking objectives rather than having global objectives. This paper aims to offer an opinion that this view is flawed. This is because integration, which is used to approach globalization, is not a one-way process seeking greater levels of integration, but rather a tool to address global challenges, which will involve making choices on the degree of integration that is thought necessary at a particular time. In other words, based on what is perceived as necessary at a given time, selective interconnectivity is used to reflect the level of integration desired. Owing to the degree of global income inequality, a high degree of integration will pose difficulties as a shift in production centres. Further, immigration will bring not only economic but also socio-cultural and political implications in even the economically strongest nations.,The paper considers the definition of integration to justify why there are limits placed on the level of integration. In this regard, when the position of individual components is so unequal, there will be limits put on levels of integration due to economic, socio-cultural, and political concerns.,Delocalization does not exist. The Brexit vote and President Trump’s Presidential bid success are all part of the globalization process, where from time to time, the levels of integration will slow down. This does not suggest backtracking on globalization.,The discussion and analysis in this paper are significant as they offer an unexplored perspective into current discussions on the Brexit vote and President Trump’s election into office. The discussion and analysis are rigorous in that they are precise and robust in examining the historical evolution to the international trading system to explain why the predominant view on deglobalization is a misunderstanding of the matters that influence globalization and integration.,The paper offers a practical and logical explanation to concerns regarding what is termed as deglobalization by providing an analysis and insight into the current global challenges, in particular income inequality, as an environment within which choices have to be made.,In the discussion, subsequent to Trump’s successful bid for US presidency and the Brexit vote, there has been a frenzy in opinions regarding the implications of these milestones. This paper debunks the exaggerations offered by explaining how and why these milestones are nothing new by examining the history of the international trading system.,This paper is original as it offers a fresh perspective on the deglobalization debate. It provides a discussion from the global income inequality perspective to explain why and how i","PeriodicalId":42719,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Trade Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/JITLP-06-2017-0020","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"62108853","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}
Pub Date : 2017-11-16DOI: 10.1108/JITLP-10-2017-0034
Stephanie Switzer
Purpose This paper is prompted by the dissatisfaction of developing countries regarding the grant of special and differential treatment (SDT) under the legal framework of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). As a result of such dissatisfaction, the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations explicitly called for a review of such treatment with a view to making it more precise, effective and operational. This mandate has not yet been met to the satisfaction of many developing countries. This paper aims to provide an alternative way of examining and evaluating the contestation which exists regarding SDT in the WTO. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses the conceptual framework provided by the economic contract theory and in particular, the concept of the incomplete contract to provide a scaffold for analysing SDT. This approach is intended to offer insights beyond those elucidated so far in the literature on the topic. Findings This paper, by using an economic contract theory approach, finds that SDT is constructed as an incomplete contract. Furthermore, the suboptimal outcomes associated with incomplete contracts are apparent in the constitution of SDT. This finding is useful in both an evaluative and programmatic sense, providing us with an alternative entry point to explain some of the shortcomings with SDT, as well as garnering us with a useful conceptual tool to think upon how SDT can be improved. Originality/value The paper contributes to the literature on SDT within the WTO in particular and differential treatment in international law in general. Drawing on literature on the WTO as an incomplete contract, the paper provides an original frame for analyzing SDT and draws attention, in particular, to the utility of the economic contract theory as a programmatic and evaluative frame for SDT and differential treatment more generally.
{"title":"A contract theory approach to special and differential treatment and the WTO","authors":"Stephanie Switzer","doi":"10.1108/JITLP-10-2017-0034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JITLP-10-2017-0034","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000This paper is prompted by the dissatisfaction of developing countries regarding the grant of special and differential treatment (SDT) under the legal framework of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). As a result of such dissatisfaction, the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations explicitly called for a review of such treatment with a view to making it more precise, effective and operational. This mandate has not yet been met to the satisfaction of many developing countries. This paper aims to provide an alternative way of examining and evaluating the contestation which exists regarding SDT in the WTO. \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000Design/methodology/approach \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000This paper uses the conceptual framework provided by the economic contract theory and in particular, the concept of the incomplete contract to provide a scaffold for analysing SDT. This approach is intended to offer insights beyond those elucidated so far in the literature on the topic. \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000Findings \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000This paper, by using an economic contract theory approach, finds that SDT is constructed as an incomplete contract. Furthermore, the suboptimal outcomes associated with incomplete contracts are apparent in the constitution of SDT. This finding is useful in both an evaluative and programmatic sense, providing us with an alternative entry point to explain some of the shortcomings with SDT, as well as garnering us with a useful conceptual tool to think upon how SDT can be improved. \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000Originality/value \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000The paper contributes to the literature on SDT within the WTO in particular and differential treatment in international law in general. Drawing on literature on the WTO as an incomplete contract, the paper provides an original frame for analyzing SDT and draws attention, in particular, to the utility of the economic contract theory as a programmatic and evaluative frame for SDT and differential treatment more generally.","PeriodicalId":42719,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Trade Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2017-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/JITLP-10-2017-0034","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41947278","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}
Pub Date : 2017-07-26DOI: 10.1108/JITLP-01-2017-0002
S. Alam, G. Tomossy
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to address the challenges developing countries face in attempting to balance sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) health and safety measures against concerns about protectionism, illustrated by the impact of trade barriers on the fisheries and aquaculture sector in Bangladesh. The paper then provides recommendations to overcome the effects of these trade barriers. Design/methodology/approach The author uses a close doctrinal approach for the first three parts of the paper by analysing the provisions of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) SPS Agreement and the effect of those provisions in creating domestic compliance gaps in the Bangladeshi fisheries and aquaculture sector. A qualitative approach is then adopted in suggesting potential reforms and future directions to assist the Bangladeshi fisheries and aquaculture sector overcome SPS trade barrier issues. Findings To overcome the market access issues created by SPS trade barriers, Bangladesh and other developing countries require multilateral assistance, accommodation by trading partners and internal reforms. This includes reforming internal governance structures, improving trade participation and negotiation, increasing infrastructure investment and learning from similar countries who have improved their supply chain management. Research limitations/implications This paper will have significant implications by contributing to law and policy reform debates involving international trade law and domestic compliance gaps. It will also assist other developing countries that experience SPS trade barriers to learn from the experience of the Bangladeshi fisheries and aquaculture sector. Practical implications This paper has practical implications by providing recommendations for how Bangladesh can overcome SPS trade barriers and improve its market access. This will help Bangladesh integrate into the global trading system by enhancing its participation in the SPS framework. Social implications By addressing and providing recommendations for the SPS trade barrier challenges faced by Bangladesh fishery and aquaculture sector, this paper provides a framework to improve the economic development and global competitiveness of the industry. This will contribute the gross domestic product growth and help increase the overall living standards of the people involved in the fisheries and aquaculture business in Bangladesh. Originality/value This paper is an original work that has not been published elsewhere. It is the first time a paper has dealt with the legal, policy and compliance challenges faced by the fisheries and aquaculture sector in Bangladesh.
{"title":"Overcoming the SPS concerns of the Bangladesh fisheries and aquaculture sector: From compliance to engagement","authors":"S. Alam, G. Tomossy","doi":"10.1108/JITLP-01-2017-0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JITLP-01-2017-0002","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000The purpose of this paper is to address the challenges developing countries face in attempting to balance sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) health and safety measures against concerns about protectionism, illustrated by the impact of trade barriers on the fisheries and aquaculture sector in Bangladesh. The paper then provides recommendations to overcome the effects of these trade barriers. \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000Design/methodology/approach \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000The author uses a close doctrinal approach for the first three parts of the paper by analysing the provisions of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) SPS Agreement and the effect of those provisions in creating domestic compliance gaps in the Bangladeshi fisheries and aquaculture sector. A qualitative approach is then adopted in suggesting potential reforms and future directions to assist the Bangladeshi fisheries and aquaculture sector overcome SPS trade barrier issues. \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000Findings \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000To overcome the market access issues created by SPS trade barriers, Bangladesh and other developing countries require multilateral assistance, accommodation by trading partners and internal reforms. This includes reforming internal governance structures, improving trade participation and negotiation, increasing infrastructure investment and learning from similar countries who have improved their supply chain management. \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000Research limitations/implications \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000This paper will have significant implications by contributing to law and policy reform debates involving international trade law and domestic compliance gaps. It will also assist other developing countries that experience SPS trade barriers to learn from the experience of the Bangladeshi fisheries and aquaculture sector. \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000Practical implications \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000This paper has practical implications by providing recommendations for how Bangladesh can overcome SPS trade barriers and improve its market access. This will help Bangladesh integrate into the global trading system by enhancing its participation in the SPS framework. \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000Social implications \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000By addressing and providing recommendations for the SPS trade barrier challenges faced by Bangladesh fishery and aquaculture sector, this paper provides a framework to improve the economic development and global competitiveness of the industry. This will contribute the gross domestic product growth and help increase the overall living standards of the people involved in the fisheries and aquaculture business in Bangladesh. \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000Originality/value \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000This paper is an original work that has not been published elsewhere. It is the first time a paper has dealt with the legal, policy and compliance challenges faced by the fisheries and aquaculture sector in Bangladesh.","PeriodicalId":42719,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Trade Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2017-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/JITLP-01-2017-0002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43436391","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：