Search results

This paper analyses the stalling of the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) and its systemic and institutional consequences through a geopolitical economy approach that integrates the French school of international economic relations and Régulation Theory. These approaches put states and their economic roles at the fore, correcting dominant free trade approaches to world trade. The paper also avoids monocausal explanations for trade talk deadlocks and aims to provide a comprehensive approach on the co-evolution of world trade patterns and its institutions. In this approach, the DDA stalemate is traced to an institution-structure mismatch in how states articulate their accumulation strategies and institutions (competition, state regulation, adhesion to international regime) to the World Trade Organization (WTO) regime occasioned by the emergence of new trade powers. This has given rise to three distinct conflicts in how member states navigate between the main parameters of the multilateral trading system (non-discrimination, reciprocity and balance of power) and their national accumulation strategies: the erosion of non-discrimination and reciprocity; the failure to build an operational compromise between development and ‘globalization’, that is, between multilateral openness and new trade and power balances; and the difficulty in reaching a compromise between historical and emerging capitalisms. The outcome of these conflicts will determine the institutional configuration of the post-Doha WTO agenda.

At its inception, the Doha Round offered the hope of a more inclusive World Trade Organisation (WTO); one where developing countries in particular envisioned would allow them the policy space to enable their socio‐economic advancement even as they carried out their obligations as Member States of the rules‐based international trade system. While the rewards of this novel development round are awaited, WTO Member States are making a marked shift away from the foundation principles of multilateralism on non‐discriminatory treatment, and pursuing independent trade deals outside the rules. An emerging acceptance of this shift comes with an idea that countries can converge after divergence – that alternatives to multilateralism can still yield agreements that will operate in a multilateral rules‐based framework, post Doha. To this end, this article reviews the challenges facing the Doha negotiations as it pertains to developing country concerns and the shortcomings of the existing development framework. It critically examines the issues arising from the stalemate of the Doha negotiations and the efforts of the international trading system to continue engaging in trade in the face of globalisation, increasing unemployment, decreased wages and living standards in the backdrop of a global recession. It examines the emerging convergence theory which recognises departures from the uniform trading arrangements under multilateralism, without recognising this as a tacit acceptance of a return to protectionism with its consequences. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Reference is made to primary and secondary research material on the subject including WTO rules and agreements.

The article finds that the stalemate in this Doha Round reveals more than just dissatisfaction between Member States on the nature and scope of the rules that must guide their global trading activities. It reveals the fragility of rules and the potential inefficacy of a system that attempts to regulate nebulous activity – trade in the face of divergent needs and concerns.

The research is library/desk based.

This work is an original contribution and is not under consideration elsewhere.

The purpose of this paper is to seek to critically look at the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) and Word Trade Organization Doha Round of negotiations, and their substantive outcomes on the main trade issues with a view to assessing their development content, nature and impact so far.

The paper will carry out that purpose by reviewing EPAs and Doha Round's original mandates on development and benchmarking the outcomes thereof against the “new development economics” imperatives and the assertion that trade policy has to truly foster development and progressively realize the right to development in a sustainable manner.

The main findings of the paper are that the two negotiating processes are failing to meet the development expectations and objectives set out in their respective mandates or put in place suitable trade policy options to ensure sustainable development. The processes are in fact mainly driven by commercial as opposed to developmental interest and tend to impede rather than promote both global and regional intergration of developing countries.

In making a conclusion, the paper posits some practical and conceptual suggestions to trade policy makers and negotiators with a view to operationalise and inform a paradigm shift in global trade relations and the concomitant machineries that have hitherto focused mainly on market access and commercial interest; to one underpinned by new development economics imperatives and the right to development as the principal benchmarks of trade policy.

Economists argue that trade liberalization is good for every country involved in the process since, according to Ricardian theory, free trade would allow more trade, which, in turn, offers wider choices for consumers and allows the most efficient producers to concentrate on their specialty areas. This observation raises the issue as to whether the general public believes in such a proposition. If the answer to the question is not in the affirmative, then there must be other reasons why developing country members participate in trade negotiation. An attempt is made to resolve this issue from a new standpoint - the regulatory reform perspective with particularly reference to Korea. Even if this new perspective is satisfactory, the issue remains as to whether the general public can be persuaded by its intrinsic argument. However, a new and different answer definitely adds to the reasons why developing country members should participate in the services negotiation associated with The Doha Development Agenda and the General Agreement on Trade in Services Negotiation.

This paper aims to reflect on the outcomes of the Nairobi Ministerial Conference of 2015, which, for all intents and purposes, put the Doha Round to rest and analyses the policy implications and lessons for policymaking at the World Trade Organization (WTO), most importantly the abandonment of the “single undertaking” and return to plurilateral agreements.

The paper approaches the issue of WTO policymaking by analysing the various outputs produced both before and because of the Ministerial Conference.

The paper suggests that the Nairobi Ministerial has finally put an end to the Doha Round and comes to the conclusion that policymaking at the multilateral level (i.e. through the single undertaking) will change significantly in the future because the WTO Members are incapable of reaching a comprehensive agreement at this time. Instead, the current trend towards trade policymaking via FTA is likely to continue while the WTO focuses on plurilateral negotiations on narrow and discreet issues.

The paper contributes to the literature on the analysis of global regulatory fragmentation and on trade policymaking. It draws attention, in particular, to the consequences of the last Ministerial Conference and highlights prospects for the future of global trade regulation.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the competing views on the link between trade and environment in the World Trade Organization (WTO), and come up with a proposal that better clarifies the scope of legality of environmentally motivated unilateral trade measures in the multilateral trading system.

The paper adopts a doctrinal approach to legal research in providing an exegesis on the various efforts towards the integration of trade and environment in the WTO framework.

Employing the theory of transnational social justice as its analytical tool, the paper suggests that a state contemplating the use of environmentally motivated unilateral trade measures first extend positive measures to the communities in other states that are affected by the purported measure. Accordingly, it argues that unilateral trade measures are allowed in the system only as a last resort and only if their application runs congruent to the values and objectives recognized by the system.

It is hoped that the discussion and proposition in this paper will contribute to the discourse on the clarification of the status of environmentally motivated unilateral trade measures in the WTO.

Posits that trade in agriculture constitutes the main element of the ongoing multilateral trade negotiations, with the World Trade Organisation, which has a conclusion date of 1 January 2005. Acknowledges that liberalization of trade in this sector was the prime reason why developing countries joined the WTO. Reckons that developed countries resist mounting pressure of decisive moves towards agricultural improvement, during the trade negotiations, by trying to protect their own agricultural sectors from foreign competition.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the potential of partnerships of the European Union (EU) with two of the so‐called BRIC countries, i.e. Brazil and India.

The scope of analysis will be the EU vis‐à‐vis Brazil and India, using two types of trade liberalization: bilateralism/regionalism and multilateralism.

It is found that Brazil and India want to become more important players; yet, they seem to lean against “old” powers (mainly the USA), and tend to focus on south‐south regionalism.

The present study provides a starting‐point for further research on the relationship between the European Union and the new leading powers.

This paper offers practical information to anyone interested in the role of Brazil and India in their relations with the EU, bilaterally/regionally and multilaterally.

The global governance of trade is in a deadlock and the WTO is suffering from a long standing crisis of legitimacy. This paper aims to analyse the main issues which might influence the governance of world trade from now until 2030 and present quantitative projections of international trade.

The research on the main issues which might influence the governance of world trade from now until 2030 draws on a detailed analysis of the WTO and trade policies. Four scenarios of the world economy are presented, which are derived from the international AUGUR research project “Challenges for Europe in the world in 2030” coordinated by Paris Nord University. The analysis takes into account econometric forecasting of world trade conducted in the framework of this project.

First, the failure of the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations to reach its ambitious agenda derives from the discrepancy between the governance of world trade and the new power relationship prevailing in the world economy, with new emerging powers (China, India, etc.) rapidly increasing their share of world trade. Second, the continuous restructuring of world trade and economy, which goes together with new forms of globalization, will increase pressure for a profound reform of the governance of world trade in the next few years.

This paper calls for a reform of world trade governance, especially of the missions of WTO within a renovated economic world order. Future research could investigate more deeply the potential for regional trade integration, which is reinforced by international production networks. Regional trade agreements might be an increasing alternative to multilateral trade agreements.

This paper brings new ideas by raising the issue of the governance of world trade using a prospective approach, with the aim to identify the key channels through which international trade integration will impact the world economy. This study bases its analysis on potential scenarios from now on until 2030, each of these scenarios corresponding to a specific institutional configuration.