Search results

The article studies the problem of the impact of non-tariff barriers on mutual trade in goods between the EAEU member states. This problem is considered using the example of assessing the impact of non-tariff regulation measures of Russia, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan on imports of goods from other EAEU member states. The conducted research is based on domestic and foreign scientific works that use barrier components to build a gravitational model of foreign trade. To study the impact of non-tariff regulatory measures of Russia, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan on import commodity flow from other EAEU member states, two time periods are considered – the period of 2010–2014 and the period 2017–2019. In the context of the periods under consideration, a gravitational model of foreign trade is constructed. As a result of building a model within the framework of the study, it was revealed that during the period of the EAEU existence (2017–2019), non-tariff measures of foreign trade regulation had a more significant and negative impact on imports of the studied countries than before the formation of the EAEU (2010–2014). The latter indicates the relevance and necessity of further research of this problem.

The main objectives of this study were to examine the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (PDR) agricultural exports to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the tuning of the Agricultural Commodity Frequency Index (ACFI) to non-tariff measures (NTMs), and the coverage ratio of goods to determine the effects of the PRC’s NTMs on Lao PDR’s agricultural exports using a demand export model with a fixed-effect method. The authors found that Lao PDR’s agricultural exports to the PRC increased by an average of 46.91% from 2013 to 2020, covering a total of 51 product codes, comprising six of the most valuable product types (i.e., bananas, corn, tapioca flour, watermelon, sticky rice, and sweet potato) given priority by the PRC. Additionally, from 2013 to 2020, the average ACFI concentration with NTMs was 10.08%, and the average coverage ratio for goods was 14.43%. The results of statistical significance testing at 1% suggest that three factors demonstrated the most significant impact on value: agricultural products facing NTMs in the form of sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures and technical barriers to trade (TBTs), treaties with priority conditions regarding SPSs and priorities for agricultural products, and the real gross domestic product (GDP) of the PRC. Furthermore, a PRC GDP increase of 1% resulted in a 3.1235% impact on Lao PDR exports.

This chapter reviews the evolution of thinking about regional trade agreements (RTAs) and the policy developments reflected in three waves of RTAs during the last half century. Desirable and undesirable features of RTAs can be identified, but the central message concerns the ambiguity of outcomes. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the role of the nation state and of multilateral institutions and the scope for intermediate levels of organization created by RTAs.

In this study, we would like to examine the export prospect of India in the era of neo-protectionism. This particular era is characterized by increased used of trade barriers mainly by the large economies and a very sluggish growth in world export as a whole. Our study shows that both tariff and non-tariff barriers as well as world income affect India’s exports significantly. And, India as of 2017–2018, exports nearly 40% of its exportable to the developed world. So, the present era is not very encouraging for India. As a strategic response, it may try to re-orient its exports from more restrictive developed countries like European Union to countries like Japan, which are much less restrictive, as complete re-orientation from developed to developing world is not possible.

This chapter provides a legal and theoretical overview of environmental PPMs articulated in private standards. It seeks to expand the debate about environmental PPMs, elucidating important dimensions to the issue from the perspective of global governance and international trade law. One of the arguments advanced in this chapter is that a comprehensive analysis of environmental PPMs should consider not only their role in what is regarded as trade barriers (governmental and market driven) but also their significance in global objectives such as the transition towards a green economy and sustainable patterns of consumption and production.

This chapter is based on an extensive literature review and doctrinal legal research.

This research shows that environmental PPMs represent a key issue in the context of the trade and environment relationship. For decades such measures have been thought of as being trade distortive and thus incompatible with WTO law. Although it seems clear now that they are not unlawful per se, their legal status remains unsettled. PPMs can be regarded as regulatory choices associated with a wide range of environmental concerns. However, in trade disputes, challenged measures involving policy objectives addressing production issues in the conservation of natural resources tend to focus on fishing/harvesting techniques. On the other hand, an important goal of Global Environmental Governance (GEG) is to incentivise sustainable consumption and production in order to achieve the transition to a green economy. In this sense, it can be argued that what are generally denominated as ‘PPMs’ in the WTO terminology can alternatively be regarded ‘SCPs’ in the language of environmental governance. Environmental PPMs are not only limited to state-based measures, such as import bans, tariff preferences, and governmental labelling schemes. Environmental PPMs may also amount to good corporate practices towards environmental protection and provide the rationale for numerous private environmental standards.

Most academic attention afforded to environmental-PPMs has focused on their impacts on trade or their legality under WTO law. Although legal scholars have already referred to the significance of such measures in the context of environmental governance, this issue has remained almost entirely unexplored. This chapter seeks to fill the gap in the literature in this regard. In particular, it addresses the relevance of environmental PPMs in the context of decentralised governance initiatives such as the UN Global Compact and private environmental standards.

Overall, this chapter assists in the understanding of the significance of environmental PPMs in the context of private environmental standards and other governance initiatives involving goals related to sustainable consumption and production. This chapter adds to the existing body of literature on the subject of PPMs in international trade and environmental governance.

Agricultural trade has generated more than its share of disputes in the past fifty years. Lack of a clear structure of rules to constrain government activity in these markets, coupled with the particularly sensitive nature of trade in basic foodstuffs, has been the main cause of this disproportion. New rules agreed in the Uruguay Round provided an improved framework for government policy in this area, and a temporary exemption was given to certain subsidies from challenge in the WTO (the Peace Clause). However, the expiry of the Peace Clause in 2003 and a growing willingness on the part of exporters to challenge domestic farm programs in other countries through action under the Dispute Settlement Understanding has once again stirred the agricultural pot. Now trade disputes are frequently leading to litigation, encouraged by the slow progress in the Doha Round of trade negotiations. In particular, the scope for domestic subsidies, under the Agreement on Agriculture and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, has increasingly become the subject of litigation. Countries may have to further modify their domestic policies so as to reduce their vulnerability to challenge in the WTO.

The appropriateness of retaliatory trade measures in the World Trade Organization dispute settlement process have increasingly come under scrutiny in recent years. Several Members and commentators alike have recommended large-scale amendments to the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) to provide alternatives to retaliatory measures, with the most notable including compensation, collective retaliation, and increased special and differential treatment for developing countries and/or widespread loss of privileges for non-conforming respondents.

Unfortunately, many of the proposals failed to first identify the aims and objectives of the retaliatory phase, or even of dispute settlement more generally. This chapter takes a more holistic approach in its analysis of whether any of the current proposals will improve (or harm) the system. In doing so, this chapter will first assess the effectiveness and appropriateness of retaliatory trade measures by evaluating the goals and objectives in which it is designed to achieve. It will then evaluate some of the more prominent proposals for amending the DSU under the same framework. Taking such an approach will allow for a more comprehensive review and will reveal not only the problems with retaliatory trade measures, but also its positive aspects, and not only the positive aspects of the suggested alternatives but also where they may be detrimental to the system.