Name: Alexander Laye
Country: Australia
Committee: World Trade Organization
High School: Arundel
Date: 1/30/14
Special and Differential Treatment of Developing Nations
SDT (Special and Differential Treatment) policies are a heavy topic of debate for the WTO. There are issues involving the classification of the developing nations to which they apply, as well as what the scope of their effect should be. Australia, as a closely tied entity to the the EU, supports the EU's use of Specific guidelines to clearly define the purpose of SDT and therefore effectively decide on it's future in assisting in the growth of developing nations. A system of graduation would be good for making sure that nations at every level of development get exactly what they need to progress them into the modern world economy.
The Uruguay round, a huge seven year economic negotiation session, there was a focus on participation, flexibility, and dispute settlement when it came to SDT negotiations. Judicial protection in international disputes was given to the weak developing nations in defense against the greater and far more powerful developed nations so as to prevent manipulation of these smaller nations. Market access for developed nations was increased in important areas for developing countries, allowing for more growth in exports. Also increasing export growth was the removal of export subsidies, which forced higher prices on domestic consumers in order to make prices cheap for foreign consumers, causing "Artificial Competitiveness." The creation of the General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS) was also an important result of the Uruguay round, as it created a reliable rule set. Also, the GATS required it's members to commit to improve the quality of services in developing nations when coming to agreements with them- a pledge not to exploit the weak. A big problem faced by those who wish to push SDTs is the classification of developing nations. There is a conflict centered around whether to deal with nations on a case-by-case basis or to blanket them all under "developing nation." Developing nations themselves want to go under the blanket, as it allows them equal protection no matter what until they are fully integrated. This leads to Australia's opinion on the matter.
Australia feels that it is better to judge nations based on a system of graduation. This would make sure that resources weren't unnecessarily wasted on SDT measures that don't benefit the countries they are serving. Australia and the EU provided a set of guidelines for the organization of debates around proposals made by African groups in developing countries. This shows that though Australia is concerned with these issues, they feel that they are being dealt with in an unorganized manner, and that should be remedied before moving on to potential solutions.
Should an in-depth examination into the development of nations that allows for categorization of their problems and thus a quick and effective response that allows for those needs to be addressed would work well for the aforementioned graduation system. Also a documentation of successful measures and the problems they were responding to would be good, as up until l1986 there was little direct action of commitments to improve access for developing nations to developed nations markets, thus causing a failure in the export area of the developing nations economic portfolio. Also, Australia believes that the focus of SDT provisions has been shifted away from it's original goal. As opposed to trying to develop nations as quickly as possible, the SDT provisions should focus on their original goal of integration nations into the economy. This would mean less economic intervention on the behalf of developing nations, and more opportunity for nations to develop and grow wealthy naturally. The way this could be done is through fewer tariffs that would restrict access to developed markets and more encouragement of exports both raw and processed (through industrialization, but this would have to be slightly later in the graduation system) of developing nations.
I feel that other countries may find this approach to be a lengthy one, and may take a while for it to be effective enough to deal with the problem of emerging nations acceptance and integration into the modern world economy. The long term solution, however, is not often the most instantly gratifying. If the assembly agrees on this solution and it is able to be executed well, however, it will be like slow drying cement: reliable and effective. It will be good to hear other nations opinions on this topic as well, and I look forward to an enlightening discussion about the future of SDTs.
Name: Alexander Laye
Country: Australia
Committee: World Trade Organization
High School: Arundel
Date: 1/30/14
Evaluating and Updating Dispute Settlement
Dispute Settlement is the means by which the WTO can force it's member nations to abide by its policies and rules. This system is the source of much of the WTO's world power. Australia has a heavy interest in this system , as it has been to their economic benefit. Also, the implications for developing nations is one that is to be argued against, as the fair treatment of developing nations is very important, and the fact that little compensation can be enforced by smaller and less powerful nations needs to be addressed.
The process of Dispute settlement involves first the nations speaking with one another in an attempt to settle the dispute outside of the use of a panel. If this is unsuccessful then a panel is appointed which takes six months to go through the negotiation process and decide on a verdict. During the first hearing, the panel will hear the arguments of both nations and will also hear other nations who take interest in the case and their opinions on the matter. A written potion is part of the second hearing, and at any time the panel can order an expert to analyze technical or scientific evidence raised in the court. At the end the panel sends to the Dispute Settlement committee (which consists of all members of the WTO) a paper with their verdict and the recommendation on what should be done to penalize the offender and (If guilty) and prevent further violation of the rules. This process was developed through the Uruguay round and has been used to prevent unfairness in trade practices many times.
Australia has gained economically through this settlement system and has been successful. They have challenged both Korea and the United States and won on issues regarding meat import restrictions and thereby ensured economic benefits for Australian farmers. Australia is a trading nation, a result of it's large coastline and ability to trade actively with many powerful industrial nations. Due to this, Australia feels it is necessary to maintain a level of power in the hands of members of the WTO to ensure that unfair trade policies don't go unchallenged and the world economy remains egalitarian. Egalitarian, however, is not the word that woudl describe the means of compensation should a country not abide by the decision of the panel/Dispute settlement committee. Small nations, when given the tariff reduction or economic sanction that is allowed for under the compensation of unjust practices, have little power against large nations such as the United States or members of the EU. This means that developing nations, unless a large nation intervenes on their behalf, are powerless to call out unjust practices.
A solution to the problem of the developing nations is to enforce more direct means of compensation for those classified as developing. This could include a direct payment of capital or the opposite of trade sanctions, forcing the large nation to open up it's borders to the smaller nations goods and paying for them directly to be resold to their consumers. On the topic of power, however, Australia feels that the WTO is not overstepping it's bounds, and is a powerful and fair system. With 159 members, a majority of countries are represented in it's walls. However, if a certain restriction of power must be present, such international organizations that are restricted by consensus ruling should be given the power to either vote on WTO policies as an independent entity or be given the power to, with majority approval from the WTO them self, amend decisions and policies of the WTO and make sure they don't give themselves too much power over the world economy.
This balance of power that must be struck is important in maintaining the WTO's integrity as a respectable international power. If other organizations begin to see the WTO as corrupt, or overstepping it's bounds, they will begin to attempt to take it out of power and assure that it loses key members. Also, with the over-accumulation of power comes the exploitation of the less powerful, and the egalitarianism of the WTO that is so important will be lost. However, WTO must still maintain a good amount of power so as to be able to keep its member nations in check and not allow them to practice unfair trade procedures.
Country: Australia
Committee: World Trade Organization
High School: Arundel
Date: 1/30/14
Special and Differential Treatment of Developing Nations
SDT (Special and Differential Treatment) policies are a heavy topic of debate for the WTO. There are issues involving the classification of the developing nations to which they apply, as well as what the scope of their effect should be. Australia, as a closely tied entity to the the EU, supports the EU's use of Specific guidelines to clearly define the purpose of SDT and therefore effectively decide on it's future in assisting in the growth of developing nations. A system of graduation would be good for making sure that nations at every level of development get exactly what they need to progress them into the modern world economy.
The Uruguay round, a huge seven year economic negotiation session, there was a focus on participation, flexibility, and dispute settlement when it came to SDT negotiations. Judicial protection in international disputes was given to the weak developing nations in defense against the greater and far more powerful developed nations so as to prevent manipulation of these smaller nations. Market access for developed nations was increased in important areas for developing countries, allowing for more growth in exports. Also increasing export growth was the removal of export subsidies, which forced higher prices on domestic consumers in order to make prices cheap for foreign consumers, causing "Artificial Competitiveness." The creation of the General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS) was also an important result of the Uruguay round, as it created a reliable rule set. Also, the GATS required it's members to commit to improve the quality of services in developing nations when coming to agreements with them- a pledge not to exploit the weak. A big problem faced by those who wish to push SDTs is the classification of developing nations. There is a conflict centered around whether to deal with nations on a case-by-case basis or to blanket them all under "developing nation." Developing nations themselves want to go under the blanket, as it allows them equal protection no matter what until they are fully integrated. This leads to Australia's opinion on the matter.
Australia feels that it is better to judge nations based on a system of graduation. This would make sure that resources weren't unnecessarily wasted on SDT measures that don't benefit the countries they are serving. Australia and the EU provided a set of guidelines for the organization of debates around proposals made by African groups in developing countries. This shows that though Australia is concerned with these issues, they feel that they are being dealt with in an unorganized manner, and that should be remedied before moving on to potential solutions.
Should an in-depth examination into the development of nations that allows for categorization of their problems and thus a quick and effective response that allows for those needs to be addressed would work well for the aforementioned graduation system. Also a documentation of successful measures and the problems they were responding to would be good, as up until l1986 there was little direct action of commitments to improve access for developing nations to developed nations markets, thus causing a failure in the export area of the developing nations economic portfolio. Also, Australia believes that the focus of SDT provisions has been shifted away from it's original goal. As opposed to trying to develop nations as quickly as possible, the SDT provisions should focus on their original goal of integration nations into the economy. This would mean less economic intervention on the behalf of developing nations, and more opportunity for nations to develop and grow wealthy naturally. The way this could be done is through fewer tariffs that would restrict access to developed markets and more encouragement of exports both raw and processed (through industrialization, but this would have to be slightly later in the graduation system) of developing nations.
I feel that other countries may find this approach to be a lengthy one, and may take a while for it to be effective enough to deal with the problem of emerging nations acceptance and integration into the modern world economy. The long term solution, however, is not often the most instantly gratifying. If the assembly agrees on this solution and it is able to be executed well, however, it will be like slow drying cement: reliable and effective. It will be good to hear other nations opinions on this topic as well, and I look forward to an enlightening discussion about the future of SDTs.
Name: Alexander Laye
Country: Australia
Committee: World Trade Organization
High School: Arundel
Date: 1/30/14
Evaluating and Updating Dispute Settlement
Dispute Settlement is the means by which the WTO can force it's member nations to abide by its policies and rules. This system is the source of much of the WTO's world power. Australia has a heavy interest in this system , as it has been to their economic benefit. Also, the implications for developing nations is one that is to be argued against, as the fair treatment of developing nations is very important, and the fact that little compensation can be enforced by smaller and less powerful nations needs to be addressed.
The process of Dispute settlement involves first the nations speaking with one another in an attempt to settle the dispute outside of the use of a panel. If this is unsuccessful then a panel is appointed which takes six months to go through the negotiation process and decide on a verdict. During the first hearing, the panel will hear the arguments of both nations and will also hear other nations who take interest in the case and their opinions on the matter. A written potion is part of the second hearing, and at any time the panel can order an expert to analyze technical or scientific evidence raised in the court. At the end the panel sends to the Dispute Settlement committee (which consists of all members of the WTO) a paper with their verdict and the recommendation on what should be done to penalize the offender and (If guilty) and prevent further violation of the rules. This process was developed through the Uruguay round and has been used to prevent unfairness in trade practices many times.
Australia has gained economically through this settlement system and has been successful. They have challenged both Korea and the United States and won on issues regarding meat import restrictions and thereby ensured economic benefits for Australian farmers. Australia is a trading nation, a result of it's large coastline and ability to trade actively with many powerful industrial nations. Due to this, Australia feels it is necessary to maintain a level of power in the hands of members of the WTO to ensure that unfair trade policies don't go unchallenged and the world economy remains egalitarian. Egalitarian, however, is not the word that woudl describe the means of compensation should a country not abide by the decision of the panel/Dispute settlement committee. Small nations, when given the tariff reduction or economic sanction that is allowed for under the compensation of unjust practices, have little power against large nations such as the United States or members of the EU. This means that developing nations, unless a large nation intervenes on their behalf, are powerless to call out unjust practices.
A solution to the problem of the developing nations is to enforce more direct means of compensation for those classified as developing. This could include a direct payment of capital or the opposite of trade sanctions, forcing the large nation to open up it's borders to the smaller nations goods and paying for them directly to be resold to their consumers. On the topic of power, however, Australia feels that the WTO is not overstepping it's bounds, and is a powerful and fair system. With 159 members, a majority of countries are represented in it's walls. However, if a certain restriction of power must be present, such international organizations that are restricted by consensus ruling should be given the power to either vote on WTO policies as an independent entity or be given the power to, with majority approval from the WTO them self, amend decisions and policies of the WTO and make sure they don't give themselves too much power over the world economy.
This balance of power that must be struck is important in maintaining the WTO's integrity as a respectable international power. If other organizations begin to see the WTO as corrupt, or overstepping it's bounds, they will begin to attempt to take it out of power and assure that it loses key members. Also, with the over-accumulation of power comes the exploitation of the less powerful, and the egalitarianism of the WTO that is so important will be lost. However, WTO must still maintain a good amount of power so as to be able to keep its member nations in check and not allow them to practice unfair trade procedures.