Peer reviewed analysis from world leading experts

Response to “Services negotiations in the WTO are stuck: What is the circuit breaker?”

Reading Time: 2 mins

In Brief

Philippa Dee and Christopher Findlay have correctly identified the issues facing the WTO in dealing with ‘behind-the-border’ barriers, the major impediments to trade in services. Their approach recognizes that reform of these barriers requires a domestic transparency process operating in (and by) individual WTO countries.

The approach they advocate is of major importance in enhancing the domestic benefits for countries participating in multilateral trade negotiations, and for the future of the WTO system. ‘Behind-the-border’ barriers often apply at a regional or provincial level, and are therefore quite unlikely to reach the negotiating table unless the national ‘offers’ governments take to negotiations in Geneva are consciously structured to include these non-transparent barriers to trade.

The WTO has no authority to deal with these barriers.

Share

  • A
  • A
  • A

Share

  • A
  • A
  • A

Its charter recognises that the sovereignty of individual member countries is absolute and inviolate. Given the limitations to the authority of the WTO, a major challenge for participating countries is to find a way to include ‘behind-the-borders’ barriers in the market opening offers they take to the negotiation table. If multilateral trade negotiations continue to reduce protection without bringing these into account, there will be little scope for the WTO to open world markets for services.

Any response to the problem facing the WTO in dealing with services must therefore satisfy two conditions:
• it must encourage and enable individual governments participating in multilateral trade negotiations to identify, and bring to the negotiating table, their own ‘behind-the-border’ barriers to trade; and
• it must leave them in full control of domestic policy.

An initiative that meets these conditions has been proposed by Australia and New Zealand business and industry organizations – The Tasman Transparency Group (TTG). The relevance of the TTG initiative, however, is not limited to tackling ‘behind-the-border’ barriers. It recognises that all the national gains available from liberalising in a multilateral context depend on what each country takes to the negotiating table, not what they hope to take away from it.
The domestic transparency initiative they propose is on TTG’s website: http://www.tasmantransparencygroup.com

Related post:

Services negotiations in the WTO are stuck: What is the circuit breaker?

Comments are closed.

Support Quality Analysis

Donate
The East Asia Forum office is based in Australia and EAF acknowledges the First Peoples of this land — in Canberra the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people — and recognises their continuous connection to culture, community and Country.

Article printed from East Asia Forum (https://www.eastasiaforum.org)

Copyright ©2024 East Asia Forum. All rights reserved.