WTO

Once again, Africa finds itself trapped in the geopolitical tussle between China and the United States. This time, it is the struggle over Africa’s critical minerals. Beginning in August 2022, President Joe Biden of the United States signed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) into law with the promotion of American investments in clean energy and climate-driven technologies as a primary goal of this law. The IRA’s corollary objective was the promotion of environmental justice in the United States. Therefore, for both energy capitalists and transition economy enthusiasts, this was supposed to be a win-win situation. However, more was unsaid. The IRA’s passage was not only about building American industries and homegrown green technologies. One of its goals was to significantly reduce America’s reliance on China for the supply of critical minerals. Despite the significant steps taken under the IRA to reduce American dependence on China for critical minerals, it is evident that the United States feels the need to do more. Recently, the United States Senate passed the Intergovernmental Critical Minerals Task Force Act (ICMTFA). The expectation is that the ICMTFA would ramp up American efforts to reduce its demand on China and other states the United States labels as adversarial states. Together, a combined reading of the IRA and ICMTFA represents a new frontier of American national security interests styled as clean energy laws and transition policies. These developments take place against a backdrop of a significant demand in critical minerals that will outpace supply in less than two decades from now. These maneuvers also speak to the lesser-explored American experience with China nearly a decade ago in a dispute involving China’s restrictions on the export of rare earth minerals. The United States, together with other states, challenged China’s export quotas at the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The DSB ruled that China’s restrictions violated WTO law.

Aniekan Ukpe’s book on Special and Differential Treatment (SDT) in the WTO is written at an inflection point in the World Trade Organization (WTO) and many other international organizations – one of increasingly deepening polarization between developed and developing countries and their respective coalitions. One of the central issues in the divide has been the non-fulfilment of developmental objectives set out in respective legal frameworks by international institutions, and the inability to reform. Negotiations on redressing SDT under the WTO have now stretched over 20 years in the Doha Development Round, with no middle-ground reached.

One of the longest running debates at the World Trade Organization (WTO) is how to best account for and address the unique needs of developing countries as they become integrated into the world trading system. This has raised a broad range of questions centering around three key issues— what are the specific needs of developing countries, what flexibilities are required to help members meet their commitments, and what support can be given to build capacity where it is needed most? But underlying these considerations that helped frame individual discussions was always the bigger question of whether the approach to special and differential treatment (SDT) was sufficient to account for the diversity of the organization’s membership.

The book “Special and Differential Treatment reform in the WTO” offers a comprehensive exploration of the conceptual, legal, and practical dimensions of the Special and Differential Treatment (SDT) within the World Trade Organization (WTO). It provides critical insights into how to reform SDT to reflect an appropriate relationship between levels of development and the commitments of members.

The book is a contribution to the debate and literature on reforming SDT in the WTO, particularly, how to define and delimit access to SDT in the WTO. The book interrogates the problem of access to SDT resulting from the lack of a concrete criteria to identify a developing country at the WTO or more aptly, a country with a justifiable need for SDT. It answers the question of how to accommodate different levels of development among WTO members, while ensuring that the costs of multilateralism are shared equitably.

The process of the establishment of the Multilateral Investment Court (MIC), to replace or operate in parallel to the current Investor State Dispute Settlement System (ISDS) system, is ongoing under the auspices of the United Nations Commission Trade Law (UNTRAL) Working Group III (Working Group III). In this forum, parties are invited to make submissions with a view to building support for on the establishment of the court. As expected, the submissions reveal varying concerns, perceptions and interests of states.

Afronomicslaw and The South Centre are delighted to collaborate on this webinar where our Panelists will reflect on some of the most topical issues under the broad umbrella of geopolitics of reforms, Africa and the WTO. Please join us as we reflect on the MC13, reform of the WTO DSM and implications for Africa, Africa in an era of renewed industrial policy, sustainable trade in Africa among others.

Having attended two-thirds of the WTO’s ministerial conferences, I have been reflecting on why they have failed. In most cases it comes down to an abuse of process and bullying by more powerful Members, sometimes with collusion from the chair and the secretariat, leaving developing countries with two choices: capitulation or denial of consensus.

Dispute settlement at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is in urgent need of reform. For nearly two decades, the USA had accused the Appellate Body of judicial overreach and action against the institution escalated under both the Obama and Trump administrations. In November 2022, the quasi-judicial system that has long been referred to as the ‘jewel in the crown’ of the WTO lost its appellate function as the term of its final Member, Dr Hong Zhao, expired. With the US refusal to reappoint members to the Appellate Body, the WTO’s dispute settlement system has been slowly asphyxiated. The WTO’s two-tier dispute settlement system was designed to ensure that Members had access to transparent, independent and timely decision-making.

On May 2-5, 2023, two of our Editors attended the workshop entitled Trade and Climate Action: Shifting the Paradigm for a Just Transition and Sustainable Development in Bridgetown, Barbados.