Korea, Republic – Trade β Blog

Setback for plurilateral approach as investment deal blocked again

The 128 participants will continue efforts to persuade India, South Africa and Türkiye that their deal can become an official WTO plurilateral agreement

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED MARCH 22, 2024 | UPDATED MARCH 23, 2024

India and South Africa, now joined by Türkiye, continued to block consensus on adding the 128-participant Investment Facilitation Agreement to the World Trade Organization’s rulebook when WTO members met as the General Council today (March 22, 2024).

The on-going resistance is a setback for the large number of countries that had hoped deals among only some of the WTO’s 164 members — known as “plurilateral” — could be a way to allow rule-making to develop among the willing without affecting others who are not ready.

Lack of consensus prevents “plurilateral” agreements from being part of the organisation’s official package of rules. That means WTO committees cannot be set up to oversee implementation and the agreements are not subject to legal proceedings under WTO dispute settlement.

Only three of the 36 non-participants have opposed adding this plurilateral agreement to the WTO’s rules. The US is a non-participant that has previously argued in favour.

What next? Seven talking points after the WTO’s 2024 Ministerial Conference

Lots to think about as WTO delegations pick up the pieces from Abu Dhabi and look ahead to the next conference in two years’ time and beyond

By Peter Ungphakorn and Robert Wolfe
POSTED MARCH 13, 2024 | UPDATED MARCH 20, 2024

We’ve deliberately taken our time. The World Trade Organization’s 2024 Ministerial Conference in Abu Dhabi ended almost two weeks ago, after deadlock forced it to be extended by over a day, into the early hours of March 2.

Before the conference we had warned against expecting too much. We had argued that what was going to be essential was to preserve the system. Most issues were not ripe, and the geopolitical situation meant political energy was elsewhere.

Not to cause any harm seemed to be enough to say “job done”.

Some have criticised us for being too complacent, for being satisfied with the status quo. Far from it. We were simply recognising reality.

Quite a lot has been written and said about the conference, its minor successes and the major failures to meet expectations. Here are some talking points that stand out for us. It’s time to look ahead.

Comment: on India’s claim that a plurilateral WTO deal is ‘illegal’

Participants want to add their investment facilitation agreement to WTO rules, but India objects, calling it ‘illegal’, ‘non-mandated’, ‘non-multilateral’ and a ‘violation of the WTO framework’

SEE ALSO
In General Council India alone opposes investment deal as a WTO agreement
Technical note: types of plurilateral deals and adding them to WTO rules
What the agreement includes
●
General Council minutes from this meeting and in general (published a few months after the meeting)
All articles tagged “investment facilitation”
All articles tagged “Plurilaterals”

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED JANUARY 12, 2024 | UPDATED MAY 10, 2024

India has circulated a strongly-worded statement prepared for the World Trade Organization’s General Council on December 15, 2023 on why it opposes bringing the new plurilateral agreement on Investment Facilitation for Development (IFD) into the package of WTO rules.

It describes the whole process as “illegal”, without any mandate and against the multilateral WTO framework. Worse, India says, the investment facilitation talks defy a “negative mandate” because of previous consensus decisions against the move.

Why is this important? Two words: WTO reform.

But is that legalistic rejection valid? Some lawyers suggest the argument is political even though it is dressed up as legal.

And “BS” is how one described the claim that negotiations can only be launched in the WTO by a consensus mandate.

Chair issues new draft before final fisheries subsidies month

Agreement by February 29 depends on four weeks of intensive talks. Can members settle their many differences?

See also:
Updates, timeline and links | all articles tagged “fisheries subsidies”
Technical note on subsidies for fisheries

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED JANUARY 2, 2024 | UPDATED JANUARY 13, 2024

A new draft and explanatory note on the Fisheries Subsidies Agreement’s “missing piece” was circulated to members on December 21, 2023, the World Trade Organization’s final working day of the year.

The chair, Ambassador Einar Gunnarsson of Iceland, has given WTO members four weeks from January 15 to February 9, 2024 to try to agree on a final version, which they would submit to the February 26–29 Ministerial Conference in Abu Dhabi.

SUMMARY

Too long, don’t want to read? If you just want the essence, stick with this SUMMARY section, which is about 15 short paragraphs. Continue beyond that if you want the DETAILS. Right at the end are the full texts. This article is long because a lot remains to be sorted out. The chair’s explanation is a seven-page document.

UPCOMING KEY FISH DATES
Over the New Year — Some consultations possible, but generally a break
January 15–February 9 — “fish month” of intensive talks
February 14 — final General Council meeting before the Ministerial Conference
February 15–25 — delegations’ preparations: coordinating with capitals and ministers, travelling to Abu Dhabi
February 26–29 — Ministerial Conference

For the first time since he floated a trial text in September, Gunnarsson released this version publicly.

The chair’s draft and his accompanying explanation are reproduced side by side below. An explanation of the details is also below. (The original pdf format of the draft is here and the accompanying explanation is here).

The chair’s detailed explanation shows that differences still have to be bridged throughout the text, although it remains to be seen where countries’ real red lines are, and whether they can compromise at the last minute. In 2022 they still couldn’t, 21 years after the talks were launched.

UPDATES: expanding the WTO intellectual property waiver for COVID-19

Latest developments with links to some key documents and news

If you are following this blog, please note that
WordPress does not send out alerts for updates, only for new posts.
To see updates, follow me on Twitter or Mastodon or check back here periodically.

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED OCTOBER 4, 2022 | UPDATED AS INDICATED

The waiver on patent protection for COVID-19 vaccines was agreed at the WTO Ministerial Conference on June 17, 2022. The text with brief explanations is here. The waiver is not an obligation. Countries can choose to suspend certain patent rights if they want.

Much of the work after the Ministerial Conference results from a provision for WTO members to decide within six months (by December 17, 2022) whether or not to expand the waiver to include COVID-19 tests and treatments:

“No later than six months from the date of this Decision, Members will decide on its extension to cover the production and supply of COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics”

Background: The original (revised) proposal; the debate; the proposed compromise and analysis.

Updates on the latest developments will be added here, with links to new documents and news items. That will include any notifications from countries changing their laws to apply the waiver. So far there are none.

Key events

October 31, 2023 — deadlock continues in the intellectual property council after an information session with stakeholders
October 23–24, 2023 — discussed by capital-based senior officials: positions are unchanged
March and May, 2023 — discussed in the General Council but no new deadline set
December 20, 2022 — the General Council agrees on postponing the deadline with no date set, but to be reconsidered in the Spring
December 19, 2022 — the General Council postpones a decision on postponing the deadline
December 17, 2022 — deadline for expansion decision missed, so far no country has moved to use the vaccine patent waiver agreed in June
December 16, 2022 — formal meeting: chair’s draft binned, replaced by short paragraph postponing the deadline
December 7, 2022 — chair’s draft factual report circulated
December 6, 2022 — informal meeting discusses proponents’ draft and postponing deadline
December 5–6, 2022 — US announces it will need time to consult stakeholders
November 2, 2022 — informal meeting, with members’ positions on expanding the waiver to tests and treatments crystallised into three groups
July 6, 2022 — first meeting after the vaccine patent waiver decision, followed by stock-taking and informal meetings

(TRIPS = trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, the official description of intellectual property issues that are discussed in the WTO — they should be “trade-related” issues)

Text of the UK-South Korea free trade agreement

The longest sections are the schedule of commitments on goods (912 pages) and rules of origin (128 pages)

Posted by Peter Ungphakorn
SEPTEMBER 3, 2019 | UPDATED SEPTEMBER 10, 2019

These are links to the text of the UK-South Korea free trade agreement, signed in London on August 22 and published on the South Korean Government website. It has been posted on that site in separate parts.

The longest sections are the schedule of commitments on goods (912 pages) and rules of origin (128 pages).

(A few days later, the texts were published on the British government website on September 10, along with an explanatory memorandum. A report to Parliament was published separately the previous day.

(See also an earlier piece on rolling over the EU-S.Korea free trade agreement. This deal does that, but the devil is in the detail.)

What have the UK and Switzerland agreed on trade post-Brexit?

Some interesting insights are in Swiss government information notes, prepared mainly for traders and producers

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED FEBRUARY 5, 2019 | UPDATED JANUARY 27, 2021

A summary of this is on the EU Relations Law blog, here

What have the UK and Switzerland agreed on their trade relationship post-Brexit? Essentially, they have been partly “rolling over” to the UK the present Swiss-EU trade relationship.

EU agreements are being “rolled over” into UK agreements in order to allow as much continuity as possible for trade and for business. They are called “continuity agreements”.

Below are an introduction to the provisions on goods and services, followed by Swiss government summaries of key parts of its agreements with the UK, mainly on goods but also narrowly on services.

But first, some context and explanations.

Grandfathering EU free trade deals for the UK: a look at an actual text

After Brexit, ‘Global Britain’ will want free trade agreements with the rest of the world. But it already has some 37 agreements with over 60 countries through the EU. Rolling them over into the UK’s own agreements will not be automatic. A look at the actual text of the EU-South Korea deal shows why

By Peter Ungphakorn
FEBRUARY 13, 2018 | UPDATED JANUARY 1, 2021

Leaving the EU means the British government will either have to convert the EU’s free trade agreements with other countries into UK deals, or risk losing them, when Brexit is supposed to be about to allowing Britain more freedom to enjoy trade agreements with the world outside the EU.

At the very least, the UK should continue with the deals it already has through the EU, with Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Canada, South Korea, Japan (in the pipeline) and many others. Academics at Sussex University say there are over 60 other countries. The UK government says there are over 100. It depends on what kind of agreement is counted.

Questions on Brexit, agriculture, WTO schedules, standards, free trade agreements

Written replies to questions for the inquiry of the UK House of Lords EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee’s inquiry on ‘Brexit: agriculture’, February 8, 2017

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED FEBRUARY 9, 2017 | UPDATED FEBRUARY 9, 2017

On February 8, 2017 the UK House of Lords EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee’s inquiry on Brexit: agriculture published two sets written replies to questions.