Plurilaterals – Trade β Blog

Scoring the Ministerial Conference results in the WTO director-general’s ‘half-full’ glass

Is it right to judge the Abu Dhabi Ministerial Conference by counting the decisions as if they each had equal significance? This is how we’d score the 10 that were agreed and some others that weren’t

By Peter Ungphakorn and Robert Wolfe
POSTED APRIL 5, 2024 | UPDATED APRIL 23, 2024

Judging by the WTO website’s coverage, the World Trade Organization’s Abu Dhabi Ministerial Conference was a success, albeit a qualified one, at least in WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala’s assessments. Is this credible?

“Despite the more than challenging context, we concluded [the Ministerial Conference] with 10 consensus multilateral ministerial decisions and declarations,” she told ambassadors to the WTO on March 21. “That’s why I personally see the glass as half full.”

We, however, conclude that the glass is quite a lot less than half full.

Despite the more than challenging context, we concluded … with 10 consensus multilateral ministerial decisions and declarations. That’s why I personally see the glass as half full
— Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala

We looked closely at what was agreed in Abu Dhabi and what wasn’t, and we scored each issue. The results are below, a bit like the scorecards we produced after the last Ministerial Conference in Geneva in 2022, but slightly different.

And we believe over-selling the result may be unhelpful because it may encourage complacency. Members can and should do better. And they should start working on that now.

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.

Minutes show how domestic regulation deal in services schedules resolved

The January 24, 2024 meeting shows how talks with 54 WTO members led South Africa and India to drop their objections to commitments incorporating the plurilateral services deal

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED MARCH 6, 2024 | UPDATED MARCH 6, 2024

More details have emerged explaining what happened in talks between some participants in the plurilateral agreement on services domestic regulation and objectors India and South Africa, leading to the objections being dropped.

The story is told in the minutes of the multilateral (WTO-wide) working party handling domestic regulation in services. The minutes are still restricted but will be public in a few months. A leaked copy is here.

They show that South Africa and India had already told WTO members they would drop their objections several weeks before their formal announcements.

Objections dropped on services regulation say nothing about other plurilaterals

Faced with the impossibility of going to arbitration, India and South Africa were forced to drop their objections. They did so for countries that had amended their proposed commitments

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED FEBRUARY 28, 2024 | UPDATED APRIL 6, 2024

Most of the reports coming from the World Trade Organization’s Ministerial Conference in Abu Dhabi speak of the new plurilateral agreement on services regulation entering into force at the conference.

That was the line taken on the WTO website and in the participants’ press conference.

As a result, many media reports also used the term and missed crucial details about what was really going on, including the fact that it only applied to some participants in the deal.

Describing this as a new agreement “entering into force” is not wrong, but it is misleading.

India and South Africa have not dropped all their objections — a point that is missed in most of the reporting

What has happened is that participants in the new agreement on domestic regulation in services have attached the text of the agreement to their individual commitments (called “schedules”) in services, rather than to the general WTO rule-book.

This has avoided the need for WTO-wide consensus on adding to the rule-book an agreement among only part of the WTO’s membership, in the face of opposition from India and South Africa.

Even with this alternative route, India and South Africa still resisted. They raised objections about the proposed new schedules of commitments.

But here the rules are different. India and South Africa could not object forever. So they eventually dropped their objections on some of the schedules, which could then be certified, justifying the description of “entering into force”.

Plurilateral services commitments from 54 members certified, leaving 16 to go

India has joined South Africa in dropping its objections to some of the commitments incorporating the new plurilateral deal on domestic services regulation

(Original headline: “Plurilateral services commitments from 53 member certified, leaving 17 to go”.)

UPDATES April 5, 2024. The WTO Secretariat announced on April 4 that El Salvador’s revised services schedule had been certified because “the Secretariat has received no objections within 45 days as stipulated in the procedures”. The proposal was circulated on February 19, 2024.

In other words, India and South Africa never objected to El Salvador’s February 19 proposal, which seems to have gone straight to pasting in the domestic regulation disciplines, instead of linking to the reference paper. The following day, El Salvador circulated the supplement to its services schedule.

That meant 54 members’ schedules involving the plurilateral agreement had been certified, leaving 16 members’ schedules still uncertified (including the UK’s, facing post-Brexit objections from Russia). One more participant — Timor Leste — is not counted because it is still in the final stages of completing WTO membership.

March 28, 2024. South Africa dropped its objections to four more proposed revised schedules of commitments in services after they were corrected. We can assume that they continue the practice of pasting the new disciplines directly into the documents rather than simply link to the reference paper.

The four are from Albania, Canada, Georgia and South Korea, bringing the total of corrected documents so far to 31, from 58 members. (Chile’s was corrected twice; the UK’s is still uncertified because of post-Brexit Russian objections.)

India had not yet followed suit, so the four new corrected documents remain uncertified, and the certified total is unchanged

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED FEBRUARY 27, 2024 | UPDATED APRIL 15, 2024

At the last-minute India has dropped its objections, allowing a plurilateral agreement on streamlining domestic services regulations to be fully legal in 53 World Trade Organization members.

India’s announcement, circulated on the first day of the WTO’s Ministerial Conference in Abu Dhabi, follows South Africa’s almost two weeks ago

In a paper circulated on February 16, South Africa said it no longer objected to the 27 new commitments from 54 WTO members on services. India withdrew its objections on the same 27 revised lists (or “schedules”) of commitments in services.

This has allowed 26 revised schedules from 53 WTO members to be officially certified. One — from the UK — faces additional objections related to its departure from the EU (Brexit), but Britain said it would continue to apply the new disciplines anyway.

The schedules of another 17 participants in the domestic services regulation agreement have not been certified, apparently because they have not been amended to the satisfaction of India and South Africa.

Definitely. Maybe. Unlikely. Who knows? Issues on the WTO conference agenda

We’d better be prepared for little or nothing substantial when ministers meet in Abu Dhabi at the end of the month

By Peter Ungphakorn and Robert Wolfe
POSTED FEBRUARY 21, 2024 | UPDATED FEBRUARY 27, 2024

Two large but stubborn members may prevent ministers from agreeing on anything important at the World Trade Organization’s upcoming Ministerial Conference, and so the cynics are circling with doom-laden prophecies that “the WTO” is likely to fail again.

One is India, which is demanding the impossible in agriculture and threatening to block several other issues supported by a majority of WTO members. The other is the US, which is also — but more quietly — defying a majority of members on appeals in WTO dispute settlement.

Between them, they could ensure that the February 26–29 meeting in Abu Dhabi becomes yet another where WTO trade ministers kick dozens of cans down the road.

Cynics circle as another WTO Ministerial Conference heads for small pickings

Given the challenging circumstances, system preservation may be the most important outcome

By Peter Ungphakorn and Robert Wolfe
POSTED FEBRUARY 21, 2024 | UPDATED FEBRUARY 27, 2024

The cynics are circling the World Trade Organization’s upcoming Ministerial Conference with doom-laden prophecies that the “WTO” is likely to fail, again.

The cans that were kicked down the road in Geneva in 2022 are now supposed to produce content in Abu Dhabi in 2024. The prospects of that are sobering.

But the WTO is not just its Ministerial Conferences, and the purpose of these conferences is not merely concluding new agreements. Given the challenging circumstances, system preservation may be the most important outcome.

South Africa drops objections to 27 plurilateral services commitments

South Africa’s announcement covers commitments from 54 of the 71 participants in the plurilateral agreement on services domestic regulation

SEE UPDATE
Plurilateral services commitments from 53 members certified, 17 to go
AND
Experts: India, S.Africa unlikely to succeed in blocking WTO services deal
Technical note: types of plurilateral deals and adding them to WTO rules
Explainer: The 18 WTO plurilaterals and ‘joint-statement initiatives’
Technical note: Participation in WTO plurilateral talks

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED FEBRUARY 17, 2024 | UPDATED FEBRUARY 22, 2024

Ten days before the World Trade Organization’s Ministerial Conference South Africa has dropped its objections to 54 WTO members implementing an agreement to streamline domestic regulation in services, leaving only India dissenting on these cases.

In a paper circulated on February 16, South Africa says it no longer objects to the 27 new commitments on services (in documents called “schedules”).

They are from 54 WTO members: Argentina, Bahrain, Chile, China, Costa Rica, the EU (including for its 27 member states), Hong Kong, Iceland, Israel, Japan , Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Mauritius, Moldova, Montenegro, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Singapore, Switzerland, Thailand, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, the UK and the US.

These new commitments contain new rules on domestic regulations in services. They are the result of “plurilateral” negotiations — meaning they were talks among only part of the WTO membership — concluded in December 2021.

Altogether 71 WTO members are participants in the deal but so far only 27 schedules from 54 members have been corrected to South Africa’s satisfaction.

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.