Chapter 23, exclusively dedicated to labor protection, has been widely described as one of the most distinctive features of the new US–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA). This paper challenges the current narrative surrounding the USMCA by critically analysing Chapter 23 of the agreement, looking at the legal innovative design of its substantive commitments of labour protection and their enforceability. In light of this objective, a comparative analysis will be conducted. The provisions of Chapter 23 USMCA will be compared with labour provisions in previous US Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs), namely, the NAFTA side agreement on labour rights and the TPP. Second, a comparative analysis will be conducted comparing USMCA Chapter 23 with labour provisions in EU Trade Agreements negotiated with USMCA parties. The paper demonstrates that although the USMCA does not radically innovate from the level of substantive labour protection reached in recent US and EU PTAs, the enforcement mechanism in the USMCA is significantly strengthened, with controversial and innovative features.

This paper reviews the World Trade Organization (WTO) Panel Report Russia – Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit of April 2019. It constitutes the first attempt to disentangle the legal and political aspects related to the invoked essential security interests from the economic considerations underlying the measures imposed on the transit through Russia of goods exported from Ukraine to the Republic of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. One the one hand, the panel's interpretation of Article XXI of the GATT denies Members unilateral determination over security exceptions. It further enables a pathway for future WTO panels to review possible abuses of security exceptions – a growing concern due to the rising complexity of transnational economic relations. On the other hand, our economic analysis suggests a stricter assessment of Russia's transit restrictions was necessary. In particular, it argues that the panel adopted a circular assessment when considering the plausibility of whether Russia implemented its measures for the protection of its essential security interests at a time of emergency in international relations. Ultimately, although the panel's focus on finding a diplomatic and legal path forward failed economic scrutiny a legal assessment argues that the panel's findings fit the legal design of Article XXI:b of the GATT.

Typically, the WTO Arbitrator, when charged with evaluating the permissible level of countermeasures (suspension of concessions), has chosen a counterfactual state of the world where the challenged (illegal) measure has not been adopted at all. The Arbitrator then would calculate the trade lost because of the adopted (illegal) measure, and thus, decide on the level of permissible countermeasures. In US–Washing Machines (Article 22.6-US), deviating from this custom, the Arbitrator adopted a different counterfactual, assuming that the complainant had adopted a different, ‘reasonable’ measure. The Arbitrator then evaluated the trade lost based on the distance between the adopted (illegal) and the ‘reasonable’ measure and calculated the level of countermeasures. In this paper, we explain the multitude of perils facing dispute settlement if this approach is adopted in future disputes. We also advance a few thoughts on rethinking the workings of the Arbitrator when measuring the level of permissible countermeasures, since similar slippery slopes risk being reproduced in future cases.

This article analyses economic and legal issues in the WTO dispute between Morocco and Turkey over hot-rolled steel. Over 2013–2014, the Moroccan government conducted an antidumping investigation against two Turkish steel producers. Morocco's investigation concluded that Turkish dumping was retarding the establishment of a new domestic industry; antidumping duties were imposed against both Turkish producers. Turkey filed a complaint at the WTO in 2016, asserting procedural and substantive violations. The Panel found that Morocco had acted inconsistently with a number of WTO obligations, including those regarding its injury investigation. Although Morocco initially appealed the Panel's decision, it withdrew its appeal after the antidumping duties expired in September 2019. This case is unusual and important in that it was the first antidumping case in which a country sought to use antidumping duties to protect a newly developing industry. The Panel may have missed an opportunity to explore the definition of an ‘unestablished’ industry for purposes of determining injury in an antidumping investigation.

This article introduces a special issue that examines the effects of strategic competition on the future of the global trade regime. We argue that traditional work in economics and the current set-up of global economic regimes ignores economic statecraft as a key element in understanding trade conflict. Specifically, we outline three examples of contemporary economic statecraft – industrial policy, trade restrictions, and new investment rules – that have been used to block foreign direct investment on the basis of national security claims. Based on this analysis, we explore how the WTO and other economic regimes might address the global economic governance of economic statecraft. In concluding, we outline the theoretical and empirical work in the subsequent case studies that examine the use of economic statecraft in the United States, China, India, Japan, and South Korea.

In 2004, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, and Jordan signed the Agadir Agreement (AA), a free trade agreement with intention of encouraging closer cooperation in trade. The AA came into force in 2007 and relies on the EU's rules of origin. Contrary to existing explanations, which suggest that the little impact of the AA on intraregional trade is a result of the local political elites in the agreement and of weak state institutions, this article amends the concept of isomorphic mimicry to shed some light on the ineffectiveness of the AA. It claims that instead of acting as a vehicle for regional integration, the AA generated two capability traps: premature load bearing and the reproduction of the structural weaknesses of Arab Mediterranean economies. As a result, the AA does not act as an instrument of intraregional cooperation and inclusive growth.

This paper applies machine learning to recreate to a high degree of accuracy the OECD's Services Trade Restrictiveness Index (STRI) to provide quantitative evidence on the restrictiveness of services policies in 2016 for a sample of developing countries, using regulatory data collected by the World Bank and WTO. Resulting estimates are used to extend the OECD STRI approach to 23 additional countries, producing what we term a Services Policy Index (SPI). Converting the SPI to ad valorem equivalent terms shows that services policies are typically much more restrictive than tariffs on imports of goods, in particular in professional services and telecommunications. The SPI has strong explanatory power for bilateral trade in services at the sectoral level, as well as for aggregate goods and services trade.

We critically assess the Appellate Body (AB) report on the Brazil–Taxation dispute, taken to the World Trade Organisation by the European Union and Japan, and encompassing seven different Brazilian industrial programmes granting tax benefits to different firms and products. The trigger of the dispute was most likely the automotive sector programme, instituted under pressure from the local industry and without much attention to effects on consumers or imports. The resulting WTO case underscores some salient issues related to the WTO compatibility of subsidy programmes, in particular the application of the National Treatment rules to subsidies provided exclusively to domestic producers, and the identification of local content requirements, prohibited under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM). The AB diverged from the Panel report and its jurisprudence on those issues. The AB tried to reconcile the existence of legitimate eligibility criteria in subsidy programmes and their discriminatory features with WTO rules under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the SCM. However, the legal test, developed by the AB in this dispute to distinguish prohibited local content requirements from legitimate eligibility criteria, may facilitate circumvention of the SCM prohibition of local content requirements and have important impacts on trade flows.

EU–Biodiesel (Indonesia) is the latest in two lines of cases. On the one hand, the case offers yet another example of the Dispute Settlement Body striking down creative interpretations of antidumping rules by developed countries. Applying the Appellate Body's decision in EU–Biodiesel (Argentina), the panel found that the EU could not use antidumping duties to counteract the effects of Indonesia's export tax on palm oil. On the other hand, the decision is another chapter in the battle over renewable energy markets. Both the EU and Indonesia had intervened in their markets to promote the development of domestic biodiesel industries. The panel's decision prevents the EU from using antidumping duties to preserve market opportunities created by its Renewable Energy Directive for its domestic biodiesel producers. The EU has responded in two ways. First, through regulations that disfavor palm-based biodiesel, but not biodiesel made from from other foodstocks, such as rapeseed oil commonly produced in the EU. Second, the EU has imposed countervailing duties on Indonesian biodiesel, finding that Indonesia's export tax on crude palm oil constitutes a subsidy to Indonesian biodiesel producers. The EU's apparently inelastic demand for protection raises two questions: First, when domestic political bargains rest on both protectionist and non-protectionist motives and policies have both protectionist and non-protectonist effects, what are the welfare consequences of restraining only overt protectionism? Second, under what circumstances may regulatory approaches be even less desirable than duties for addressing combined protectionist and environmental interests, and would the WTO have the right powers to discipline them in an environmentally sound way?

This paper presents a legal-economic analysis of key aspects of the WTO Panel Report involving a challenge by Indonesia against the anti-dumping and countervailing duties imposed by the US on certain coated paper from Indonesia. We focus on the findings in this case relevant to the determination of a ‘benefit’ to the recipient, a core requirement to establish the existence and extent of a subsidy. We examine benchmarking for determining benefit in cases of predominant government ownership of a natural resource and the use of ‘adverse facts available’ against a non-cooperative respondent to infer the existence of a benefit. The benefit analysis in this case may have broader implications. First, it may limit the scope for governments to determine their own policies regarding the ownership and management of natural resources. Second, it may create a loophole allowing investigating authorities to fill gaps in the factual record by intentionally using the ‘facts available’ to the disadvantage of a respondent. In both cases, the panel's findings may open the door to potential misuse of these flexibilities to find a benefit where none exists, or to inflate the margin of benefit to allow for higher countervailing duties.

The Appellate Body report in EU–PET (Pakistan) raises distinct questions regarding the need for findings in relation to expired measures, the conditions under which duty drawback schemes may constitute subsidies and the causation methodology to apply under the SCM Agreement. We conclude that the report offers no clear guidance on whether the function and design of WTO dispute settlement require or preclude findings in case of expired measures. We welcome the Appellate Body's conclusion that, in case of duty drawback schemes, the financial contribution element of the subsidy is limited to the excess remission or drawback of import charges. Finally, although the Appellate Body rightly found that authorities are free to choose the methodology for the causation analysis provided that the analysis is complete and objective, the methodology used by the investigating authority in this case shows a number of deficiencies that were not recognized by the Appellate Body.

This paper examines two disputes brought by the United States and New Zealand in response to a series of import sanctions for agricultural products imposed by the Indonesian government to promote food self-sufficiency. We document the heterogeneous effect the sanctioning measures had on Indonesia's partners. We argue that Indonesia's import licensing regimes acted as a high, sometimes prohibitive, fixed cost of exporting. Frequent changes of regulation provided additional challenges and increased the costs of exporting. These properties determined the differential impacts of Indonesia's measures where some sustained significant market losses while other large exporters, in particular Australia, following a short decline strengthened their market position and export levels.

This paper analyzes the most recent WTO Appellate Body (AB) report in a series of disputes between the US and the EU over government support to aircraft manufacturers Boeing and Airbus. The measures under dispute in US–Tax Incentives were investment promotion subsidies provided to Boeing by the State of Washington. The EU contended that the Washington State subsidies, which were conditioned on Boeing locating production of specific parts of its new 777X program within the state, were prohibited import substitution subsidies. The AB took this case as an opportunity to consolidate WTO case-law on import substitution subsidies. It confirmed a single legal standard for export promotion and import substitution subsidies but with a stricter requirement for a finding of a violation in the case of import substitution subsidies. We argue that the AB, in allowing the subsidies to Boeing, unnecessarily blurred the distinction between contingency in law and contingency in fact by ruling that identifying a condition requiring the use of domestic inputs would be a necessary element for a determination of a de facto contingency. This appears to be an unduly formalistic view that leaves little legal space for any de facto contingency claim in the future.

Labour standards provisions within the Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) chapters of EU Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) are presented as a key element of the EU's commitment to a ‘value-based trade agenda’. But criticism of TSD chapters has led the European Commission to commit to improving their implementation and enforcement, creating a critical juncture in the evolution of the EU's trade–labour linkage. This contribution synthesizes findings from academic studies that have examined the effectiveness of labour standards provisions in EU FTAs. It then considers the reform agenda as presented by the European Commission, and explains how some of the proposals could tackle failures identified. However, it also argues that there are various limitations with the Commission's current proposals, and outlines how legal obligations and institutional mechanisms created by trade agreements could better be harnessed to improve working conditions and rights at work around the world.

Can a WTO Member discriminate against foreign suppliers of services located in jurisdictions that refuse to share information with a government to permit it to determine if its nationals engage in tax evasion? Does it matter if the Member uses standards developed by an international body as the criterion for deciding whether to impose measures? In Argentina–Financial Services, the WTO Appellate Body held that services from jurisdictions that share financial tax information may be different from services provided by jurisdictions that do not cooperate in supplying such information. It overruled a Panel finding that measures to increase taxes on financial transactions with non-cooperative jurisdictions were discriminatory. We argue that the AB reached the right conclusion on the basis of the wrong arguments; that it missed an important opportunity to clarify what WTO Members are permitted to do to enforce their domestic regulatory regimes; and increased the scope for confusion and future litigation by considering that the likeness of services and service suppliers may be a function of prevailing domestic regulatory regimes.

This article discusses ways in which the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and post-GATS free trade agreements may limit the EU's ability to regulate privacy and personal data protection as fundamental rights. After discussing this issue in two dimensions – the vertical relationship between trade and national and European Union (EU) law, and the horizontal relationship between trade and human rights law – the author concludes that these limits are real and pose serious risks.

Inspired by recent developments in safeguarding labour, and environmental standards and sustainable development, the article argues that privacy and personal data protection should be part of, and protected by, international trade deals made by the EU. The EU should negotiate future international trade agreements with the objective of allowing them to reflect the normative foundations of privacy and personal data protection. This article suggests a specific way to achieve this objective.