US Claims under Special Section 301 against China Undermine the Credibility of the WTO
The US action to place China in the Special 301 ‘Priority Watch List’ is unjustified and in contravention to the WTO rules. The claims made against China are based on standards self-determined by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), not on international standards. This is an example of a systemic problem that requires a concerted response. WTO members should unite to firmly oppose the imposition of unilateral measures that undermine the multilateral trading system and the credibility of WTO as a ruled-based institution.
US’ Section 301 Actions: Why They are Illegitimate and Misguided
This research paper examines the US’ Section 301 unilateral actions against China, stemming from the US’ concerns over China’s ambitious industrial policies and its rapid technological advancements. It outlines the accusations of the US regarding China’s conditions for technology transfer and what the US sees as overly intrusive Chinese government involvement in investments. It looks in detail at why the US’ actions are in fact illegitimate and misguided. (more…)
US’ Section 301 Actions are Illegitimate and Misguided
On 23rd August, the US Administration imposed yet another set of discriminatory tariffs on China under its Section 301 Trade Act covering US$16 billion of its imports from China. This is in addition to the additional tariffs imposed on 6 July 2018 on US$34 billion of its imports from China. According to the US, these actions are supposedly because of China’s unreasonable or discriminatory practices relating to technology transfer, intellectual property and innovation.
The Cooperation and Facilitation Investment Agreement (CFIA) in the context of the discussions on the reform of the ISDS system
The Brazilian Cooperation and Facilitation Investment Agreement (CFIA) model establishes an alternative approach to dispute resolution. This does not mean, however, that the CFIA is silent with regards to possible disputes arising from breaches to the agreement and/or claims by investors. Based on the premise that the investment regime between two or more countries is a positive-sum game, in which all parties involved win, the CFIA presents an approach based on the prevention of disputes.
How international investment agreements have made debt restructuring even more difficult and costly
International investment and trade agreements are legally binding international treaties which give investors an additional layer of legal protection on top of the host country law and contract law. However, little efforts have been made in ironing out the interface between these different laws and treaties. Inconsistencies and even contradictions have emerged in dispute settlement decisions, sometimes at the expense of public good, sovereignty and financial and economic stability. An asymmetry seems to exist in the allocation of risks and benefits between investors and recipients of investments. (more…)