International Trade Law

Go On! International Law Weekend 2014: Call for Panel Proposals

/ Karen Hoffmann / Leave a comment

In anticipation of International Law Weekend 2014 – the premier international law event of the fall season, to be held on October 23-25, 2014, in New York City – the sponsors would like to invite proposals for panels, roundtables, and lectures by March 21. The overall theme of ILW 2014 is International Law in a Time of Chaos.

About ILW

ILW is sponsored and organized by the American Branch of the International Law Association (ABILA) and the International Law Students Association (ILSA). This annual conference attracts an audience of more than 1,000 practitioners, academics, diplomats, members of the governmental and nongovernmental sectors, and most importantly, foreign policy and law students who are learning about the range of practice and career opportunities.

Call for Proposals

The theme — hopefully not too disheartening — is “International Law in a Time of Chaos.” The role of international law in conflict mitigation is  a focus  – whether by building commercial links between states, fighting corruption, improving democratic governance, providing methods for resolving international and ethnic disputes, or regulating the use of force.  International Law Weekend 2014 will seek to address the role of public and private international lawyers in each of these tasks.

Panel proposals may also concern any other aspect of international law, including trade, investment, arbitration, intellectual property, combating corruption, labor standards in the global supply chain, and human rights, as well as issues of international organizations and international security.   We are also interested in panel proposals that are of particular interest to practitioners.  Alongside a broad array of public international law topics, we will have dedicated tracks of private international law topics in each program slot.

The ILW Program Committee invites proposals to be submitted online by Friday, March 21, 2014.

Please provide a title, brief description of the topic, and the names, titles, and affiliations of the chair and likely speakers – but also describe what you think would be the most engaging and exciting format, including ways to enhance participation by the audience.  Varied formats, such as debates, roundtables, lectures, and break-out groups are encouraged, as well as the more familiar genus of of panel presentations.

One of the objectives of ILW 2014 is to promote conversations among scholars and practicing lawyers; so formats should include presenters with diverse experiences and perspectives.

ILW 2014 will open with a Great Hall program  at the Association of the Bar of the City of New York at 42 West 44th Street on Thursday evening, October 23, and continue at the Fordham Law School at Lincoln Center on October 24-25, 2014.  We expect an audience that will include practitioners, professors, UN diplomats, business leaders, federal and state government officials, NGO leaders, writers, journalists, and interested citizens.

Questions regarding ILW 2014 can be directed to conferences@ilsa.org.

ILW 2014 Program Committee

Tamara Cummings-John, Legal Officer, United Nations Office of Legal Affairs; Davis Robinson, Former Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State; Stephen Shapiro, Managing Partner, BSR Investments; Vivian Shen, Programs Director, International Law Students Association; David Stewart, President-Elect, American Branch of the International Law Association; and Ruth Wedgwood, President, American Branch of the International Law Association.

Bali Present: WTO 9th Ministerial Delivers

/ Andrea M. Ewart, Esq. / 2 Comments
Bali Opens (www.wto.org)

Bali Opens
(www.wto.org)

In our last post, Hopeful Watching: The WTO 9th Ministerial in Bali, we discussed the high hopes with which the Doha Development Round had been launched, its shrinking agenda, and the hope that some consensus would emerge that could lead to a deal focused around the hopes and aspirations of developing countries.

Just in time for the holidays, after round-the-clock discussions that extended into an additional all-nighter of negotiations, the “Bali Package” was delivered. It consists of the following small deals pulled from the broader Doha Agenda:

On Agriculture, the thorny issue of Food Security led to a “peace clause” for four years during which food stockpiling programs by developing countries which meet certain criteria will be shielded from trade challenges, even if they negatively impact other countries’ trade, while they negotiate a permanent solution. This outcome, where it’s now advanced developing countries, notably India, that are seeking protection for their agriculture subsidies represents a complete turn-around from the original focus of the Doha Round – elimination by developed countries of their programs of subsidies. This issue, perhaps more than any other, indicates the extent to which the Doha agenda has evolved since 2001.

The consensus around Development Issues emerged in the form of Members’ commitments to implement four previous decisions:

New WTO Member

Bali Closes (www.wto.org)

Bali Closes
(www.wto.org)

In other business, thirteen years after submitting its application to join the WTO, Yemen was formally welcomed into its ranks. Once Yemen ratifies the terms of its accession, it will become the WTO’s 160th member. It is also the seventh (7th) LDC to join the WTO. Implementation of the Development Decisions (above) will improve the terms on which LDC products access world markets whether or not they join the WTO.

Post-Bali Package?

The Bali Package also includes hopeful language about returning to the other issues on the Doha Agenda. These include market access for manufactured goods, more substantive agreements on agriculture and an agreement on services. However, on services, for example, separate negotiations have already begun to conclude the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA). These talks are being pursued on a plurilateral basis, i.e. a sub-set of WTO members, allowing them to bypass the pesky requirement to achieve consensus among all (now 160) WTO members. It is therefore more realistic to conclude that the Bali Package has already delivered all that can be reaped from the Doha Agenda.

Hopeful Watching: The WTO 9th Ministerial in Bali

/ Andrea M. Ewart, Esq. / 1 Comment

Trade ministers from around the world are once again meeting in an attempt to conclude the Doha Development Round of trade negotiations. The WTO’s Ninth (9th) Ministerial Conference opened December 3rd, 2013 in Bali, Indonesia and is scheduled to conclude on December 6th.

When they last met at the WTO’s Eighth (8th) Ministerial Conference in Geneva (December 15th – 17th, 2011), the trade ministers left the meeting with no clear path toward concluding the Doha Round negotiations.  Launched in November, 2001, the negotiations began with an apparent commitment to liberalize trade while addressing the longstanding concerns of developing countries, particularly continued agricultural subsidies by developed countries. Since then, however, the outcomes contemplated when the Round was launched are no longer an option. Several factors account for this reality:

Emerging Issues: Trade issues and concerns, particularly for the developed countries that drive the agenda, have changed since the launch of the Doha Round in 2001. At the top of these issues is recovering from the economic depression and identifying and addressing the new protectionist approaches by which countries attempt to gain a competitive, if unfair, advantage. Issues such as currency manipulation and climate change compete for attention, and at times make the 12-year old Doha agenda seem obsolete. At the same time, the unaddressed issues remain and developing countries have refused to take on new obligations while their concerns remain unaddressed.

Shrinking WTO Agenda: In compromise, the Doha Round negotiating agenda has been shrinking. The agenda in 2011 had shrunk from the goal of reaching agreement on a comprehensive deal to four main areas — agricultural market access, market access for industrialized goods, trade in services, and trade facilitation (streamlining customs and port procedures).  Two years later, it’s been further distilled to focus on areas of primary interest to developing countries – agriculture, trade facilitation, and special and differential treatment, particularly for least developed countries.  To keep the business interests in the developed world engaged, however, pressure is being placed on emerging countries, notably the “BRICS”, to lower tariffs and give greater access to their markets, even in a seemingly neutral area such as trade facilitation.  Meanwhile, the emerging countries continue to identify with other developing countries, particularly with respect to the technical and other non-tariff barriers that their goods face upon entry to developed country markets.  Without such compromises, however, it is unclear that developed countries will be willing to sign off on a deal.

Consensus around Development

In fact, however, a renewed focus on “development” may be what’s needed. There is already some consensus about what needs to be done for the “poorest of the poor” countries – the LDCs. For the broader group of developing countries, removal of negotiations on services is already a disappointment but any progress on addressing non-tariff barriers to developed country markets would be welcomed. And the election this year of Brazil’s Roberto Azevêdo as the current WTO Director-General  provides some hope that he can bridge the divide that exists between developed and developing countries.

Hoping against hope, we watch the progress of the 9th Ministerial.

Write On! Call for Papers: Trade and Climate Change

/ Karen Hoffmann / Leave a comment

Trade, Law and Development is a student-edited journal on International Economic Law published by the National Law University, Jodhpur, India. Managing Editor Thomas J. Vaillianeth sends this call for papers for the journal’s upcoming special issue on Trade and Climate Change:

Founded in 2009, the philosophy of Trade, Law and Development has been to generate and sustain a constructive and democratic debate on emergent issues in International Economic Law and to serve as a forum for the discussion and distribution of ideas – with a specific focus on the development perspective of International Economic Law. In keeping with these ideals, the Board of Editors is pleased to announce Trade and Climate Change as the theme for its next Special Issue (Vol. VI, No. 1, Summer 2014).

Climate change is one of the foremost challenges facing the global community today and intersects with international trade in numerous ways. Sustainable development and protection and preservation of the environment are recognized as fundamental goals of the WTO, although its principal objective is to foster international trade. The WTO permits members to avail of exceptions to its principles in order to protect the environment under specific conditions. The on-going Doha Round has further consolidated the WTO’s stance on the environment by launching the first ever multilateral trade and environment negotiations. Moreover, the recent COP-15, Rio+20 and Earth Summit negotiations have given significant impetus towards achieving a global solution to climate change. There is hope that this multilateral dialogue will materialise into a global climate change deal in 2015 under the auspices of the UNFCCC.

This Special Issue, currently scheduled for publication in June, 2014, will provide an ideal platform for deliberation on the relationship between trade and climate change in the run-up to the proposed 2015 global climate change deal. Accordingly, the Board of Editors is pleased to invite original, unpublished submissions for the Special Issue on Trade and Climate Change for publication as ‘Articles’, ‘Notes’, ‘Comments’ and/or ‘Book Reviews’. Preference will be given to submissions that espouse perspectives of developing and under-developed countries.

Manuscripts may be submitted via e-mail, ExpressO or the TL&D website. For further information and submission guidelines, please visit the Journal’s website or contact us at editors[at]tradelawdevelopment.com.

Last date for Submissions: January 31, 2014.

Regularizing and Decriminalizing the Movement of People

/ Andrea M. Ewart, Esq. / 1 Comment

130 people from Ghana, Eritrea, and Somalia, including pregnant women and children, drowned off the coast of Italy (October, 2013) when the boat in which they were traveling caught fire and capsized. The boat left from Tripoli, Libya with about 500 persons attempting to reach Italy and enter the European Union. This route each year claims thousands of lives.  The death toll from this latest incident will only rise as at least another 100 passengers are missing. These tragedies happen around the world because, as the barriers to the movement of goods and some services have fallen, those facing people who merely seek the opportunity for a decent life continue to go up.

Labor or Economic Migration          

Whether fleeing political persecution or economic instability, most migrants seek the opportunity to live a normal life, earn a decent wage and support their families. Economic or labor migrants are motivated primarily by the search for employment. The irony is that, if given the opportunity to come and go legally for work, many would do so. Instead, they are forced to become “illegal migrants”.

Whether its Africans trying to make it to Europe or Central Americans and Haitians trying to make it to the United States, the

(Courtesy of Wikipedia)

(Courtesy of Wikipedia)

barriers they face force hundreds of thousands of migrants to place themselves at physical risk. They rely on smugglers who provide passage using overcrowded leaky boats or airless trucks. Women and girls run the risk of being sold into prostitution and slavery. Those who make it to their destination may end up living and working in sub-standard conditions and in enforced separation from their families.

Yet, as the International Organization for Migration (IOM) reports:

. . . when properly managed, labour migration has far-reaching potential for the migrants, their communities, the countries of origin and destination, and for employers.

The IOM further reports that, in 2011, there were 105 million persons working in a country in which they were not born, generating income of US $440 billion. The money they sent back to support their families – remittances – was around US$ 350 billion.

Trade Rules & Migration

The WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) identifies four delivery modes for services trade; Mode 4 is the movement of natural persons as service suppliers. GATS and other trade agreements that provide for free movement of persons focus almost exclusively on the movement of professionals and skilled workers. Trade rules generally ignore and marginalize the low-skilled or unlicensed service providers. As a result, their migration is considered illegal.

Yet their services are no less in demand. They are the ones who migrate to pick fruit, mow lawns, clean homes, and care for children and the elderly. Until this discrepancy is addressed and policies and rules put in place to support the free movement of skilled and low-skilled service providers, tragedies like the ones in the Mediterranean will, unfortunately, continue to occur.

Go On! International Law Weekend, Oct. 24-26, 2013

/ Karen Hoffmann / Leave a comment
New York City in the fall

New York City in the fall (Credit: Vivianna_love/Flickr)

From Ruth Wedgwood, for the American Branch of the International Law Association, partnering with the International Law Students Association, the Leitner Center of Fordham Law School, and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, comes this invitation:

International Law Weekend 2013 — the world-famous autumn festival of the migratory flock of international lawyers, brought to you by the American Branch of the International Law Association and the International Law Students Association — begins on Thursday night, October 24, 2013, at the Great Hall of the Association of the  Bar of the City of New York, 42 West 44th Street, NYC, and continues at 9 a.m. Friday and Saturday, October 25-26, at the Lincoln Center facilities of Fordham Law School, at 140 West 62nd Street, NYC.   Advance Registration is available at http://ila-americanbranch.org/ or http://www.ilsa.org/conferences/16-conferences/16-ilw-new-york.

As always, admission is free for all students, faculty, lawyers, and staff from co-sponsoring institutions, as well as all members of the American Branch of the International Law Association, the International Law Students Association, and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.  Staff members of the United Nations and Permanent Missions to the United Nations can also attend for free.  The registration fee remains a modest $175 for the two days combined for all other practicing lawyers and members of the public.  And for the first time, there will be 14 hours of Continuing Legal Education credit available to all lawyers in attendance, accepted by New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.  The CLE credits are also provided free.

This year’s theme is the “Internationalization of Law & Legal Practice.”   Academics and practitioners — and those who follow foreign policy — will enjoy the Weekend’s cornucopia of controversies in public and private international law and politics.

A blue ribbon opening panel begins the tempest at 6:30 p.m. Thursday night at the City Bar, debating and dissecting the proposed United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (recently signed by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, but still controversial with some in the U.S. Senate as well as the Prime Minister of Canada).  The panel will feature the U.N.’s undersecretary for disarmament affairs, the executive director of PEN, high ranking officials from the State Department and supporting countries, and a critic or two.  All fences will be mended afterwards, in a wine and cheese reception sponsored by the Mission of Mexico. Continue reading →

Progress on the Global Arms Trade Treaty

/ Andrea M. Ewart, Esq. / 1 Comment
(Authors, Rafaela Tasca and Carlos Latuff, Courtesy of Wikipedia Commons)

(Authors, Rafaela Tasca and Carlos Latuff, Courtesy of Wikipedia Commons)

On Wednesday, September 26, 2013, the United States joined 106 other countries in signing the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). As we wrote in a previous post, the ATT is the first global attempt to regulate the multi-billion dollar trade in conventional weapons. Signature of the treaty by the United States — the world’s number one exporter of these weapons — is progess to be celebrated!

The ATT creates common standards and rules to improve the control by states of the flow of arms. It regulates all conventional arms, and prohibits the transfer of arms that would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, and certain war crimes. The treaty will require that signatory countries establish national regulations to control the international transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers. It also institutes an annual reporting system as well as regular meetings between heads of states to monitor implementation.

The treaty enters into force after 50 countries have ratified it. The treaty ratification process varies in each country, depending on its domestic law. In the United States, treaty ratification requires the consent by a two-thirds majority of the U.S. Senate. Most of us are aware of the disproportionately strong hold that the National Rifle Association (NRA) holds over the U.S. legislature, leading to the defeat in April, 2013 of the latest attempt to ban assault rifles. Not surprisingly, the NRA opposes the ATT. It lobbied against the US vote to pass the treaty, and against the US signature of the treaty. It will lobby against attempts to get the treaty ratified.

US signature of the Arms Trade Treaty sends a powerful message to the world and other arms exporters that it is time to regulate the arms trade. Those of us who support this progress must do all that we can to support the next phase – the inevitable battle for its ratification by the US Senate.

The WTO Welcomes a New Director-General

/ Andrea M. Ewart, Esq. / 1 Comment

logo_lite_enOn September 1, 2013, the World Trade Organization (WTO) welcomed a new Director-General, Roberto Azevêdo, of Brazil.

The WTO Director General is chosen by the General Council, comprised of all current WTO members, which at the time of Mr. Azevêdo’s selection stood at 159 countries. Like major WTO decisions, the selection of a Director-General is a consensus decision that is arrived at through a process of extensive consultations among the members.

According to the Procedures for the Appointment of Directors-General, the selection process began on December 1, 2012, when all WTO members were invited to nominate a candidate for the position. Nine (9) candidates emerged, who then were given until March 31, 2013, to make themselves known to Members and to engage in discussions on the pertinent issues facing the Organization. During this period, the candidates made brief presentations at a formal General Council meeting, where they each presented their vision for the WTO and answered questions from the Members. After four rounds of consultations, Mr. Azevêdo emerged as the winner on May 31, 2013.

Keeping this process in mind, this transition to Mr. Azevêdo from Mr. Pascal Lamy of France, whose term ended on July 31, 2013, is noteworthy for several reasons.

(1)   This is the second time that the WTO will be led by an official from a developing country. Seven of the nine original candidates (three of them women) were from developing countries, making it a very high probability that a developing country candidate would have emerged as the winner.

(2)   More importantly, this is the first time that a developing country candidate has emerged with a clear consensus to serve a full term as WTO Director-General. The first WTO Director-General from a developing country was the result of a compromise that led to Mr. Supachai Panitchpakdi  of Thailand sharing a term with Mike Moore of New Zealand. In 1999, the consensus decision-making process failed.  Both men split a six-year term; each served three (3) years while the usual term for the Director-General is one full four (4)-year term.

(3)   The apparent consensus behind Mr. Azevêdo allows us to hope that he will have some authority to bridge the divide that exists between developed and developing countries over the Doha Round trade negotiations.

About Mr. AzevedoRoberto Azevêdo

Mr. Azevêdo has been the Permanent Representative of Brazil to the WTO since 2008. He has served as Brazil’s chief-negotiator for the Doha Round and as its chief-litigator in many important disputes at the WTO. It is reported that he is well-liked and viewed as a well-prepared and credible negotiator.

Mr. Azevêdo will now need to channel this experience into representing not the interests of Brazil, but of the entire organization which leads the world trading system. The primary challenge facing the new Director-General will be to attempt to end the impasse that has stalled the Doha trade negotiations for the past three or four years. Much of that impasse, in the opinion of this writer, results from the mismatched expectations for the negotiations between developed and developing countries. Perhaps the consensus that led to his selection, as well as his position as a developing country leader, will assist Mr. Azevêdo in this goal.

Cultural Disconnect in Trade Negotiations

/ Andrea M. Ewart, Esq. / 1 Comment

The June, 2013 G-8 Summit began with the announcement of the launch of negotiations between the United States and the European Union to conclude a Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership, or TTIP. The first round of negotiations concluded in Washington, D.C. on July 12, 2013.

At first glance it seems a very obvious thing to do. Already, trade between these two transatlantic giants accounts for about half of the world’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and nearly one-third of world trade flows.  Furthermore, as the biggest proponents of trade liberalization and open economies, EU and U.S. goods already enjoy very low tariffs upon entering each other’s markets. In other words, there is already a lot of trade happening between these two.

But, wait a minute! Why then is a trade agreement being negotiated?

Most of the benefit from a concluded TTIP is expected to come from removing or reducing regulatory barriers to trade – called non-tariff barriers or NTBs. Given the amount of trade already happening, the different regulations and standards on either side of the Atlantic Ocean create increased costs for businesses. Companies doing business in Europe and the United States face two or more sets of product approval processes, consumer safety standards, and inspection requirements. One anticipated outcome of the TTIP negotiations, then, are common standards or mutual recognition of each other’s regulatory requirements. Companies doing business on both sides of the Atlantic would then need to comply with only one set of standards and requirements.

US flag (courtesy of wikipedia)

US flag (courtesy of wikipedia)

At the same time, there is wide acknowledgement that this is not going to be as simple as it sounds. Arguably, there are some key areas in which regulations and standards differ for cultural reasons which may be difficult to overcome.

Food Standards: While genetically-modified or genetically-engineered foods (GMOs for short) are very much a part of the US agricultural and food landscape, European citizens have resisted the introduction of

EU flag (courtesy of wikipedia)

EU flag (courtesy of wikipedia)

“frankenfoods” into their food supply. The US sees the negotiations as an opportunity to revisit this issue. However, the European Commission —  the EU’s executive arm and negotiating party in these talks, has said that:

Basic laws, like those relating to GMOs or which are there to protect human life and health, animal health and welfare, or environment and consumer interests will not be part of the negotiations.

Buy American Act provisions: Legislation passed in 1913 restricts the purchase of non-US goods and services by the US Government. Need I say more?

Privacy: EU laws place a much higher value on protecting the privacy of European citizens. This interesting article by NBC news explains. This difference helps to explain why the negotiations almost broke down before they could even get started over revelations of the National Security Agency (NSA) spying activities. “US must justify why they treat us like enemies” said Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament, in a Facebook interview.

 Copyright & Culture: The European Parliament is the EU’s directly-elected legislative body. It has issued its position paper on the US-EU negotiations, which included the request that cultural and audiovisual services be excluded from the negotiations.

Citizen Concerns: On both sides of the Atlantic, citizens have expressed concerns that “common standards” could actually mean a dilution of the national standards for which they have fought so hard.

Some of this disconnect even extends to the name. What the U.S. has dubbed the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership or TTIP, Europeans have preferred to call the Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement, or TAFTA.

These differences in cultural values help to explain why trade negotiations are so difficult. They are about more than reducing tariffs. As negotiators discuss the dry issues of regulations and standards they bring to the table cultural perspectives that they will have to work hard to first understand, then resolve.

Reminder: Registration ends today for Women in International Law Networking Breakfast July 23

/ Karen Hoffmann / Leave a comment

Don’t forget to register by 5 pm (EDT) today to attend the July 23 Women in International Law Networking Breakfast, presented by ASIL’s Women in International Law Interest Group! The event will feature accomplished professionals in various practices of international law, who will discuss their career paths and offer professional advice and insights for women interested in pursuing careers in international law. For more details, and to register, visit http://www.asil.org/activities_calendar.cfm?action=detail&rec=298.