Title: Cause and effect of 'differentiation' between developing countries in the WTO

Authors: R. Rajesh Babu

Addresses: Public Policy and Management, Indian Institute of Management, Joka, Diamond Harbor Road, Kolkata – 700104, Calcutta, India

Abstract: Developing countries, the largest group in the WTO, are bestowed with |special and differential treatment| (S&D) across WTO covered agreements. However, the state of implementation of S&D provisions has been a deep source of concern. One of the major obstacles in realisation of the S&D treatment is the identification and definition of countries qualified for such treatment – the |developing countries|. The developing countries are the most heterogeneous group in the WTO, and the |developing country status| is determined based on self-selection, with no set standard for identification and |graduation|. This has hindered the effective utilisation of S&D provisions, diluted the legitimacy of the S&D concept and questioned the rational of granting such |status| with the WTO framework. Consequently, the question as to which country qualify as |developing country| or whether there could be differentiation within |developing county| group, is paramount and have direct correlation with S&D|s implementation in the existing WTO regime and the future regime negotiated under the Doha |development| round. This paper attempts to highlight some of these concerns. The paper argues that it is in the developing countries| interest to lay down definite and transparent criteria for determining such status. In addition to adding legitimacy to the function of S&D concept, this would discourage discrimination, and ensure prompt and effective realisation of the S&D goals.

Keywords: WTO; World Trade Organization; developing countries; S&D provisions; discrimination; special and differential treatment; EC tariffs; tariff preferences; India; objective criteria; European Commission; cause; effect; differentiation; international agreements; country identification; country definition; country status; self-selection; set standards; country graduation; legitimacy; qualifying countries; future regimes; existing regimes; development rounds; Doha Development Agenda; Qatar; definite criteria; transparent criteria; private law.

DOI: 10.1504/IJPL.2011.041064

International Journal of Private Law, 2011 Vol.4 No.3, pp.342 - 353

Published online: 28 Mar 2015 *

Full-text access for editors Full-text access for subscribers Purchase this article Comment on this article