IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ecjilt/7392.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The EU’s Export Refunds on Processed Foods: Legitimate in the WTO?

Author

Listed:
  • Swinbank, Alan

Abstract

Export subsidies on processed foods are an important trade policy instrument for the European Union. GATT Article XVI legitimised the use of export subsidies on primary agricultural products, under certain circumstances, but forbade the use of export subsidies on non-primary products. However it was never satisfactorily resolved whether export subsidies could be paid on the primary agricultural products incorporated into processed products, such as pasta. The Uruguay Round Agreements, and particularly the Agreement on Agriculture (the URAA), apparently legitimised the EU’s practice of paying export subsidies on incorporated agricultural products, at least while the Peace Clause was in force. With the demise of the Peace Clause the question arises whether GATT Article XVI has any residual force, given that the range of primary agricultural products exempted by Article XVI from the ban on export subsidies is narrower than the list of agricultural products covered by the URAA.

Suggested Citation

  • Swinbank, Alan, 2006. "The EU’s Export Refunds on Processed Foods: Legitimate in the WTO?," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 7(2), pages 1-16.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ecjilt:7392
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.7392
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/7392/files/Export%20Refunds.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.7392?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John H. Jackson, 1997. "The World Trading System, 2nd Edition: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262600277, December.
    2. Hudec, Robert E., 1998. "Does The Agreement On Agriculture Work? Agricultural Disputes After The Uruguay Round," Working Papers 14612, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    3. Benitah, Marc, 2005. "U.S. Agricultural Export Credits after the WTO Cotton Ruling: The Law of Unintended Consequences," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 6(2), pages 1-8.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joseph A. McMahon, 2007. "Trade Policy Reform Through Litigation La voie judiciaire pour réformer les politiques commerciales Reform der Handelspolitik durch Rechtsstreitigkeiten," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 6(2), pages 42-47, August.
    2. Alan Swinbank, 2008. "Potential WTO Challenges to the CAP†," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(4), pages 445-456, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Götz, Christian & Heckelei, Thomas & Rudloff, Bettina, 2010. "What makes countries initiate WTO disputes on food-related issues?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 154-162, April.
    2. Joseph A. McMahon, 2007. "Trade Policy Reform Through Litigation La voie judiciaire pour réformer les politiques commerciales Reform der Handelspolitik durch Rechtsstreitigkeiten," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 6(2), pages 42-47, August.
    3. Julián Tole Martínez, 2019. "Colombia entre los TLC y la OMC: ¿liberación o administración del comercio internacional?," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 1139, October.
    4. Tangermann, Stefan, 2001. "Has The Uruguay Round Agreement On Agriculture Worked Well?," Working Papers 14586, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    5. Anton Hindardjo & Tiolina Evi, 2022. "Analysis of Muhammadiyah’s Policies in Using Islamic Banking Services in Indonesia," International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation, International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI), vol. 9(4), pages 61-68, April.
    6. Lili Yan Ing & Olivier Cadot & Muhammad Rizqy Anandhika & Shujiro Urata, . "Non-Tariff Measures in ASEAN: A Simple Proposal," Chapters, in: Lili Yan Ing & Santiago Fernandez de Cordoba & Olivier Cadot (ed.), Non-Tariff Measures in ASEAN, chapter 2, pages 13-36, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA).
    7. Bernard Hoekman & Kym Anderson, 2000. "Developing-Country Agriculture and the New Trade Agenda," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 49(1), pages 171-180.
    8. Richard E. Baldwin, 2011. "Multilateralising Regionalism: Spaghetti Bowls as Building Blocks on the Path to Global Free Trade," Chapters, in: Miroslav N. Jovanović (ed.), International Handbook on the Economics of Integration, Volume I, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Muhammad Munawar Hussain & Asim Iqbal & Syed Jaffar Abbas & Sara Shahid & Laila Khalid, 2022. "Navigating the Path to Increase FDI in South Asia: The Role of Economic Freedom," Journal of Policy Research (JPR), Research Foundation for Humanity (RFH), vol. 8(4), pages 350-359, December.
    10. Carsten Daugbjerg & Alan Swinbank, 2008. "Curbing Agricultural Exceptionalism: The EU's Response to External Challenge," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(5), pages 631-652, May.
    11. Burfisher, Mary E. & Norman, Terry & Schwartz, Renee, 2001. "Nafta Trade Dispute Resolution: What Are The Mechanisms?," Proceedings of the 6th Agricultural and Food Policy Systems Information Workshop, 2000: Trade Liberalization Under NAFTA: Report Card on Agriculture 16843, Farm Foundation, Agricultural and Food Policy Systems Information Workshops.
    12. Chad P. Bown & Kara M. Reynolds, 2017. "Trade Agreements and Enforcement: Evidence from WTO Dispute Settlement," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 64-100, November.
    13. Tancr�de Voituriez & Xin Wang, 2015. "Real challenges behind the EU-China PV trade dispute settlement," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(5), pages 670-677, September.
    14. Basyah, Mohammad & Hartigan, James C., 2007. "Analyst earnings forecast revisions and the persistence of antidumping relief," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 383-399.
    15. Julián Tole Martínez, 2019. "Colombia entre los TLC y la OMC: ¿liberación o administración del comercio internacional?," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 1130, October.
    16. Baybars Karacaovali & Nuno Limão, 2018. "The clash of liberalizations: Preferential vs. multilateral trade liberalization in the European Union," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Policy Externalities and International Trade Agreements, chapter 14, pages 373-401, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    17. Meredith A. Crowley, 2003. "An introduction to the WTO and GATT," Economic Perspectives, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, vol. 27(Q IV), pages 42-57.
    18. Spearot, Alan C., 2013. "Variable demand elasticities and tariff liberalization," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 26-41.
    19. Ludema, Rodney D. & Mayda, Anna Maria, 2009. "Do countries free ride on MFN?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(2), pages 137-150, April.
    20. Bown, Chad P., 2014. "Trade policy instruments over time," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6757, The World Bank.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    International Relations/Trade;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ecjilt:7392. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esteyca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.