IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/lawdev/v3y2010i1n1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

EU and U.S. Non-Reciprocal Preferences: Maintaining the Acquis

Author

Listed:
  • Kelly Ruth

    (Trinity College Dublin)

Abstract

In the light of the disparity of bargaining leverage in FTA negotiations between the EU or the U.S. and developing countries, this article presents a legal mechanism to maintain the status quo, that is, the acquis of current trade arrangements. On the basis of the test established in the EC-Tariff Preferences case, it is argued that the Enabling Clause allows for differentiation between developing countries on the basis of their levels of intra-regional trade. A scheme is then constructed which allows the EU and the U.S. to differentiate in favor of current beneficiaries of non-reciprocal trade preference schemes in this way. This allows the EU and the U.S. to maintain the acquis without making radical changes to their trade and development policy. Where the status quo is an option, developing countries involved in FTA negotiations would have a feasible best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) to replace the current alternative of a significant reduction of market access to the EU or the U.S. While the maintenance of the status quo is up to the industrialized country in question, given that the trade preferences are unilateral in nature, the scheme constructed debunks the myth that there is a legal requirement to replace the current arrangements by reciprocal trade agreements in the absence of a waiver.

Suggested Citation

  • Kelly Ruth, 2010. "EU and U.S. Non-Reciprocal Preferences: Maintaining the Acquis," The Law and Development Review, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-39, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:lawdev:v:3:y:2010:i:1:n:1
    DOI: 10.2202/1943-3867.1056
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2202/1943-3867.1056
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2202/1943-3867.1056?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James Harrison, 2008. "Legal and Political Oversight of WTO Waivers," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 411-425, June.
    2. Marco Fugazza & David Vanzetti, 2008. "A South–South Survival Strategy: The Potential for Trade among Developing Countries," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(5), pages 663-684, May.
    3. Aaditya Mattoo & Devesh Roy & Arvind Subramanian, 2003. "The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act and its Rules of Origin: Generosity Undermined?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(6), pages 829-851, June.
    4. Olivier Cadot & Antoni Estevadeordal & Akiko Suwa-Eisenmann & Thierry Verdier, 2006. "The Origin of Goods: Rules of Origin in Regional Trade Agreements," Post-Print halshs-00754856, HAL.
    5. Cadot, Olivier & Estevadeordal, Antoni & Suwa-Eisenmann, Akiko & Verdier, Thierry (ed.), 2006. "The Origin of Goods: Rules of Origin in Regional Trade Agreements," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199290482, Decembrie.
    6. Caroline Lesser & Evdokia Moisé-Leeman, 2009. "Informal Cross-Border Trade and Trade Facilitation Reform in Sub-Saharan Africa," OECD Trade Policy Papers 86, OECD Publishing.
    7. Inama,Stefano, 2009. "Rules of Origin in International Trade," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521851909.
    8. Wainio, John & Shapouri, Shahla & Trueblood, Michael A. & Gibson, Paul R., 2005. "Agricultural Trade Preferences and the Developing Countries," Economic Research Report 7258, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    9. Bernard Hoekman & Çağlar Özden (ed.), 2006. "Trade Preferences and Differential Treatment of Developing Countries," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3320.
    10. Estevadeordal, Antoni & Suominen, Kati, 2009. "The Sovereign Remedy?: Trade Agreements in a Globalizing World," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199550159, Decembrie.
    11. Anonymous, 2009. "Abstract of the discussion," British Actuarial Journal, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 202-217, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kiyoyasu Tanaka, 2021. "The European Union's reform in rules of origin and international trade: Evidence from Cambodia," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(10), pages 3025-3050, October.
    2. Gnangnon, Sèna Kimm, 2022. "Effect of the utilization of non-reciprocal trade preferences offered by the QUAD countries on beneficiary countries' economic complexity," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    3. Bernard Hoekman & Stefano Inama, 2017. "Rules of Origin as Non-Tariff Measures: Towards Greater Regulatory Convergence," RSCAS Working Papers 2017/45, European University Institute.
    4. Marco Fugazza & Frédéric Robert-Nicoud, 2014. "The “Emulator Effect” of the Uruguay Round on US Regionalism," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 1049-1078, November.
    5. 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.
    6. Céline Carrere & Jaime Melo De, 2011. "The Doha Round and Market Access for LDCs: Scenarios for the EU and US Markets," CERDI Working papers halshs-00554311, HAL.
    7. Paul Collier & Anthony J. Venables, 2007. "Rethinking Trade Preferences: How Africa Can Diversify its Exports," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(8), pages 1326-1345, August.
    8. Laura COLLINSON & Jaime DE MELO, 2011. "Getting the best out of regional integration: Some thoughts for Rwanda," Working Papers P27, FERDI.
    9. Jaime DE MELO & Ben SHEPHERD, 2018. "The Economics of Non-Tariff Measures: A Primer," Working Papers P212, FERDI.
    10. Krishna, Kala, 2009. "Background Paper on the IMF's Trade Restrictiveness Index," MPRA Paper 21316, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Fugazza, Marco & Nicita, Alessandro, 2011. "Measuring preferential market access," MPRA Paper 38565, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Patrick Georges, 2010. "Dispensing with NAFTA Rules of Origin? Some Policy Options," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(11), pages 1606-1637, November.
    13. repec:idb:brikps:255 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Chang, Yang-Ming & Xiao, Renfeng, 2015. "Preferential trade agreements between asymmetric countries: Free trade areas (with rules of origin) vs. customs unions," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 28-43.
    15. Bernhard Herz & Marco Wagner, 2011. "The Dark Side of the Generalized System of Preferences," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(4), pages 763-775, September.
    16. William E. James, 2010. "Us International Trade And The Global Economic Crisis," Journal of International Commerce, Economics and Policy (JICEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 1(02), pages 183-225.
    17. de Melo, Jaime & Carrère, Céline, 2009. "The Doha Round and Market Access for LDCs: Scenarios for the EU and US Markets," CEPR Discussion Papers 7313, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Felipe Benguria, 2022. "Do US exporters take advantage of free trade agreements? Evidence from the US‐Colombia free trade agreement," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 1148-1179, September.
    19. Fabio Gaetano Santeramo & Emilia Lamonaca, 2022. "Standards and regulatory cooperation in regional trade agreements: What the effects on trade?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(4), pages 1682-1701, December.
    20. Laaksonen, Kalle & Maki-Franti, Petri & Virolainen, Meri, 2007. "Lome Convention, Agriculture and Trade Relations between the EU and the ACP Countries in 1975-2000," Working Papers 18853, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    21. Celik, Levent & Karabay, Bilgehan & McLaren, John, 2020. "Fast-track authority: A hold-up interpretation," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).

    More about this item

    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:bpj:lawdev:v:3:y:2010:i:1:n:1. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    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.