IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gpr/journl/v1y2015i1p63-81.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Convergence or Divergence in Future? Comparative Analysis between the WTO SCM Agreement and the Agreement on Agriculture

Author

Listed:
  • Minju Kim

Abstract

The World Trade Organization (WTO) has treated agricultural subsidies as exceptional. Under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994, subsidies are in general regulated under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the SCM Agreement) while agricultural subsidies are regulated under the Agreement on Agriculture (the AoA). This paper delves into the historical backgrounds of diverging regulatory patterns of the two by referring to the legal documents from the ITO Havana Charter in 1948 to the GATT 1994. Along with the historical review, rationales for justifying the exceptional status of agricultural products are thoroughly examined. This paper concludes that convergence of the SCM Agreement and the AoA is required in the long-run for strengthening the legal consistency and fairness of the WTO subsidies regime.

Suggested Citation

  • Minju Kim, 2015. "Convergence or Divergence in Future? Comparative Analysis between the WTO SCM Agreement and the Agreement on Agriculture," Global Politics Review, Global Politics Review, vol. 1(1), pages 63-81, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gpr:journl:v:1:y:2015:i:1:p:63-81
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.globalpoliticsreview.com/2464-9929_v01_i01_p63/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    WTO; Subsidies; Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures; the Agreement on Agriculture; Convergence.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Y8 - Miscellaneous Categories - - Related Disciplines

    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:gpr:journl:v:1:y:2015:i:1:p:63-81. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.globalpoliticsreview.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.