Developments in the Doha Round and WTO dispute settlement: Some implications for EU agricultural policy

European Review of Agricultural Economics

Volumn 32, Issue 4 SPEC. ISS., 2005, Pages 551-561

  Swinbank, Alan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF READING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Agriculture; Doha; EU; Protection; Tariffs; Trade; WTO

Indexed keywords

EID: 30344460334     PISSN: 01651587     EISSN: 14643618     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/erae/jbi030     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Anania, G. and Bureau, J.-C. (2005). The negotiations on agriculture in the Doha Development Agenda Round: current status and future prospects. European Review of Agricultural Economics 32: 539-550.
2. Benitah, M. (2005). U.S. agricultural export credits after the WTO cotton ruling: the law of unintended consequences. The Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 6: 107-114.
3. Blair, T. (2005). Gleneagles must be one step in a longer campaign. Financial Times 5 September: 17.
4. CEC (1999). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. The EU Approach to the Millennium Round. COM(1999) 331. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
5. CEC (2003). Communication from the Commission to the Council, to the European Parliament, and to the Economic and Social Committee. Reviving the DDA Negotiations - the EU Perspective. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
6. CEC (2005). Proposal for a Council Regulation on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector. COM(2005)263. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
7. EC (1999). Presidency Conclusions. Berlin European Council 24 and 25 March 1999. Press Release SN 100. Brussels: European Council.
8. EU (2003). A Proposal For Modalities in the WTO Agriculture Negotiations. Specific Drafting Input: EC. Paper for the Committee on Agriculture, Special Session. JOB(03)/12. Geneva: WTO.
9. Hudec, R.E. (1998). Does the Agreement on Agriculture Work? Agricultural Disputes After the Uruguay Round. Working Paper 98-2. St. Paul, MN: International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
10. Lamy, P. and Fischler, F. (2004). Letter to all WTO Ministers, http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/external/wto/index_en.htm. Accessed 19 May 2004.
11. Matthews A. (2005). The road from Doha to Hong Kong in the WTO agricultural negotiations: a developing country perspective. European Review of Agricultural Economics 32: 561-574.
12. Mogens, P.C. (2005). Director General DG Trade. Statement by the EU to the WTO Trade Negotiation Committee, Geneva, 28 July, http://europa.eu.int/comm/commission_barroso/mandelson/speeches_articles/ sp_mpc13.htm. Accessed 8 August 2005.
13. Swinbank, A. (2004). Dirty tariffication revisited: the EU and sugar. The Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 5: 56-69.
14. Swinbank, A. and Daugbjerg, C. (2005). The 2003 CAP reform: accommodating WTO pressures. Comparative European Politics (in press).
15. Swinbank, A. and Tranter, R. (2005). Decoupling EU farm support: does the new Single Payment Scheme fit within the green box? The Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 6: 47-61.
16. van Vliet, H. (2000). WTO Dispute Settlement and agriculture: lessons for negotiators. In S. Bilal and P. Pezaros (eds), Negotiating the Future of Agricultural Policies: Agricultural Trade and the Millennium WTO Round. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 225-232.