A legal principle of special and differential treatment for WTO disputes

World Trade Review

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 445-469

  Mitchell, Andrew D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84940351962     PISSN: 14747456     EISSN: 14753138     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1474745606002941     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. WTO Ministerial Conference, Ministerial Declaration, WT/MIN (01) DEC 1 (20 November 2001), Doha Declaration [2].
2. Endre Ustor, ‘Most-Favoured-Nation Clause’, in Rudolf Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Public International Law, vol. 3 (2003), pp. 468, 471.
3. Alexander Keck and Patrick Low, ‘Special and Differential Treatment in the WTO:Why, When and How?’ (Working paper ERSD-2004-03, WTO, 2004, 3).
4. Robert Hudec, Developing Countries in the GATT Legal System (1987).
5. Faizel Ismail, ‘Mainstreaming Development in the World Trade Organization’, 39 Journal of World Trade (2005), 11.
6. Kym Anderson, ‘Setting the Trade Policy Agenda: What Roles for Economists?’, 39 Journal of World Trade (2005), 341, 346–349, 353–354.
7. Raj Bhala, Modern GATT Law (2005), chs 37–38.
8. A. A. Fatouros, ‘Developing States’, in Rudolf Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Public International Law, vol. 1 (2003), 1017.
9. Michael Finger and Julio Nogués, ‘The Unbalanced Uruguay Round Outcome: The New Areas in Future WTO Negotiations’, The World Economy (2002), 321, 326, 336.
10. T. N. Srinivasan, ‘Developing Countries in the World Trading System: From GATT, 1947, to the Third Ministerial Meeting of the WTO, 1999’, World Economy (1999), 1047, 1053–1054;
11. Bernard Hoekman, Constantine Michalopoulos, and Alan Winters, ‘Special and Differential Treatment of Developing Countries in the WTO: Moving Forward After Cancún’, World Economy (2004), 481, 482.
12. Rubens Ricupero, ‘Rebuilding Confidence in the Multilateral Trading System: Closing the “Legitimacy Gap”’, in Gary Sampson (ed.), The Role of the World Trade Organization in Global Governance (2001), 37, 49–50.
13. Robert Howse, ‘India’s WTO Challenge to Drug Enforcement Conditions in the European Community Generalized System of Preferences: A Little Known Case with Major Repercussions for “ Political” Conditionality in US Trade Policy’, 4 Chicago Journal of International Law (2003), 385, 390.
14. William Kerr, ‘Special and Differential Treatment: A Mechanism to Promote Development?’, 6 Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy (2005), 84, 88.
15. Gene Grossman and Alan Sykes, ‘A Preference for Development : the Law and Economics of GSP’, 4 World Trade Review (2005), 41, 61.
16. Frank Garcia, ‘Beyond Special and Differential Treatment’, 27 Boston College International & Comparative Law Review (2004), 291, 304.
17. Bernard Hoekman, ‘Operationalizing the Concept of Policy Space in the WTO: Beyond Special and Differential Treatment’, 8 Journal of International Economic Law (2005), 405, 423.
18. Alexander Keck and Patrick Low, ‘Special and Differential Treatment in the WTO: Why, When and How?’, 9.
19. Michael Hart and Bill Dymond, ‘Special and Differential Treatment and the Doha “Development” Round’, 37 Journal of World Trade (2003), 395.
20. Robert Hudec, Developing Countries in the GATT Legal System (1987), 160–163.
21. Olivier Cattaneo, ‘Has the WTO Gone Too Far or Not Far Enough? Some Reflections on the Concept of “Policy Space”’, in Andrew Mitchell (ed.), Challenges and Prospects for the WTO (2005), 55, 82–83.
22. Mari Pangestu, ‘Special and Differential Treatment in the Millennium: Special for Whom and How Different?’, The World Economy (2000), 1285, 1298.
23. Peter Kleen and Sheila Page, Special and Differential Treatment of Developing Countries in the World Trade Organization (2005), 79–95.
24. WTO, Understanding the WTO (3rd edn, 2003), 93.
25. Jean-Christophe Bureau, Sébastien Jean, and Alan Matthews, ‘The Consequences of Agricultural Trade Liberalization for Developing Countries: Distinguishing between Genuine Benefits and False Hopes’ (Institute for International Integration Studies, Discussion Paper No. 73, April 2005), 14.
26. Hildegunn Kyvik Nordås, ‘The Global Textile and Clothing Industry post the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing’, Discussion Paper No. 5 (WTO, 2004), 13, 34.
27. Frank Garcia, ‘Beyond Special and Differential Treatment’, 291, 304.
28. US International Trade Commission, Textiles and Apparel: Assessment of the Competitiveness of Certain Foreign Suppliers to the US Market (Publication 3671, January 2004), xi–xii.
29. ‘China announces increased export tariffs on textiles’, People’s Daily Online, 13 December 2004.
30. ‘Unquotable’, The Economist, 28 December 2004.
31. Bernard Hoekman and Petros Mavroidis, ‘WTO Dispute Settlement, Transparency and Surveillance’, World Economy (2000), 527, 532, 535.
32. Asif Qureshi, ‘Interpreting World Trade Organization Agreements for the Development Objective’, 37 Journal of World Trade (2003), 847, 860–861.
33. Asif Qureshi, ‘Interpreting World Trade Organization Agreements for the Development Objective’, 37 Journal of World Trade (2003), 847, 857–859.
34. Andrew Mitchell, ‘Due Process in WTO Disputes’, in Rufus Yerxa and Bruce Wilson (eds.), Key Issues in WTO Dispute Settlement : The First Ten Years (2005), 144, 157–160.
35. Lorand Bartels, ‘The WTO Enabling Clause and Positive Conditionality in the European Community’s GSP Program’, 6 Journal of International Economic Law (2003), 507, 513.
36. Gustavo Olivares, ‘The Case for Giving Effectiveness to GATT/WTO Rules on Developing Countries and LDCs’, 35 Journal of World Trade (2001), 545, 551.
37. Asif Qureshi, ‘Interpreting World Trade Organization Agreements for the Development Objective’, 37 Journal of World Trade (2003), 847, 851.
38. Asif Qureshi, ‘Interpreting World Trade Organization Agreements for the Development Objective’, 37 Journal of World Trade (2003), 855.