The Experts below are selected from a list of 20163 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Martin Molinuevo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
east asian free Trade agreements in services key architectural elements
Social Science Research Network, 2008Co-Authors: Carsten Fink, Martin MolinuevoAbstract:Since the mid-1990s East Asian countries have negotiated 25 free Trade agreements (FTAs) with a services component. There are important architectural differences in these agreements, which ultimately affect their value in promoting transparency, fostering the credibility of Trade policies, and advancing market opening in services. This article reviews key architectural choices, focusing on the approach towards scheduling commitments, the treatment of investment and the movement of natural persons, rules of origin, provisions for the settlement of Trade Dispute, and selected deeper integration issues. In doing so, it assesses the advantages and drawbacks of different architectural approaches and discusses a number of lessons learned.
-
east asian free Trade agreements in services key architectural elements
Journal of International Economic Law, 2008Co-Authors: Carsten Fink, Martin MolinuevoAbstract:Since the mid-1990s East Asian countries have negotiated 25 free Trade agreements (FTAs) with a services component. There are important architectural differences in these agreements, which ultimately affect their value in promoting transparency, fostering the credibility of Trade policies, and advancing market opening in services. This article reviews key architectural choices, focusing on the approach towards scheduling commitments, the treatment of investment and the movement of natural persons, rules of origin, provisions for the settlement of Trade Dispute, and selected deeper integration issues. In doing so, it assesses the advantages and drawbacks of different architectural approaches and discusses a number of lessons learned. , Oxford University Press.
Les Levidow - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
how does the world Trade organization know the mobilization and staging of scientific expertise in the gmo Trade Dispute
Social Studies of Science, 2012Co-Authors: Christophe Bonneuil, Les LevidowAbstract:The World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute settlement procedure is a key arena for establishing global legal norms for what counts as relevant knowledge. As a high-profile case, the WTO Trade Dispute on GMOs mobilized scientific expertise in somewhat novel ways. Early on, the Panel put the Dispute under the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement through a new legal ontology; it classified transgenes as potential pests and limited all environmental issues to the 'plant and animal health' category. The selection of scientific experts sought a multi-party consensus through a fast adversarial process, reflecting a specific legal epistemology. For the SPS framing, focusing on the defendant's regulatory procedures, the Panel staged scientific expertise in specific ways that set up how experts were questioned, the answers they would give, their specific role in the legal arena, and the way their statements would complement the Panel's findings. In these ways, the Dispute settlement procedure co-produced legal and scientific expertise within the Panel's SPS framework. Moreover, the Panel operated a procedural turn in WTO jurisprudence by representing its findings as a purely legal-administrative judgement on whether the EC's regulatory procedures violated the SPS Agreement, while keeping implicit its own judgements on substantive risk issues. As this case illustrates, the WTO settlement procedure mobilizes scientific expertise for sophisticated, multiple aims: it recruits a source of credibility from the scientific arena, thus reinforcing the standard narrative of 'science-based Trade discipline', while also constructing new scientific expertise for the main task--namely, challenging Trade restrictions for being unduly cautious.
-
how does the world Trade organization know the mobilization and staging of scientific expertise in the gmo Trade Dispute
Social Studies of Science, 2012Co-Authors: Christophe Bonneuil, Les LevidowAbstract:The World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute settlement procedure is a key arena for establishing global legal norms for what counts as relevant knowledge. As a high-profile case, the WTO Trade dispu...
Carsten Fink - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
east asian free Trade agreements in services key architectural elements
Social Science Research Network, 2008Co-Authors: Carsten Fink, Martin MolinuevoAbstract:Since the mid-1990s East Asian countries have negotiated 25 free Trade agreements (FTAs) with a services component. There are important architectural differences in these agreements, which ultimately affect their value in promoting transparency, fostering the credibility of Trade policies, and advancing market opening in services. This article reviews key architectural choices, focusing on the approach towards scheduling commitments, the treatment of investment and the movement of natural persons, rules of origin, provisions for the settlement of Trade Dispute, and selected deeper integration issues. In doing so, it assesses the advantages and drawbacks of different architectural approaches and discusses a number of lessons learned.
-
east asian free Trade agreements in services key architectural elements
Journal of International Economic Law, 2008Co-Authors: Carsten Fink, Martin MolinuevoAbstract:Since the mid-1990s East Asian countries have negotiated 25 free Trade agreements (FTAs) with a services component. There are important architectural differences in these agreements, which ultimately affect their value in promoting transparency, fostering the credibility of Trade policies, and advancing market opening in services. This article reviews key architectural choices, focusing on the approach towards scheduling commitments, the treatment of investment and the movement of natural persons, rules of origin, provisions for the settlement of Trade Dispute, and selected deeper integration issues. In doing so, it assesses the advantages and drawbacks of different architectural approaches and discusses a number of lessons learned. , Oxford University Press.
Christophe Bonneuil - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
how does the world Trade organization know the mobilization and staging of scientific expertise in the gmo Trade Dispute
Social Studies of Science, 2012Co-Authors: Christophe Bonneuil, Les LevidowAbstract:The World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute settlement procedure is a key arena for establishing global legal norms for what counts as relevant knowledge. As a high-profile case, the WTO Trade Dispute on GMOs mobilized scientific expertise in somewhat novel ways. Early on, the Panel put the Dispute under the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement through a new legal ontology; it classified transgenes as potential pests and limited all environmental issues to the 'plant and animal health' category. The selection of scientific experts sought a multi-party consensus through a fast adversarial process, reflecting a specific legal epistemology. For the SPS framing, focusing on the defendant's regulatory procedures, the Panel staged scientific expertise in specific ways that set up how experts were questioned, the answers they would give, their specific role in the legal arena, and the way their statements would complement the Panel's findings. In these ways, the Dispute settlement procedure co-produced legal and scientific expertise within the Panel's SPS framework. Moreover, the Panel operated a procedural turn in WTO jurisprudence by representing its findings as a purely legal-administrative judgement on whether the EC's regulatory procedures violated the SPS Agreement, while keeping implicit its own judgements on substantive risk issues. As this case illustrates, the WTO settlement procedure mobilizes scientific expertise for sophisticated, multiple aims: it recruits a source of credibility from the scientific arena, thus reinforcing the standard narrative of 'science-based Trade discipline', while also constructing new scientific expertise for the main task--namely, challenging Trade restrictions for being unduly cautious.
-
how does the world Trade organization know the mobilization and staging of scientific expertise in the gmo Trade Dispute
Social Studies of Science, 2012Co-Authors: Christophe Bonneuil, Les LevidowAbstract:The World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute settlement procedure is a key arena for establishing global legal norms for what counts as relevant knowledge. As a high-profile case, the WTO Trade dispu...
Chad P Bown - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Trade agreements and enforcement evidence from wto Dispute settlement
Social Science Research Network, 2015Co-Authors: Chad P Bown, Kara M ReynoldsAbstract:This paper examines implications of the terms-of-Trade theory for the determinants of outcomes arising under the enforcement provisions of international agreements. Like original Trade agreement negotiations, we model formal Trade Dispute negotiations as potentially addressing the terms-of-Trade externality problem that governments implement import protection above the globally efficient level so as to shift some of the policy's costs onto trading partners. We first extend earlier theoretical models from Trade agreement accession negotiations to the setting of enforcement negotiations, and the resulting theory guides our empirical assessment. We use instrumental variables to estimate the model on Trade volume outcomes from WTO Disputes over 1995-2009. Our evidence is consistent with theoretical predictions that larger import volume outcomes are associated with products that have smaller increases to foreign exporter-received prices (terms-of-Trade losses to the importer) as a result of the Dispute, larger pre-Dispute import volumes, larger import demand elasticities, and smaller foreign export supply elasticities. Dispute settlement outcome differences are also explained by variation in institutionally-motivated measures of retaliation capacity and the severity of the free rider problem associated with foreign exporter concentration.
-
Trade agreements and enforcement evidence from wto Dispute settlement
Research Papers in Economics, 2015Co-Authors: Chad P Bown, Kara M ReynoldsAbstract:This paper examines the implications of the terms-of-Trade theory for the determinants of outcomes arising under the enforcement provisions of international agreements. Like original Trade agreement negotiations, the paper models formal Trade Dispute negotiations as potentially addressing the terms-of-Trade externality problem that governments implement import protection above the globally efficient level so as to shift some of the policy's costs to trading partners. The approach is to extend earlier theoretical models of Trade agreement accession negotiations to the setting of enforcement negotiations in order to guide the empirical assessment. The paper uses instrumental variables to estimate the model on Trade volume outcomes from World Trade Organization (WTO) Disputes over 1995?2009. The evidence is consistent with theoretical predictions that larger import volume outcomes are associated with products that have smaller increases in foreign exporter-received prices (terms-of-Trade losses for the importer) as a result of the Dispute, larger pre-Dispute import volumes, larger import demand elasticities, and smaller foreign export supply elasticities. Dispute settlement outcome differences are also explained by variation in institutionally-motivated measures of retaliation capacity and the severity of the free-rider problem associated with foreign exporter concentration.
-
Trade Disputes and the implementation of protection under the gatt an empirical assessment
Journal of International Economics, 2004Co-Authors: Chad P BownAbstract:Abstract This paper is a first attempt to empirically determine why countries choose to violate or adhere to GATT rules when making Trade policy adjustments between negotiating rounds. We use a previously unexploited set of data in which countries implemented two ‘types’ of protection under the GATT system between 1973 and 1994: (i) ‘legal’ protection in which countries utilized the GATT’s safeguards provisions; and (ii) ‘illegal’ protection in which the protection was provided outside of the safeguards provisions, resulting in a formal Trade Dispute. We find substantial evidence that concerns for retaliation affect government policy decisions in ways which contribute to the explanation of the existence of Trade Disputes.
-
antidumping and retaliation threats
Journal of International Economics, 2003Co-Authors: Bruce A Blonigen, Chad P BownAbstract:Abstract We propose and test two ways in which retaliation threats may dampen the antidumping (AD) activity we observe. First, the threat of retaliatory AD actions may make a domestic industry less likely to name a foreign import source in an AD petition. Second, the prospect of a GATT/WTO Trade Dispute may make government agencies less likely to rule positive in their AD decision. Using a nested logit framework, we find evidence that both retaliation threats substantially affect US AD activity from 1980 through 1998.
