Home > Import Reference Manual
Import Reference Manual
The following is a sample Chapter from International Trade Reporter's Import Reference Manual.
International Trade Agreements
ANALYSIS
I. THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
A. The GATT and its Functions
1. Historical Development.
In 1947 the United States and seven other major trading nations entered into the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), effective January 1, 1948. 1 This agreement froze tariffs at their then-current levels and laid down internationally agreed trading rules, including the "most-favored-nation principle." Pursuant to this principle, each GATT signatory country agreed to afford to every other country, with certain minor exceptions, the lowest tariff rates it afforded to the products of any country.
Today, almost all of the market economy trading nations of the world, accounting for most of the world's trade, have adhered to the GATT. Under the GATT's auspices, eighth rounds of multilateral tariff negotiations have been completed, reducing tariffs to comparatively low levels and, in the seventh and eight rounds, modifying trade barriers and establishing rules (or "disciplines") for certain areas of trade that were dealt with either with less rigor or not at all in the GATT.
The GATT has become the primary international forum for the settlement of trade disputes and disagreements between countries, as well as for conducting multilateral trade negotiations. In theory, the GATT was originally nothing but an agreement to meet for discussions. (The Congress refused on a number of occasions to authorize U.S. membership in a proposed formal international trade organization.) In reality, the GATT became an international organization, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland with a large professional staff. By the end of December 1993 GATT had 116 member countries. Thus, the GATT developed into a defacto organization of the contracting parties to the agreement, i.e., those countries which have agreed to freeze their tariffs, provide most-favored-nation treatment to the other contracting parties, and abide by the trading rules, as provided in the agreement.
The GATT Contracting Parties met once a year in Geneva. The GATT Council of Representatives met monthly. Subsidiary commissions and committees met throughout the year. The GATT acted as a mediator of trade disputes between member countries and on occasion made decisions and took disciplinary actions against members found to be violating the trading rules.
In preparation for multilateral trade negotiations, each country has in the past drawn up a list of articles on which it would like to obtain concessions in exchange for others. Through a complicated process the GATT staff determined which countries would benefit from a tariff reduction of a given amount on each item under consideration in the negotiations and the value in terms of increased trade annually to each country so benefiting. The negotiations therefore became an effort to achieve a balance around the world, where each country benefiting from the numerous tariff concessions which are granted by other countries gives in return tariff concessions of approximately equal value.
During its first 25 years the GATT conducted six major trade negotiations directed largely to the reduction of tariffs. (The seventh and eighth were more broadly ambitious in focus.) The tariff rates for thousands of items in world commerce were reduced or bound against increase, resulting in an impressive increase in world trade. The trade negotiations also resulted in a reduction of quantitative restrictions, which had been historically major obstacles to world trade. The GATT contains a provision generally prohibiting quantitative restrictions, with exceptions limited as to duration and purpose. As discussed in more detail below, the seventh, Tokyo Round was the first round of negotiations to tackle nontariff barriers to trade (NTBs) head on. In addition to tariff cuts, it resulted in a host of side agreements on various types of NTBs which GATT contracting parties were free to sign but did not have to sign. Each side code had its own administrative framework to oversee the working of the agreement and the settlement of disputes.
2. GATT 1994 after the Uruguay Round.
The Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations, discussed in detail at IE, infra, led to the conclusion of an accord among all contracting parties that significantly expanded the scope of the GATT. The Draft Final Act, or preliminary compendium of all the agreements and understandings reached in the round including those that interpret specific GATT articles, and of ministerial decisions and declarations interpreting them, was ready in December 1993. The Final Act was signed at Marrakech, Morocco on April 15, 1994.
The Uruguay Round resulted in the replacement of GATT 1947 with GATT 1994. GATT 1994 contains the provisions of GATT 1947, tariff concessions, accessions, waivers and decisions under GATT 1947, seven understandings reached during the Uruguay Round as to the interpretation of particular GATT articles, and explanatory notes. GATT 1994 is defined in an Annex to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization set out infra at 75:0859.
An overarching result of the Uruguay Round was the creation of a formal, multilateral trading organization called the "World Trade Organization." Contracting parties deciding to join the new organization must also ratify the entire package of Uruguay Round multilateral agreements. This is intended to remove problems stemming from the tiering of GATT obligations created by the Tokyo Round Codes which only a handful of GATT signatories joined. (The Tokyo Round is described below.) Four Uruguay Round agreements are not, however, to be applied to all WTO members unless they specifically and affirmatively undertake that agreement's obligations. An example of these "plurilateral" agreements is the new agreement on government procurement. Nations that were not contracting parties to the GATT may become members of the WTO if they also become contracting parties to the GATT. However, contracting parties to the original GATT each have the option to exclude application of the Uruguay Round agreements to such new members. This option does not apply to nations that were already contracting parties at the time of the Uruguay Round. An annex to the WTO Agreement eliminates the protocols of provisional application of the GATT, thus eliminating a grandfather clause for existing legislation not consistent with Part Two of the GATT.
The WTO is run by a General Council of members whose activities will be overseen by a Ministerial Conference to be held at least every two years. The first Ministerial Conference was held in Singapore in December 1996. See discussion at I-G infra. As under GATT, decisions in the WTO are made by consensus. The General Council also acts as the organization's dispute settlement body. Unlike the Tokyo Round agreements with their separate, independent dispute settlement mechanism, settlement of disputes involving the Uruguay Round agreements are all under the central Uruguay Round Understanding on Dispute Settlement that is discussed in more detail below. Thus, suspension of benefits under any of the agreements is a possibility as a result of settlement of a dispute under another agreement.
A major accomplishment of the Uruguay Round was extension of rules to fields of trade that had not previously been covered. The original GATT rules covered trade in goods exclusively. GATT 1994 includes, inter alia, Uruguay Round agreements on trade in services, trade-related intellectual property rights, and trade-related investment measures. Defacto exceptions for agriculture and textiles have been closed. Agriculture was immediately subject to new rules designed to bring agricultural trade gradually within the reach of market forces. Textiles previously subject to the byzantine rules of the Multifibre Arrangement or "MFA"(discussed in Section 43, supra) are subject instead to the scheduled phase-in of GATT rules to replace the bilateral restraints on textile trade that operate under the MFA.
Two important features of GATT 1994 are (1) the market access commitments agreed to by individual nations regarding trade in goods and appended to the Uruguay Round Protocol and (2) the trade policy review mechanism.
The market access commitments cover reduction and elimination of tariff and nontariff barriers to trade. Each nation's schedule of concessions in this area is thus made part of the Final Act. Special rules for flexibility as to commitments and their timing apply to least developed nations.
The WTO's General Council is charged with trade policy review. This entails annual review of the trading system as a whole and periodic review of the trade and economic policies of individual nations. Nations are required to notify the organization of trade measures. The goal is greater transparency (i.e., visibility) of such measures and policies.
The specific agreements concluded during the Uruguay Round are discussed in subsection I-E below.
3. Dispute Settlement
(a) Prior to the Uruguay Round. When a member country sought redress for another member's failure to adhere to tariff concessions or other GATT obligations there was a dispute settlement process within GATT. 2 The first step was taken under Article XXII providing for bilateral consultations. If the dispute was not resolved at that stage resort was had to Article XXIII. If bilateral consultations during the second stage did not succeed, the matter could then be referred to the GATT. The usual procedure during this stage was the referral of the matter to a dispute settlement panel. The panel reported its findings and recommendations to the GATT Council which had to decide whether to adopt the decision on behalf of the GATT. A decision to adopt a report was made by consensus. Therefore, a member whose practices were the subject of an unfavorable panel ruling could object to it thereby blocking adoption of the report. Once a report was adopted, if changes were not forthcoming to correct the situation, the complaining party could request authorization from the GATT to suspend concessions with respect to the offending party. However, this last step was rarely taken.
Improvement of the efficiency of the GATT dispute settlement process had long been a goal within the GATT. Recent modifications include a 1988 decision to make panel reports available to the public after adoption. 3 Dispute settlement was the subject of negotiation in the Uruguay Round. As a result of progress in the negotiations streamlined procedures including time limits, availability of arbitration, and improved surveillance of implementation of adopted panel reports were put into effect for all disputes brought to the GATT after May 1, 1989. 4 Negotiations continued on other aspects of the process and was resolved as discussed below.
limiting U.S. exports have been acted upon by GATT panels or referred through GATT procedures for resolution.
If a dispute arose with respect to the multilateral Tokyo Round codes discussed below, they were settled under separate dispute settlement mechanisms set out under each agreement.
(b) Uruguay Round Reforms. As the result of the successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round the GATT dispute settlement process was overhauled. The fragmented nature of the process was eliminated by integrating settlement of disputes under all the Uruguay Round agreements into a central process and a central decision-making body. One effect was to make possible suspension of benefits under any of the agreements as a result of settlement of a dispute under another agreement. As noted above the new General Council for the new World Trade Organization is designated as the decision-making body. In this capacity it acts as the dispute settlement body (DSB). A major reform of the process was elimination of blocks against settlement and provision for compliance and enforcement. The mid-term improvements outlined above that went into effect in 1989 are incorporated in the final Act.
(4) automatic sanctions for non-compliance within the set period including authorization for the complaining party to suspend concessions or other benefits under the agreement at issue or other agreement (if the circumstances are sufficiently serious) if the offending and complaining parties can not reach agreement on compensation for the non-compliance.
The Uruguay Round Understanding on Dispute Settlement makes clear that resort to unilateral trade sanctions outside the GATT process is not authorized. Sanctions under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 are examples of such unilateral action.
The full text of the agreement may be found at 75:0873. Its formal title is Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.
B. The Tokyo Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations
The seventh (Tokyo) round of multilateral tariff and trade negotiations conducted under the aegis of the GATT was begun in 1973 and completed in 1979. The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 provided congressional approval of the many trade agreements listed below which were completed in the negotiations, as well as certain tariff reductions and adjustments not covered by prior delegation of authority to the President. 5
There follows a list of approved (MTN) trade agreements from the Tokyo Round.
MTN Trade Agreements Approved in the Trade
Agreements Act of 1979
(13) Certain other agreements to be reflected in Schedule XX of the United States to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, including Agreements
(C) to Modify United States Tariff Nomenclature and Rates of Duty for Ceramic Tableware
(14) The Agreement with the Hungarian People's Republic.
C. Signature and Acceptance of the MTN Agreements
The Congressional approval of the MTN agreements provided by Sec. 2 of the Trade Agreements Act authorized the President to accept for the United States the final texts of the trade agreements, if only nonsubstantive changes were made since presentation to the Congress, on condition that he determined that each major industrial country was also accepting the agreement, or, if only one major industrial country was not so accepting, that certain factors existed which made acceptance by the United States in the national interest.
The President made these determinations in a document dated December 14, 1979, addressed to the Special Representative for Trade Negotiations, to be transmitted by him to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate. The Presidential Determination Regarding the Acceptance and Application of Certain International Trade Agreements authorized the STR to sign and accept the seven multilateral agreements listed above in Section B as (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (9) and (10). The Determination further authorized the STR to sign the Government Procurement Agreement ((2) above), subject to completion of the negotiations on entity coverage, and the Valuation Agreement ((1) above), subject to acceptance.
Under this authority Deputy Trade Representative Michael B. Smith on December 17, 1979, in Geneva, signed and accepted on behalf of the United States the seven multilateral agreements designated for signature and acceptance. The Deputy Trade Representative also signed the Procurement agreement, subject to completion of the entity coverage negotiations, and the Valuation agreement, subject to the acceptance by Japan.
The seven multilateral agreements accepted by the United States were also signed December 17, 1979, by the European Economic Community and by Sweden. Canada signed all but the Dairy Arrangement, and several other countries, notably Brazil and Switzerland, signed most of them. Japan signed the Dairy and Bovine Arrangements, and, subject to ratification by the Japanese Diet, the other seven agreements.
On the basis of these signatures the Special Trade Representative (now the U. S. Trade Representative) issued a notice December 28, 1979 (45 FR 1181, Jan. 4, 1980) making the determinations as to application of the agreements to other countries required by section 2(b) of the 1979 Trade Agreements Act and by section 701(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 101 of the 1979 Act. The notice listed the signatory countries to each U.S. signed and accepted multilateral agreement which had accepted the Agreement with respect to the United States and which should not be denied its benefits. The notice further listed five additional countries, Austria, Finland, Japan, Norway, and Taiwan, which had assumed "substantially equivalent" obligations under the Countervailing Duty Agreement and were therefore entitled to the benefits of the injury determination provision of the new countervailing duty subtitle of the Tariff Act of 1930. The "substantially equivalent" obligations were the undertaking of retroactive application to January 1, 1980, of subsequent legislative ratification of the Countervailing Duty Agreement. The notice also advised on the status of the other multilateral and bilateral agreements listed in section 1(c) of the Trade Agreements Act.
On February 14, 1985, the withdrawal of the United States from the International Dairy Arrangement became effective.
D. Effective Date: January 1, 1980; Legal Consequences
Each of the seven multilateral agreements signed and accepted by the United States entered into force with respect to the United States on January 1, 1980, as stated in the USTR's notice of December 28, 1979. As a consequence of the entering into force of the Countervailing and Antidumping Duty Agreements, new Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, entitled "Countervailing and Antidumping Duties," enacted by Section 101 of the 1979 Trade Agreements Act, became effective under Section 107 of that Act as of January 1, 1980. As a further consequence, the new Judicial Review provisions enacted by Title X of the Trade Agreements Act also became effective January 1, 1980. See sections 37, 40, and 98.
Further, the entering into force of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade brought into effect as of January 1, 1980, Title IV of the Trade Agreements Act, entitled "Technical Barriers to Trade (Standards)" under Section 454 of that Act. See section 82. The Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures became simultaneously effective. See section 82.
The Valuation Agreement came into effect July 1, 1980. See section 25. The Agreement on Government Procurement entered into force January 1, 1981, with respect to the countries which had accepted it. See section 46.
It should be noted that the approved trade agreements are subordinate to United States law. Under section 3(a) of the Trade Agreements Act, 19 U.S.C. 2504(a), no provision of an approved trade agreement, nor its application to any person or circumstance, which is in conflict with any United States statute shall be given effect. However, section 3(c), 19 U.S.C. 2504(c), directs the President to propose legislation, in accordance with the stated procedures, when necessary to implement any requirement of, amendment to, or recommendation under any approved trade agreement.
E. The Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations
An eighth round of multilateral negotiations (the "Uruguay Round") was launched in 1986. It was scheduled to be concluded in 1990. However, The Final Act was not signed until April 1994. The agenda for the Uruguay Round included review of existing MTN agreements, GATT articles and dispute settlement provisions; negotiations to reduce and eliminate tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade, to liberalize trade in tropical and natural resource-based products, to include textiles and clothing in the GATT, to achieve specific measures such as phased reduction of subsidies to improve import access and export competition in agricultural products, and to reach a comprehensive agreement on safeguards. In addition, the Ministerial Declaration on the Uruguay Round included for the first time intellectual property rights and trade in counterfeit goods, investment, and trade in services as subjects for negotiation within the framework of the GATT. While negotiations went forward the contracting parties agreed to phase out trade restrictive and distortive measures inconsistent with the aims of the GATT and not to institute new measures of this kind. (so-called "standstill" and "rollback" commitments and measures).
The mid-term review of the Uruguay Round begun in December 1988 but completed in April 1989 resulted in progress in several areas. As mentioned in I-A-3 above, concensus was reached with respect to certain reforms of the dispute settlement process. In addition, an agreement was reached on tariff and nontariff concessions eliminating barriers to trade in tropical products. 6 The United States implemented these concessions in 1989. 7
The United States took steps to implement changes during the course of the Uruguay Round. Public hearings and investigations by the USTR and the ITC on articles considered for duty removal and the effects on U.S. industry of elimination of tariffs were initiated. 8
The Uruguay Round negotiators failed to reach agreement by the scheduled close of the round in December 1990. The Trade Negotiations Committee, the formal negotiating body of the GATT round, met in January 1991 in the hope of resurrecting the stalled negotiations which foundered primarily over agriculture issues. See 8 ITR 104, Jan. 23, 1991. GATT called the negotiations back into formal session on February 26, 1991. 8 ITR 294, Feb. 27, 1991.
One major obstacle to completion of the Round was avoided when Congress allowed "fast track" legislative approval procedures for agreements negotiated in the Round to be extended through May 1993. The possibility of extension was provided for in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. See discussion of the process in Section 75 at III. As the round dragged on beyond even the extension of fast track procedures, Congress extended such procedures to cover agreements reached in December 1993. As noted above in subsection I-A-2, the Draft Final Act met this deadline. Consequently, fast track procedures applied to Congressional approval of the Uruguay Round agreements as discussed at I-F, infra.
There follows a list of the Uruguay Round agreements and a brief description of each. The full text of many of the final Uruguay Round agreements will be found in relevant sections of the Import Reference Manual. The President's memorandum to the USTR, letter to Congress and summaries of the Uruguay Round results submitted to Congress after the conclusion of the round in December 1933 are reproduced infra at 78:0841. As the Presidential summaries are extensive the capsule descriptions below merely serve as an outline for understanding the scope of the Uruguay Round. The press release by GATT explaining the round is published in BNA's International Trade Reporter, vol. 10 at 1267 (Dec. 22, 1993). For a more detailed explanation of the provisions of various agreements and their implementation in the U.S. the reader is directed to the substantive section of the Import Reference Manual dealing with the subject matter of a particular agreement.
Services: a General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) sets out a framework of rules including national treatment (nondiscrimination between domestic and foreign service suppliers), MFN (nondiscrimination between foreign service suppliers), market access, transparency of domestic measures affecting services, and unfettered capital flows. Schedules to GATS contain individual national commitments with respect to market access and national treatment obligations and, most significantly, with respect to particular service sectors. It was expected that these schedules would evolve as the result of future negotiations regarding each sector. Initial annexes to GATS covered the movement of labor, financial services, enhanced (not basic voice) telecommunications, and air transport.
Intellectual Property: The agreement on trade-related intellectual property rights or TRIPs covers both substantive levels of protection and enforcement. For copyrights members must comply with the Berne Convention (except for its moral rights provisions) and must extend special protections to computer programs, movies, and recordings. For patents members must apply the terms of the Paris Convention as well as other protections set out in the agreement such as those for product and process patents and for plant patents. For trademarks the agreement itself sets up standards for their protection including eligibility, term of protection, and rules on liscensing or assignment. Trade secrets, industrial design and integrated circuits are also subject to specific protection under the agreement. The agreement addresses internal civil, criminal, and administrative enforcement procedures. Border enforcement against the entry of counterfeit goods is also required.
Investment: The agreement on trade-related aspects of investment measures (TRIMs) prohibits measures, including those in an illustrative list, that violate GATT rules requiring national treatment (nondiscrimination between domestic and foreign sources of supply) and prohibiting quantitative restrictions. Local content and trade balancing requirements are on the illustrative list. Members must notify other members of nonconforming TRIMS and must eliminate them within two, five or seven years (the latter applying to developing and least developed nations).
Agriculture: The agreement sets down specific levels for reducing domestic support and export subsidies. It also mandates the replacement of nontariff barriers with tariffs. Tariff-rate quotas are acceptable. Tariff reductions are to be bound (i.e., not subject to an increase).
Textiles and Apparel: The agreement sets up a ten year phase-out period for the bilateral quotas negotiated and maintained under the MFA. This is to be accomplished by staged integration of specific products into GATT rules (which prohibit quantitative restrictions like quotas). While products remain under bilateral restraint members must comply with requirements for greater market access for those products. Special safeguard measures may be applied during the transition period to protect domestic industry from damage from increased imports. A Textile Monitoring Body will oversee the transition.
Antidumping: The Agreement is a revision of the Tokyo Round code on this subject. It supplies more detailed rules for implementing the right accorded under Article VI of GATT to impose duties to offset the advantage of dumping goods in foreign markets. For example, the agreement excludes de minimis dumping from the scope of Article VI relief and imposes a sunset provision on antidumping orders no longer required to prevent domestic injury. Investigative methodologies are set out.
Subsidies and Countervailing Duties: The agreement replaces the Tokyo Round agreement. It defines which subsidies are prohibited and thus countervailable, which non-prohibited subsidies are nonetheless actionable, and which are non-actionable. These categories of subsidies are the so-called "red light," "yellow light," and "green light" subsidies. Only "specific" subsidies made available to specific enterprises, industries or groups of them are actionable and only to the extent that they cause serious prejudice which is presumed if the subsidy level exceeds 5 per cent of the value of the import. De minimis subsidy levels or negligible import volume are not actionable. The agreement also addresses administrative methodologies. It includes a sunset provision for countervailing duties that are no longer required to prevent domestic injury. Special rules allow developing nations more flexibility in the use of subsidies.
Safeguards: The agreement sets out new rules as to how members may take action under Article XIX of the GATT to protect domestic industry from damage caused by imports. The agreement specifically prohibits the use of negotiated restraints on trade such as voluntary restraint agreements and orderly marketing agreements as safeguards. Time limits now apply to authorized safeguard measures. Members must apply safeguard measures globally but may allocate shares of quotas among supplying nations, subject to maintenance of historic proportion of market share held by a supplying nation. Compensation is required for safeguards under Article XIX. The Uruguay Round agreement postpones any retaliation that may be taken for failure to accord satisfactory compensation until three years after a valid safeguard measure is imposed. Special rules apply to developing countries both as to their ability to impose safeguards and their susceptibility to such measures by other nations. See section 52, supra, on safeguards.
There are two agreements that deal with product standards. The agreement dealing with product standards posing technical barriers to trade extends and revises the Tokyo Round Agreement. Like its predecessor it recognizes that nations may protect human or animal or plant life and health and the environment at any level they choose but urges the use of international standards. The most significant improvement upon the earlier code is the extension of its disciplines explicitly to production and processing methods.
The second agreement is a new one. It deals with sanitary and phytosanitary measures, i.e., those dealing with food safety and animal and plant life and health. These had not been specifically dealt with under the Tokyo Round code. As to these members may depart from international standards only when they can prove that levels of protection higher than those accorded under international standards are justified scientifically or by appropriate risk assessment. The agreement provides rules for these justifications. Measures may not be the means for arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination between member nations where similar conditions prevail. Like the standards agreement this agreement imposes requirements on transparency of regulatory measures, notification procedures as to measures and supervising committee.
Import Licensing: This agreement revises the Tokyo Round code. It provides further rules as to transparency and stability of import licensing systems. The agreement distinguishes between automatic licensing which is presumed not to distort trade if it meets certain criteria and non-automatic licensing which must meet specific rules to prevent abuse of the system.
Preshipment Inspection: The agreement ensures that developing country use of private companies to do what customs services usually do, i.e., verification of quantity and price, does not lead to discrimination in export trade. Besides specific rules such as those requiring transparency and avoidance of unreasonable delay, the agreement sets up a unique dispute settlement mechanism for grievances between exporters and the private inspection companies that will bind the parties.
Valuation: The Tokyo Round Valuation code was amended in minor detail.
Rules of Origin: The goal of this agreement is to provide for negotiation of internationally agreed upon, i.e., harmonized, rules of origin for customs purposes other than eligibility for duty preference programs and agreements.
Government Procurement: The new agreement was scheduled to replace (and did replace) the Tokyo Round code as of January 1, 1996. With respect to Hong Kong, and the new signatory, Korea, the agreement could go into effect no later than one year from that date. The Uruguay Round agreement expands the scope of the Tokyo Round code (described in Section 46, supra). The new agreement covers, in addition to the procurement of goods by central governments already covered, the procurement of services and construction by central governments and the procurement of goods, services and construction by subcentral governments. For the U.S. only those state governments volunteering to participate are covered by the agreement. The threshold for coverage for goods remains at 130,000 SDRs. The coverage of services is also set at that threshold, and the coverage of construction is set at a threshold equivalent to $6.5 million. The new agreement addresses problems of transparency of procedures and requires the availability of review of contract awards.
Dispute Settlement: The Understanding on Dispute Settlement was explained in detail at I-A-3 above.
GATT 1994: In addition to the agreements and understandings outlined above, the Uruguay Round resulted in many understandings interpreting specific GATT articles. These included the articles dealing with balance-of-payments, customs unions and free trade areas, state-trading enterprises, waivers of GATT rules, modification of GATT tariff concessions, and non-application of the agreement. Also ministerial decisions and declarations addressed a host of trade issues.
F. Entry Into Force of the World Trade Organization
and Implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreements in the U.S.
Congress approved the Uruguay Round agreements (and the statement of administrative action submitted to Congress to implement the agreements) and implemented them as necessary in U.S. law in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Pub. L. 103-465, Dec 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4809. Certain sections of that act are codified at 19 U.S.C. 3501-3624 while others that revised substantive law are reflected in those parts of the code. Sections 101 and 102 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 3511-12, are reproduced at 75:0301, infra.
Approval of the agreements listed in section 101 of the Act was accompanied by a condition on their entry into force. The President had to certify that a sufficient number of foreign countries were accepting the obligations of the agreements before he could accept the agreements and implement article VIII of the WTO Agreement. On December 23, 1994, 9 the President issued a memorandum for the USTR, 60 FR 1003 (1995), making the necessary determination about the acceptance of obligations by other countries and directing the USTR to accept the agreements on behalf of the United States. By Executive Order 6763 of December 23, 1994, the President implemented the Uruguay Round Agreements by proclaiming changes in duties, quotas, and safeguards as set forth in the Annexes to that proclamation. The WTO Agreement and all its related multilateral agreements entered into force with respect to the United States on January 1, 1995. See Proc. 6780, 60 FR 15845 (1995). The only exception was the TRIPs agreement which the President delayed until January 1, 1996. Id. In 1997 the President finally implemented article VIII of the WTO Agreement dealing with the legal capacity and privileges and immunities of the organization. Executive Order 13042, 62 FR 18017 (1997).
Section 102 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 19 U.S.C. 3512, establishes the relationship of the agreements to U.S. federal and state law. Federal law prevails to the extent that any provision of any agreement or the application of any provision is inconsistent with U.S. law. Section 102 sets up a federal-state consultation process to work toward achieving consistency between state laws and practices and provisions of the agreements. Only the U.S. is authorized to challenge state laws or practices as invalid on the ground of conflict with any agreement. Procedures are set out for such challenges. Congress specifically preempted the field with respect to any cause of action regarding any of the Uruguay Round Agreements. Private remedies are explicitly precluded.
The Uruguay Round Agreements Act addresses WTO dispute settlement in specific ways. Under section 102 if a dispute involves a state law, any consultations regarding that dispute must involve state representatives in specific ways. Under sections 121-129, 19 U.S.C. 3531-3538, Congress sets out a framework of specific objectives and requirements with respect to the WTO and WTO dispute settlement. Presidential, USTR, and Congressional oversight of WTO disputes is required. U.S. agency regulations or practices found in WTO dispute settlement procedures to be inconsistent with any of the Uruguay Round Agreements may not be changed prior to review under U.S. law. Section 127, 19 U.S.C. 3537, requires the USTR to consult with Congress during dispute settlement proceedings to which the U.S. is a party. The USTR must also provide the public with notice and an opportunity to comment. U.S. documents submitted in the process must be made available to the public (except with respect to proprietary or confidential information). Non-confidential summaries and public files on every dispute to which the U.S. is a party must be maintained.
Section 129, 19 U.S.C. 3538, specifically addresses WTO decisions regarding action by the U.S. International Trade Commission and the International Trade Administration in the Department of Commerce. If an ITC Action is found to be inconsistent with the agreements regarding safeguards, antidumping, or subsidies and countervailing measures, the USTR may request the ITC to issue an advisory report on whether it has the authority to make its decision consistent. Other parts of section 129 deal with the ITC determination and action following such a request. If an ITA decision under the antidumping or countervailing duty laws is found to be inconsistent with Uruguay Round agreements in those areas, section 129 requires the ITA to bring its decision into conformity with the relevant agreement after required consultations and opportunities for public comment.
Annual reports on the WTO including its dispute settlement process are required. Starting in the year 2000 and every five years thereafter the annual report on the WTO must include an analysis of the costs and benefits of U.S. participation and an assessment of its value to the U.S. Section 125, 19 U.S.C. 3535, contains provisions for Congressional disapproval of the WTO by joint resolution.
G. Results of WTO Ministerial Conferences
The WTO Agreement requires that ministerial conference be held every two years. The first such conference was held in Singapore in December 1996. Its purpose was to review progress and plan future directions for the organization. Two significant declarations emerged from the Singapore conference. The first was the Ministerial Declaration 10 that committed WTO members, among other goals, to observe internationally recognized core labor standards. The declaration recognized that the International Labour Organization (ILO) is the competent body to set and deal with such standards, which statement has been interpreted both positively as setting up collaboration between the WTO and ILO and negatively as a failure to set labor standards on the formal WTO agenda. 11 The so-called "built-in" agenda for the WTO sets various issues for negotiation and review in a schedule for consideration through the year 2004. 12 In addition to labor standards the Singapore Ministerial Declaration set out four other major areas for WTO work in addition to the built-in agenda. These are clarification of the role of regionalism in the global system, study of issues inherent in the development of competition policy, investigation of the appropriate relationship between trade and investment, and a study of transparency in government procurement procedures. 13
The other major declaration emerging from the ministerial meeting was the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products, otherwise known as the "Information Technology Agreement." 14 This document is basically a pledge by the 28 signatories to implement tariff reduction on specified products by the year 2000. The agreement also addresses classification of problematic products, market access, and dispute settlement under WTO procedures.
H. Access to WTO Information
The WTO publishes many written reports regarding all phases of its operation. Easier access to WTO information is available from its website at http://www.wto.org. For example, current membership would be available at http://www.wto.org/memtab2-wpf.htm. For a summary of WTO dispute settlement see settlement http://www.wto.org/ wto/dispute/bulletin. htm. Updates on recent developments might be found at http://www.wto.org/whats-new/summary.htm. Readers must be aware that websites and updating of information are constantly changing phenomena.
II. OTHER INTERNATIONAL TRADE ARRANGEMENTS
A. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
Major decisions on world trade and monetary policies are largely made in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Based in Paris, this organization was originally formed in 1948 as the Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC) to help administer aid coming from the United States under the Marshall Plan. The OEEC was instrumental in liberalizing European trade and payments and promoting the growth of European economic prosperity. In 1961, when the United States, Japan, and Canada joined the original 17 Western European nations, the organization was transformed into the present-day OECD.
Today, the industrialized nations which make up the OECD are actively concerned with the harmonization of tax, fiscal, and trade related policies among the member countries. 15 OECD members must adhere to codes on capital and currency movement, direct investment, and trade. Since 1982 the OECD has done considerable work toward maintenance of an open world economy and its extension to newly important areas of trade, including services, trade-related investment, and high technology, and the strengthening of multilateral trade cooperation with developing countries. The OECD has undertaken studies and work programs regarding the costs and benefits of trade protection (completed in 1985), six sector studies of problems in trade in high technology products, a three-part work program on agricultural trade (completed in 1986), and study of the costs of government intervention in agriculture (issued in 1987), a work program on international trade in services, and a report on investment restrictions in member countries (released in 1987). 16 OECD work on biotechnology has focused on patent protection, harmonized regulation, safety and regulatory guidelines, government policies on research and development, and economic issues. 17
In 1985 OECD members adopted a declaration on transborder data flow, the first international work in this economic area. 18 Work on information, computer, and communications policy continued in 1987. 19
In 1987 the OECD agreed to new rules on the use of "mixed credits" which reduce the interest rate on loans by combining development aid with commercial export financing. 20 In 1988 reports were issued on agricultural trade, accounting standards in the insurance industry, and a program for structural reform for member countries in the agricultural, industrial and services sectors. 21 In 1989 Committee and Secretariat reports were issued on tourism and banking services. 22
The OECD was actively involved in the progress of the Uruguay Round under the GATT and committed itself to increased efforts to reform structural policies regarding trade, agriculture, international investment and other areas. 23 It was also working toward developing a relationship with the so-called "newly-industrialized economies" of Asia to coordinate economic policy. 24 In general, the codes which OECD members must adhere to require more liberal flows of capital and currency than these economies allow. 25
In 1989 OECD issued a statement against unilateral and bilateral erosions of the GATT multilateral trading system. 26 At the 1989 annual meeting the group identified the environment for the first time as an area of concern and work for the organization. 27 Agriculture continued as an area of work in 1989. Reports citing some progress but asking for quickened reform of government subsidization policies were adopted at the 1989 ministerial meeting. 28
Starting in 1991 the OECD ministers embarked on an ambitious new trade agenda considering links between trade and important areas of previously domestic policy. Initially the linkages studied were with the environment, investment, and competition policy. 29 Progress in this areas has been marked. The OECD is expected to have reached a final draft Multilateral Agreement on Investment in May 1998. It completed a report in 1995 on progress made by member states in implementing the OECD Procedural Guidelines for Integrating Trade and Environment Policies issued in 1993. 30 This report also addressed other issues such as preferred strategies for linkage and analysis of various policies such as the use of trade measures in environmental agreements. In 1997 the group completed a report on trade and the environment in the transportation sector. It continues its work on ecolabeling programs and analysis of trade measures in existing environmental agreements. 31 Since the inception of the WTO the OECD has shifted much of its work on trade and environment to the new organization which has a Committee on Trade and Environment. 32 In 1996 the OECD approved a Joint Group on Trade and Competition to continue work previously done by two separate committees that had identified three key problem areas: the negative effect on market access of anticompetitive private practice, the negative effect of trade measures on competition and market access, and the negative effect of regulation on market access and competition. Progress on means to address these problems has been slow.
In 1994 the OECD added core labor standards to its trade agenda. 33 In 1996 a joint report by two separate OECD committees identified the following core labor standards that should apply regardless of level of economic development: freedom of association, freedom to organize and bargain collectively, elimination of child labor, elimination of forced labor, and nondiscrimination in employment. 34
B. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
The Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) is a permanent organ of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Its basic purpose is to encourage international trade, and particularly to look out for the interests of the developing countries. It recommends policies and courses of action on trade and economic development. It is an important sounding board for the complaints of the developing countries, and therefore has a degree of political influence. UNCTAD oversees the functioning and conducts annual reviews of the Generalized System of Preferences. It was involved in the negotiations by developing nations for the establishment of a "Global System of Trade Preferences" GSTP to facilitate trade among such nations that was eventually established in 1988. The GSTP agreement was adopted by 48 nations which exchanged bilateral trade concessions extended to all GSTP nations on an MFN basis. 35 The GSTP becomes operational 30 days after 15 participants formally approve the agreement and deposit their instruments of ratification.
UNCTAD maintains a data base on nontariff measures imposed by its member countries. 36 It conducts annual reviews of the problems of protectionism and structural adjustment. 37 Organization projects included development of a program to promote trade among countries having different economic and social systems. 38 From the mid-1970s through the 1980s UNCTAD was involved in the negotiation and formulation of international commodity agreements. Such agreements used specific economic mechanisms to control the price and supply of commodities which account for a large percentage of the total exports of developing countries. By their nature commodity agreements restricted the free movement of commodities in international trade and usually supported prices above the lowest free market levels. While international commodity agreements were still recognized as valid market interventions, the U.S. participated in several. U.S. interest waned in the mid-to-late 1980s as free market policies came to the forefront of U.S. policies. The U.S. participated in agreements controlling the following commodities: coffee, sugar, tin, wheat, and natural rubber. It never participated in another major agreement controlling cocoa. Commodity agreements that did not contain market stabilization mechanisms but rather concentrated on research, marketing, and development included agreements on jute, tropical timber, and olive oil. The U.S. participated in the first two listed. Agreements that devolved into statistical reporting mechanisms involved wheat and sugar. The U.S. participated. The U.S. refused to participate in UNCTAD's 1976 Integrated Program for Commodities that was a framework for negotiation of agreements and contained a Common Fund to finance commodity stabilization measures. The Common Fund did not come into force until 1989, long after the IPC had failed to achieve its objectives.
The UNCTAD meets at least twice a year and hosts a major conference every four years to review its goals. For a discussion of a full range of UNCTAD activities in prior years see the USITC annual reports entitled Operation of the Trade Agreements Program. 39
C. Customs Cooperation Council
The Customs Cooperation Council is an international technical body created under a 1950 Convention for the purpose of securing the highest degree of harmony and uniformity in Customs systems and of studying and recommending solutions to the problems inherent in Customs administration. The United States joined in 1970. A member may adhere to the CCC Convention without adhering to particular conventions sponsored by the Council.
The Treasury Department through the Customs Service represents the United States on the Council except with respect to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System described below. 40
The Council has operated principally through the Nomenclature, Valuation and Harmonized System Committees which have coordinating responsibilities in major areas of Customs operations.
The Nomenclature Committee supervised the operation of the 1950 Convention on Nomenclature for the Classification of Goods in Customs Tariffs. It passed upon the chapters of the proposed Harmonized Code as they were prepared by the Harmonized System Committee.
One of the two Valuation Committees supervises the operation of the 1950 Convention on the Valuation of Goods for Customs purposes. This Convention adopted the Brussels Definition of Value. The other Valuation Committee, known as the Technical Committee on Valuation, was established under the 1979 MTN Valuation Code to advise on and facilitate the acceptance and operation of that Code. The functions of this Committee are described in Section 25, Valuation, at III-B. The Harmonized System Committee work is discussed in subsection 1, below. There is also a permanent Technical Committee of the CCC that seeks to promote mutual administrative assistance between Customs administrations, particularly in technical matters and in law enforcement. Its activities led to the adoption in 1977 by the Council of the International Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance for the Prevention, Investigation and Repression of Customs Offences. The United States has not acceded to this Convention. The international Convention on the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs Procedures, the Kyoto Convention, provides basic principles covering major Customs procedures. The U.S. Senate ratified this Convention June 21, 1983.
1. The Harmonized System
meet the needs for uniform and consistent classification of merchandise for purposes of customs administration, trade statistics, and world trading operations. The complete System, consisting of Chapters 1-97, was approved by the Council in June, 1983, and the convention was opened for signature. By its terms the Convention was scheduled to come into force on January 1, 1988 following signature by seventeen nations which had also ratified it or signed without reservation of ratification. Although the United States announced its intention to implement the Convention on January 1, 1988, Congress did not ratify it until 1988 for implementation on January 1, 1989. 41
The U.S. International Trade Commission had the responsibility, given by Section 608(c) of the Trade Act of 1974, to participate in the U.S. contribution to the technical work of the Harmonized System Committee, to assure recognition of the needs of the U.S. business community in the development of the Harmonized Code reflecting sound principles of commodity identification and modern producing methods and trading practices. To carry out this responsibility the ITC invited public comments, instituted an investigation under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)) in order to prepare a draft conversion of the Tariff Schedules of the U.S. into the nomenclature structure of the Harmonized System, and held periodic hearings on chapters of the draft conversion of the TSUS.
In 1983, the U.S. International Trade Commission, as part of the U.S. contribution to the work of the Harmonized System Committee, released a four-volume report to the President entitled "Conversion of the Tariff Schedules of the United States Annotated Into the Nomenclature Structure of the Harmonized System" (USITC Pub. 1400). Further work on the proposed conversion was undertaken by the USTR which published three versions between 1984 and 1987 following public comment, private sector consultations, and negotiations required under GATT Article XXVIII. The final product of the conversion process was reflected in USITC Pub. 2030, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, which replaced the TSUS on January 1, 1989, the date set by Congress in approving the United States accession to the Harmonized System Convention and enacting the HTS. 42 The ITC publishes a new edition of the HTSUS each year.
In approving accession to the Convention Congress provided that the Convention is to be treated as a trade agreement of the United States, but it is not subject to the automatic termination provisions that apply to other trade agreements.
The Harmonized System Committee of the CCC is responsible for settlement of disputes between contracting parties to the Convention when required bilateral consultations fail. Individuals who have no standing to initiate dispute settlement procedures may file inquiries or complaints with the Departments of Treasury and Commerce and the ITC seeking governmental initiation of such procedures. 43 The HS Committee is also responsible for recommending amendments to the HS, and for providing interpretations of the System. The HS Committee has published a set of Explanatory Notes that delineate the product coverage of each heading in the HS. It also made an alphabetical index available. The HS Committee also issues classification decisions. Those of particular weight are published in a Compendium of Classification Opinions. CCC publications on the HS are to be published by the ITC by direction of Congress.
In 1989 the CCC initiated a complete review of the Harmonized System. 44 The work will continue over several years to ensure that the product descriptions and categories reflect current technology and commercial practices. Any changes will have to be referred to HS participants for inclusion in their national tariffs.
United States CCC representation with respect to the Harmonized System is spread among a number of departments and agencies. Since January 1, 1989 representation on the Council has been served by the Departments of Treasury and Commerce, the International Trade Commission, and the United States Trade Representative with technical advice from other agencies. The Customs Service is designated as the representative of the Treasury and is to take the lead role in issues concerning the application and interpretation of the Harmonized Tariff System. The Census Bureau of Commerce oversees consistency and comparability in statistical reporting. The ITC is to lead the U.S. delegation to international working parties and Harmonized System Committee subcommittees responsible for amendments to the System. The USTR is responsible for dispute settlement and policy coordination.
D. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law
The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) was established in 1966. One of its initial projects involved drafting an international sales convention which was adopted as a treaty in 1980 at a meeting of 71 nations. On December 11, 1986 the United States deposited at U.N. Headquarters its instrument of ratification of the U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. Under Article 99 of the Convention it became effective on January 1, 1988 between the United States and the following countries: Argentina, China, Egypt, France, Hungary, Italy, Lesotho, Syria, Yugoslavia, and Zambia. 45 As of that date contracts for the sale of goods between parties with places of business in countries which have ratified the Convention are governed by its terms as discussed below. The United States, however, refused to be bound by Article 1(1) (b) which extends the scope of the Convention under certain circumstances to parties not actually doing business in a country which is a party to the Convention.
The Convention governs the formation of contracts and the rights and obligations of buyers and sellers thereunder. Contracts need not be in writing to be covered unless one of the parties does business in a country which requires contracts to be in writing and has narrowed the scope of the Convention accordingly. However, parties may opt to have a national law cover the contract instead of the international rules of the Convention or to vary the applicability or effect of certain provisions of the Convention. The Convention does not cover contract validity or property rights in goods sold. The Convention does not cover sales of specified items. Some of the provisions of the Sales Article of the Uniform Commercial Code as well as of the commercial law of other nations have been incorporated in the Convention. The text of the Convention is printed at 52 FR 6264-6280, March 2, 1987. 46
UNCITRAL has also been involved in the formation of other international standards such as the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration which was passed in 1986. The model law has already been adopted by a number of countries including Canada.
E. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, known as "APEC," was an informal forum for Pacific Rim countries when it was started in 1989. By 1995 APEC had evolved into a more formal organization with a Secretariat in Singapore and annual ministerial meetings. 47 The 1995 meeting resulted in the Osaka Action Agenda, an ambitious plan building upon the group's 1994 commitment at a meeting in Bogor, Indonesia (the "Bogor Declaration of Common Resolve") to create a community of Asia Pacific economies with free and open trade and investment among industrialized economies by 2110 and among developing economies by 2020. 48 The Osaka Action Agenda emphasized trade and investment liberalization, facilitation, and economic and technical cooperation. Within the overall target date participating economies have flexibility as to how and when they move toward implementation of the Agenda, Part One of the Agenda beginning in 1997 defines fifteen areas as to which it sets objectives and guidelines for individual and collective action: tariffs, nontariff measures, services, investment, standards, customs, intellectual property rights, competition policy, government procurement, deregulation, rules of origin, dispute mediation, mobility of business persons, implementation of the Uruguay Round, and information gathering and analysis. 49 Part Two of the Osaka Action Agenda involves joint action by members in ten working groups dedicated to aspects of economic and technical cooperation. 50 In 1996 APEC initiated 320 projects in various working groups and other fora. 51
In addition to the major ministerial meeting held each year APEC also hosts various ministerial meetings on specific topics throughout the year. APEC has two permanent committees, the Committee on Trade and Investment and the Economic Committee, that oversee implementation of APEC's plans and analyses information, respectively. They meet frequently. The Working Groups covering the ten areas set forth in Part Two of the Osaka Action Agenda, human resources development, telecommunications, transportation, tourism, energy, marine resources, fisheries, trade and investment data review, trade promotion, and industrial science and technology, have ongoing programs to achieve progress in these areas. 52 APEC has a Business Advisory Council that also meets frequently to keep the private sector actively engaged in the APEC process. 53
The 1996 Ministerial meeting in Manila resulted in two important developments. The ministers announced that APEC would reopen its doors to new members which would be announced at the 1998 meeting in Kuala Lumpur and admitted at the 1999 meeting in Auckland. 54 APEC leaders who meet at the same time as their ministers announced a Manila Action Plan for APEC 1996. 55 This plan basically integrated the collective and individual action plans envisioned by Part One of the Osaka Action Agenda with the joint activities envisioned by Part Two along with other APEC activities. At the Manila meeting the review of individual action plans revealed a widening rift between developed and developing economies on the subject of comparability of action. 56 The ministerial meeting also called for an Information Technology Agreement to be made at the WTO ministerial in Singapore in 1996. 57 The ITA was, in fact, concluded, as discussed at I-G above.
F. U.S.-E.U New Transatlantic Agenda
In 1995 the U.S. and E.U. launched a trade initiative called the "New Transatlantic Agenda" that provides a framework for negotiating joint policy concerns. 58 The accompanying joint action plan contained over 100 specific actions including over 40 trade and economics matters. The plan called for an Information Technology Agreement 59 that was eventually concluded at the WTO ministerial meeting in Singapore in 1996 as discussed at I-G above. Another goal was negotiation of mutual conformity assessment recognition agreements that would eliminate the need for conformity assessment in the country of importation when goods had been certified as conforming to required standards in the country of exportation. 60 Most of the work toward negotiation of bilateral mutual recognition agreements in seven sectors had been completed by the end of 1996 for implementation in 1997. 61 A draft agreement on customs cooperation was also ready by the end of 1996. 62 An ultimate goal of the Agenda is the creation of a transatlantic marketplace through trade facilitation and removal of trade barriers. 63
Along with the Agenda is Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) that brings Chief Executive Officers together to recommend and report proposals to their governments. 64 The TABD has issue groups and sectoral groups that work toward its objectives that complement and coincide with the Transatlantic Agenda.
III. UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS
Free trade agreements are regional trade agreements that are covered by GATT article XXIV and thus form an allowable exception of the MFN principle. FTAs eliminate tariffs and other barriers to trade on substantially all trade among member states. Section 78 of the Import Reference Manual discusses the U.S.-Israel, U.S.-Canada, and North American Free Trade Agreements.
In 1994 the Summit of the Americas held in Miami resulted in a Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action calling for the creation of a hemisphere-wide free trade area. 65 The planned Free Trade Area of the Americas was to be negotiated by 2005. Annual meetings of trade ministers are held and working groups have been established to prepare for negotiations. 66 However, the defeat of fast-track negotiating authority in late 1997 stalled progress toward negotiations. 67
On April 19, 1998, the Second Summit of the Americas held in Santiago, Chile officially launched negotiations for the FTAA. The Santiago Declaration reiterated the goal of completing an FTAA by 2005, with concrete progress and specific business facilitation measures to be achieved by 2000. 68
1 61 Stat. parts 5 and 6, TIAS No. 1700. For the text of GATT prior to 1994 amendments see 75:0801.
2 4 J. Int'l Arb., Dec. 1987, at 53.
3 Operation of the Trade Agreements Program, 40th Report, 1988, USITC Pub. 2208 (July 1989), at 30.
4 Id. at 12. See Castel, the Uruguay Round and the Improvements to the GATT Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures, 38 Int'l & Comp. L.Q 834 (1989); Eichmann, Procedural Aspects of GATT Dispute Settlement: Moving Towards Legalism, 8 Int'l Tax & Bus. L. 38 (1990).
5 Section 2 and Title V, Public Law 96-39; 19 U.S.C. 2503 and 1202.
6 Operation of the Trade Agreements Program, 40th Report, 1988, supra n. 3, at 14.
7 Proc. 6030 of Sept. 28, 1989, 54 FR 40839, Oct. 3, 1989.
8 See, e.g., 53 FR 30920, Aug. 16, 1988; 53 FR 32323, Aug. 24, 1988; 53 FR 29285, Aug. 3, 1988; 53 FR 31110, Aug. 17, 1988; 54 FR 5156, Feb. 1, 1989.
9 60 FR 1007 (1995) as amended by Proc. 6780, 60 FR 15849 (1995); Proc. 6587, 60 FR 64817 (1995); and Proc. 6948, 61 FR 56385 (1996). The President's authority to proclaim tariff changes and to take action in anticipation of the entry into force of the WTO agreement was set out in sections 103 and 104 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 3513-14.
10 1997 Trade Policy Agenda and 1996 Trade Policy Report 81-88.
11 Operation of the Trade Agreements Program, 48th Report, 1996, USITC Pub. 3024 (Apr. 1997), at 24-25.
12 Id. at 19 (table 2-1 showing annual schedule).
13 Id. at 24-27.
14 Id. at 17, 20-23.
15 Current OECD membership reflecting accessions may be found on the OECD website at http://www.oecd.org.
16 Operation of the Trade Agreements Program, 37th Report, 1985 USITC Pub. 1871, June 1986. at 86-87, 116-17; Operation of the Trade Agreements Program, 38th Report 1986, USITC Pub. 1995, June 1987, at 3-2, 3-3, 3-4; Operation of the Trade Agreements Program, 39th Report, 1987, USITC Pub. 2095 (July 1988) at 3-1-3-5; Operation of The Trade Agreements Program, 40th Report, 1988, USITC Pub. 2208 (July 1989) at 49-53, 69-70.
17 USITC Pub. 1871, supra n. 16, at 90; USITC Pub. 1995, supra n. 16 at 3-3.
18 USITC Pub. 1871, supra n. 16, at 117-18.
19 USITC Pub. 2095, supra n. 16, at 3-4.
20 Id. at 3-3.
21 USITC Pub. 2208, supra n.16, at 50-53.
22 Operation of the Trade Agreements Program, 40th Report, 1989, USITC Pub. 2317, (Sept. 1990), at 82.
23 Id. at 49.
24 Id. at 53.
25 Id.
26 USITC Pub. 2317, supra n. 22 at 67.
27 Id. at 67-68.
28 Id. at 68.
29 USITC Pub. 3024, supra n. 11, at 43.
30 Id
31 Id
32 Id. at 18, 43.
33 Id. at 43.
34 Id. at 45.
35 USITC Pub. 2208, supra n. 16, at 58.
36 Id. at 56
37 Id. at 55.
38 Id. at 56-57.
39 USITC Pub. 1871, supra n. 16, at 91-95; USITC Pub. 1995, supra n. 16, at 3-5-3-9; USITC Pub. 2208, supra n. 16 at 54-65, 70-71, USITC Pub. 2317, supra n. 22 at 69, 82-83.
40 Pub. L. 100-418, tit. I, §1210, Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1107, 1152. The procedures under which section 1210 was to be implemented and the areas of responsibility of various agencies were published at 53 FR 45646, Nov. 10, 1988. Procedures outlined included establishment of a list of private interested parties to be consulted on pending matters, availability of HSC records and documents, the submission of technical proposals to the Council, and classification inquiries by individuals.
41 Pub. L. 100-418, tit. I, §§1201-1217, Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1107, 1147-1163. See announcement at 51 FR 30933, Aug. 29, 1986.
42 Pub. L. 100-418, id. 41.
43 See 53 FR 45646, Nov. 10, 1988.
44 USITC Pub. 2317, supra n. 22, at 68
45 Information on later accessions may be obtained from the Treaty Affairs Office of The State Department's Legal Adviser.
46 See also 22 Int'l Legal Materials 1368-80 (1984) (text of legal analysis which accompanied Convention to the Senate); J. Honmold, Uniform Law for International Sales, (1982); Winship, A Bibliography of Commentaries on the United Nations International Sales Convention, 21 The Int'l Law. 585 (1987).
47 Operation of the Trade Agreements Program, 47th Report, 1995, USITC Pub. 2971 (Aug. 1996) at 36.
48 Id. at 36-37.
49 Id. at 37.
50 Id.
51 Operation of the Trade Agreements Program, 48th Report, 1996, USITC Pub. 3024 (Apr. 1997) at 75.
52 Id. at 76.
53 Id.
54 Id.
55 . Id. at 77.
56 Id.
57 Id.
58 USITC Pub. 2971, supra n. 47, at 39.
59 Id. at 41.
60 Id.
61 USITC Pub. 3024, supra n. 51, at 91-92.
62 Id. at 92.
63 Id. at 92.
64 Id. at 90-91.
65 34 I.L.M. 808 (1995).
66 USITC Pub. 3024, supra n. 51, at 75.
67 See 15 ITR 567, Apr. 1, 1998.
68 See 15 ITR 701, Apr. 22, 1998.
Contact the Webmaster at webmaster@bna.com
1801 S. Bell Street, Arlington, VA 22202 - Phone: 1-800-372-1033
Copyright © The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
