Russia and the WTO: Pragmatism Above All Else
Leading Researcher at the HSE-Skolkovo Institute for Law and Development Kirill Molodyko took part in the conference marking the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which took place April 27-29 at Harvard Law School.
The development of trade relations and the place of developing countries in the global market arena is one of the key areas of the work of the Institute, and in this framework several events are planned for the coming months. Kirill participated in the Harvard conference which was the first in this series.
The caliber of the meeting was clearly borne by the composition of participants: 5 of the 7 members of the Appeals Chamber of the WTO, including the Chairman of the Chamber; 5 of the 6 members of the Federal Commission for International Trade, including the Chairman of the Commission; representatives of the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, representatives of more than 40 major law firms who specialize in issues of international trade, a number of transnational corporations (PayPal, Google, Disney, Bayer, etc.), more than 40 universities (Harvard, Yale, Georgetown, Princeton, Chicago, and more). Kirill was the only participant who happens to live and work in Eastern Europe.
During the first half of the conference, which was held in the format of an open academic symposium, the subjects for discussion were the following themes: the past, present and future of the dispute settlement system under the WTO; integration and fragmentation of trade regimes; the Trans-Pacific partnership; trade in services; the participation of developing countries in international trade; climate and environmental aspects of international trade; trade and investment; and digital trade.
The second half of the conference took place behind closed doors. The participants discussed the following issues: 20 years of WTO - the successes and challenges; the relevance of WTO rules for the realities of modernity in aspects of regional trade agreements, the diversification of socio-economic conditions, the developed practice of settling international trade disputes in the WTO; the future of protective measures within the WTO framework; the evolution of the WTO rules in the aspects of their interpretation (textual interpretation against flexible interpretation); a new sphere, in particular, for digital trade, services, finance and regulatory policy; and the prospects of the WTO in the third decade of its existence.
After the conference, the Institute received correspondence from the head of the organizing Committee, Professor at Harvard Law School, Mark Wu. In the letter, among other things, it was noted that the involvement of Kirill in the conference was particularly valuable and brought the discussion illuminating perspectives.
Here is Kirill's note concluding participation in the conference:
The caliber of the meeting was clearly borne by the composition of participants: 5 of the 7 members of the Appeals Chamber of the WTO, including the Chairman of the Chamber; 5 of the 6 members of the Federal Commission for International Trade, including the Chairman of the Commission; representatives of the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, representatives of more than 40 major law firms who specialize in issues of international trade, a number of transnational corporations (PayPal, Google, Disney, Bayer, etc.), more than 40 universities (Harvard, Yale, Georgetown, Princeton, Chicago, and more). Kirill was the only participant who happens to live and work in Eastern Europe.
During the first half of the conference, which was held in the format of an open academic symposium, the subjects for discussion were the following themes: the past, present and future of the dispute settlement system under the WTO; integration and fragmentation of trade regimes; the Trans-Pacific partnership; trade in services; the participation of developing countries in international trade; climate and environmental aspects of international trade; trade and investment; and digital trade.
The second half of the conference took place behind closed doors. The participants discussed the following issues: 20 years of WTO - the successes and challenges; the relevance of WTO rules for the realities of modernity in aspects of regional trade agreements, the diversification of socio-economic conditions, the developed practice of settling international trade disputes in the WTO; the future of protective measures within the WTO framework; the evolution of the WTO rules in the aspects of their interpretation (textual interpretation against flexible interpretation); a new sphere, in particular, for digital trade, services, finance and regulatory policy; and the prospects of the WTO in the third decade of its existence.
After the conference, the Institute received correspondence from the head of the organizing Committee, Professor at Harvard Law School, Mark Wu. In the letter, among other things, it was noted that the involvement of Kirill in the conference was particularly valuable and brought the discussion illuminating perspectives.
Here is Kirill's note concluding participation in the conference:
"In Russia now it is possible to hear a lot of criticism of the WTO: its characterization as an unnecessary organization, which is inefficient in protecting the interests of its members from violations of international trade rules. I think this criticism is based on inaccurate expectations of WTO membership. In my opinion, you need to understand that the WTO is good in its specific niche. There are a number of trade problems, in which the organization is really very effective. If this were not the case, the dispute settlement body of the WTO would not be inundated with appeals of states. It is especially important that its decisions, even if not quick, and not always in perfect shape, are indeed executed in real life. However, the capacity of the WTO has its limits.
Russia is now a party to several trade disputes with the EU, for example, over energy adjustments, where Russia is the plaintiff, and regarding the rules of import of pork, where Russia is the defendant. No one yet has offered viable alternative avenues for the resolution of these trade disputes in a legal framework.
As for the relevant topic of the expansion of mutual economic sanctions or an emergency in international relations, still the countries of the WTO do not dare to challenge such via the WTO, especially due to complete unpredictability of the outcomes of appeal.
Perhaps it is possible to establish a WTO "sanctioned discipline" vehicle, whereby the rules of imposition of sanctions could be regulated through the signing of an agreement at least between states that agree to sign it. Perhaps certain WTO agreements could be signed by only a subset of its members."
Date
1 May
2016