English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article discusses the National Treatment (NT) obligation as applied in the GATT tax discrimination cases. The central thesis of the paper is that case-law has not clarified the interpretation of the terms in Article III. It appears that the reason for this failure is the lack of a conceptually coherent view of the role of the NT obligation. After summarizing the case-law on discriminatory taxation, this article lays out a theory of the role of NT in trade agreements, in order to shed light on appropriate interpretations of the terms appearing in Article III. We start from the notion that the GATT is an obligationally incomplete contract. This incompleteness invites beggar-thy-neighbour type behaviour, and the NT obligation is an imperfect remedy for such problems. We suggest that likeness/directly competitive or substitutable (DCS) should be determined 'in the market place', whereas the 'so as to afford protection' criterion is ultimately about the protection of expectations concerning the intent behind domestic regulations. But since intent usually cannot be determined directly, adjudicating bodies have to seek recourse to indirect evidence, as is frequently done in legal practice.

Still Hazy after All These Years: The Interpretation of National Treatment in the GATT/WTO Case-law on Tax Discrimination