Premium
Services as the Quid Pro Quo for a Safeguards Code
Author(s) -
Hoekman Bernard M.
Publication year - 1988
Publication title -
world economy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.594
H-Index - 68
eISSN - 1467-9701
pISSN - 0378-5920
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-9701.1988.tb00123.x
Subject(s) - citation , tariff , status quo , code (set theory) , library science , political science , law , sociology , computer science , set (abstract data type) , programming language
HE General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), like other internaa tional agreements, is replete with ‘safeguards’ or ‘escape clauses’. l The main one, set out in Article XIX, permits the introduction of emergency protection against a sudden surge of imports of a particular product. But the provision has proved to be inadequate and is not invoked very often. Governments have found ‘informal’ discriminatory arrangements, negotiated bilaterally outside the GATT system, a more attractive alternative. For developing countries, in particular, the reform of the multilateral safeguard system is of great importance. * Indeed, it can be argued that the lack of effective discipline on emergency protection undermines considerably the value of GATT membership for developing countries. The failure of the talks on a new safeguards code during the Tokyo Round of multilateral trade negotiations, conducted under the auspices of the GATT in 1973-79, certainly devalued the achievements of that round. What is at stake for developing countries is access to markets of developed countries. As the adherence to the GATT principle of non-discrimination diminishes, uncertainty regarding future access to markets increases, specialization according to comparative advantage is made more difficult and production and consumption decisions become distorted. In September 1986, at Punta del Este, the member countries of the GATT agreed to launch a new round of multilateral trade negotiations, the Uruguay Round. The agenda covers familiar topics such as trade in manufactured and agricultural products, ‘unfinished business’ from the Tokyo Round negotiations (including safeguards) and new topics such as trade in services, intellectual property rights and trade-related investment measures. The Uruguay Round negotiations offer another chance to reach an effective agreement regarding the imposition of emergency protection. It is unlikely, however, that developing countries, which have the most to gain from multilateral discipline on safeguard actions, will be able to secure an agreement along the lines they would prefer if