•  
  •  
 

Fiona Smith

Abstract

Regulating international agricultural trade is the most difficult challenge the World Trade Organisation (WTO) faces. Despite the breakthrough in the WTOAgreement on Agriculture following years ofpiecemeal regulation under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), agriculture remains problematic. Why is that? The traditional response to this question is that the existing rules in the WTO Agreement on Agriculture are inappropriate because they do not reduce restrictive barriers to trade; do not address developing countries' concerns sufficiently; or do not accommodate non-trade issues like human rights and the environment. Whilst all these assertions may be true, this article argues that this focus is too narrow. Instead, it suggests that linguistic problems, or 'gaps,' exist in the current rules which fundamentally undermine the agreement's legitimacy in subtle, but potentially damaging ways. It argues that not all linguistic 'gaps'or omissions in the Agreement on Agriculture are of the same type. Some of the 'gaps' can be addressed by the WTO's dispute settlement mechanism using the Vienna Convention's methodology. However, other 'gaps'are actually deliberate omissions in the text reflecting members' fundamental disagreement on certain issues. These latter 'gaps'maylead to abandonment of the agreement by some members if the 'gaps' are filled by the dispute settlement mechanism in ways many members oppose. It is important that WTO members understand the nature of these omissions before they incorporate further obligations into the existing Agreement on Agriculture in the Doha Round ofmultilateral trade talks. Failure to do so will only lead to further difficulties in international trade regulation. so will only lead to further difficulties in international trade regulation.

Download

Share

COinS