Vaibhavi Senthilkumar, LLM (Intellectual Property Rights and Trade Law), Christ (Deemed to be University), Bangalore, India
ABSTRACT
It is well-established that there is a huge difference in financial capacity, technical ability, population, resources, literacy, domestic laws, and many more between countries that are signatories to the WTO. Developed, developing, and least developed countries are involved in agreements under the WTO1. In reality, South-Saharan African Countries had not taken part in the WTO dispute settlement mechanism or invoked its provisions as a defendant or a complainant2. The present study analyses the equality and balance between various countries and their participation in the WTO dispute settlement mechanism with the involvement of geopolitics of countries signatories to it. The methodology used in the study involves a critical analysis of geopolitics and its impact on the dispute settlement mechanism of WTO.
The WTO has looked into many areas for striking a balance between developed and developing countries in participating and implementing undertaken policies. The Doha Development Agenda, the informal sub- committees on least developed countries, the Most Favoured Nation Treatment, the National Treatment Policies, and so many more such measures have been adopted by the WTO so that all the countries can implement the policies undertaken. Despite all such efforts, there is a disparity in achieving the objectives of WTO due to the overpowering of a few countries and the impact of geopolitics on the decision-making of WTO.
“The Problem with current trade rules is not that they over-emphasize trade and growth at the expense of poverty reduction, but that they over-emphasize trade at the expense of poverty reduction and growth.
The US and EU have always had access to more lawyers and could bring in more in-house WTO specialists than the other countries4. The recent imbalance among countries in the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism is due to various causes like Climate Change policies and changes in economic power.
The Three Pacific Islands, Tonga, Vanuatu, and Samoa, were also members of WTO in the 1990s, but at the beginning of the 2000s, Vanuatu and Tonga suspended their accession. The Small Island Developing States (SIDS) always faced a problem in interactions with other WTO members, which led to their inability to achieve permanent representation in Geneva.
From the Indian Perspective, a barrier can be identified even within the Country that affects the precise enforcement of the International Laws. The Article 253 of the Indian Constitution enables the Parliament's sole right to legislate to implement International Agreements7. This might also cause improper representation of issues in the forum.
There is a need for more robust regulations and processes. This study will look into formulating criteria to involve representations from all countries in the dispute settlement process and ways to increase the accountability of governments involving geopolitics in the process of WTO.
Keywords: Geopolitics, World Trade Organisation, Dispute Settlement Mechanism, Least Developed and Developed Countries, Balance, Participation, Implementation, decision-making, Domestic laws.
Comments