Cotton-4 and the Cotton Subsidies Issue: A Litmus Test for the WTO’s Benefits to Least-Developed Countries
In: The Journal of World Investment & TradeSearch for other papers by Amanda Pamela Dakouré in
Current site
Google Scholar
The World Trade Organization’s primary purpose is to promote trade liberalization for the benefit of all its members. Being a self-enforcing trading system, the Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) is its central pillar. Despite critics praising the DSM for its efficiency, the aim of this article is to demonstrate that litigation is not always an option for the WTO’s least-developed members. Through a case study of the cotton issue this article will analyze the efficiency of the WTO for its least-developed members. Part I of the article will set out why the issue of cotton is the perfect paradigm to examine how the WTO’s agriculture trade liberalization can benefit its least-developed members. Part II will examine the Brazil-US Upland Cotton Dispute and shed light on its repercussions on a group called Cotton-4. Part III will discuss how Cotton-4 has tried to resolve the cotton issue through negotiations. Finally, part IV will provide least-developed members, such as Cotton-4, with ways around the power inequalities that limit them from fully benefiting from the WTO’s agriculture trade liberalization.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Abbot R. (2007) “Are Developing Countries Deterred from Using the WTO Dispute Settlement System? Participation of Developing Countries in the DSM in the years 1995-2005” ECIPE Working Paper No. 01/2007.
-
Alavi A. (2007) “African Countries and the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Mechanism” Development Policy Review 25:1.
-
Baffes J. (2011) “Cotton Subsidies, the WTO and the ‘Cotton Problem’” Policy Research Working Paper WPS5663, World Bank.
-
Bhagwati J. (2005) “Reshaping the WTO” Far Eastern Economic Review 168:2: Jan/Feb.
-
Bown C. (2004) “Trade Policy under the GATT/WTO: Empirical Evidence of the Equal Treatment Rule.” Canadian Journal of Economics 37:3.
-
Bown C. (2005) “Participation in WTO Dispute Settlement: Complainants, Interested Parties, and Free Riders” The World Bank Economic Review 19:2.
-
Bown C., & McCulloch R. (2010) “Developing Countries, Dispute Settlement, and the Advisory Centre on WTO Law” Policy Research Working Paper WPS5168, World Bank.
-
Busch M., & Reinhardt E. (2006) “Three’s a Crowd: Third Parties and WTO Dispute Settlement” World Politics 58: April 2006.
-
Charnovitz S. (2002) “The WTO’s Problematic ‘Last Resort’ Against Noncompliance” Aussenwirtschaft, Dec. Vol.57, No.4.
-
Colares J. (2011) “The Limits of WTO adjudication: is compliance the problem?” Journal of International Economic Law 14:2 (pp. 204–436).
-
Deere C., & Harbourd M. (2011) “Developing Country Coalitions in the WTO: Strategies for Improving the Influence of the WTO’s Weakest and Poorest Members” GEGP Working Paper 2011/63.
-
Eagleton-Pierce M. (2011) “The Competing Kings of Cotton: (Re)framing the WTO African Cotton Initiative” New Political Economy, iFirst.
-
Ghosh A. (2010) “Developing Countries in the WTO Trade Policy Review Mechanism” World Trade Review 9:3 (pp. 419–455).
-
Hanrahan C. (2004) “The African Cotton Initiative and WTO Agriculture Negotiations” CRS Report for Congress RS21712.
-
Hoekman B., , & Mavroidis P. (2000) “WTO Dispute Settlement, Transparency and Surveillance” World Economy 23:4.
-
Hudec R., (2002) “The Adequacy of WTO Dispute Settlement Remedies: A Developing Country Perspective” in Hoekman B., , Mattoo A., & English P., Development, Trade and the WTO Washington: World Bank.
-
Josling T., , Sumner D., , Thompson R., , Chambliss M., and Laney K. (2007) “The 2007 US Farm Bill: implications for developing countries” International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council, ICP Issue Brief 25, September, Washington.
-
Lee D., & Smith N. (2008) “The Political Economy of Small African States in the WTO” The Round Table: The Common Wealth Journal of International Affairs, 97:395.
-
Milligan K., , Goldberg R., & Lawrence R. (2009) “Brazil’s WTO Cotton Case: Negotiation through Litigation” in Case Studies in Trade Negotiations, vol. 2 Institute for International Economics.
-
Nottage H. (2009) “Developing Countries in the WTO Dispute Settlement System” Global Economic Governance Working Paper 2009/47.
-
Ridley W., & Devadoss S. (2012) “Analysis of the Brazil-USA Cotton Dispute” Journal of International Trade Law & Policy 11:2.
-
Rolland S. (2010) “Redesigning the negotiation process at the WTO” Journal of International Economic Law 13(1) pp. 65–110.
-
Schnepf R. (2011) “Brazil’s WTO Case Against the U.S. Cotton Program” Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report for Congress No. RL32571. Washington: CRS.
-
Shaffer G. (2006) “The Challenges of WTO Law: Strategies for Developing Country Adaptation” World Trade Review July 2006.
-
Smith F. (2011) “Regulating Agriculture in the WTO” International Journal of Law in Context 7:2.
-
Townsend D., & Charnovitz S. (2011) “Preventing opportunistic uncompliance by WTO members” Journal of International Economic Law 14:2.
-
Wise T. (2008) “The limited Promise of Agricultural Trade Liberalization” Working Group on Development and Environment in the Americas DP19, July 2008.
-
Zunckel H. (2005) “The African Awakening in United States – Upland Cotton” Journal of World Trade 39:6.
-
Anderson K, and Martin M. (2006) (eds.) Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda (pp.3–35) Washington: World Bank & Basingstoke: Palgrave.
-
Evenett S., (2010) “Reforming WTO retaliation: any lessons from competition law?” in Bown C., & Pauwelyn J. (eds.) The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement (pp. 641–647) New York: Cambridge University Press.
-
Kaufmann-Kohler G., (2010) “Compensation Assessments: Perspective from Investment Arbitration”, in Bown C., & Pauwelyn J. (eds.) The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement (pp. 623–640) New York: Cambridge University Press.
-
Lee D., (2004) “Understanding the WTO dispute settlement system” in Hocking B., & McGuire S. (eds.) Trade Politics. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
-
Lee D., (2007) “The Cotton Club: The Africa Group in the Doha Development Agenda” in Lee D., , Wilkinson R. (eds.) The WTO After Hong Kong: Progress in, and prospects for, the Doha Development Agenda (pp. 137–154) London: Routledge.
-
Lester S., & Mercurio B. et al. (2008) “World Trade Law: Text, Materials and Commentary” Portland: Hart Publishing.
-
Morrison J., & Sarris A., “Introduction” (2007) in Morrison J., & Sarris A. (eds.) WTO Rules for Agriculture Compatible with Development (pp. 1–9) Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
-
Mshomba R. (2009) “Africa and the World Trade Organization”, New York: Cambridge University Press.
-
Nash J., (2007) “WTO Agreement limits as a development instrument: synergies and complementarities of WTO rules for agriculture with reform programmes sponsored by the World Bank and IMF” in Morrison J, & Sarris A (eds.) WTO Rules for Agriculture Compatible with Development (pp. 101–126) Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
-
Orden D., & Diaz-Bonilla E., “Holograms and Ghosts: New and Old Ideas for Agricultural Policy” (2006) in Anderson K., & Martin W. (Eds.) Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda (pp.295–331) Washington: World Bank and Palgrave Macmillan.
-
Shahin M. (2010) “WTO Dispute Settlement for a middle-income developing country: the situation of Egypt”, in Shaffer, G & Meléndez-Ortiz (eds.) Dispute Settlement at the WTO: The developing Country experience (pp. 275–300) New York: Cambridge University Press.
-
Sumner D., (2005) “Reducing Cotton Subsidies: The DDA Cotton Initiative” in Anderson K., & Martin W. (eds.) Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda, Washington DC, World Bank.
-
Van den Bossche P. (2008) “The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization: Texts, Cases and Materials” New York: Cambridge University Press.
-
ACWL “The ACWL’s Mission”, available at <http://www.acwl.ch/e/about/about_us.html>, last visited June 17, 2013.
-
Cotton Made in Africa “African Cotton”, available at <http://www.cotton-made-in-africa.com/en/african-cotton.html> last visited June 17, 2013.
-
McClanahan P. (2012) “US pushed to reform cotton subsidies in farm bill as Brazil watches” The Guardian, 19 July, available at <http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/jul/19/us-cotton-subsidies-farm-bill-brazil>, last visited June 17, 2013.
-
USDA Foreign Agricultural Service “Statistical Database”, available at <www.fas.usda.gov/data.asp>, last visited August 10, 2012.
-
WTO “2012 News Items (29 June 2012)”, available at <http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news12_e/cdac_29jun12_e.htm>, last visited June 17, 2013.
-
WTO “Agreement on Agriculture”, available at <http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/14-ag.pdf>, last visited June 17, 2013.
-
WTO “Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures”, available at <http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/24-scm.pdf>, last visited June 17, 2013.
-
WTO “DG Pascal Lamy Speech August 21, 2010”, available at <http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl166_e.htm>, last visited June 17, 2013.
-
WTO “Division appeared in the July 2004 Package article 1(b)”, available at <http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dda_e/draft_text_gc_dg_31july04_e.htm>, last visited June 17, 2013.
-
WTO “Glossary Term”, available at <http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/glossary_e/box_e.htm>, last visited June 17, 2013.
-
WTO “Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration” available at <http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min05_e/final_text_e.htm>, last visited June 17, 2013.
-
WTO “News development’, available at <http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news12_e/cdac_29jun12_e.htm#background>, last visited June 17, 2013.
-
WTO “Statement by the Director-General”, available at <http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/wto_dg_stat_e.htm>, last visited on June 17, 2013.
-
WTO “Who we are”, available at <http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/who_we_are_e.htm>, last visited June 17, 2013.
-
WTO’s Cotton Sub-Committee, available at <http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/cotton_subcommittee_e.htm>, last visited June 17, 2013.
-
ICTSD 2003, Bridges Daily Update on the Fifth Ministerial Conference, No.2: 11 September (Geneva: ICTSD).
-
Oxfam Briefing Paper “White Gold Turns to Dust: Which Way Forward for Cotton in West Africa?” March 2004.
-
Sutherland Report “2008 Revised Draft Modalities for Agriculture”.
-
WTO Document WT/DS266/1 “EC-Sugar”.
-
WTO Document, G/AG/NG/99.
-
WTO Document, TN/AG/GEN/4 “Cotton-4 Proposal”
-
WTO Document, TN/DS/W/15.
-
WTO Document, TN/DS/W/92.
-
WTO Document, United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton: Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 7.10 of the SCM Agreement, World Trade Organization, Geneva.
-
WTO Document, WT/267/AB, AB Findings, Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU.
-
WTO Document, WT/DS267/1 “Cotton Dispute”
-
WTO Document, WT/DS27 “EC–Bananas III (Ecuador)”.
-
WTO Document, WT/DS27/ARB.
-
8)
Morrison & Sarris (2007) at p. 1.
-
9)
Nash, J. (2007) “WTO Agreement limits as a development instrument: synergies and complementarities of WTO rules for agriculture with reform programmes sponsored by the World Bank and IMF” in Morrison, J & Sarris, A (eds.) WTO Rules for Agriculture Compatible with Development (pp. 101-126) Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations at p. 340. [Nash (2007)]
-
16)
Lester & Mercurio (2008) at p. 49.
-
18)
Wise, T. (2008) “The limited Promise of Agricultural Trade Liberalization” Working Group on Development and Environment in the Americas DP19, July 2008. [Wise (2008)]
-
20)
Abbot (2007).
-
22)
Mshomba, R. (2009) “Africa and the World Trade Organization”, New York: Cambridge University Press at p. 145. [Mshomba (2009)]
-
24)
Smith, F. (2011) “Regulating Agriculture in the WTO” International Journal of Law in Context 7:2 (pp. 233-247). [Smith (2011)]
-
31)
Ridley, W. & Devadoss, S. (2012) “Analysis of the Brazil-USA Cotton Dispute” Journal of International Trade Law & Policy 11:2 (pp.148-162). [Ridley & Devadoss (2012)]
-
34)
Wise (2008) at p. 4.
-
35)
In 2005, the US subsidized its cotton industry well over US$4 billion. SeeBaffes (2011) at p. 18.
-
38)
Mshomba (2009) at p. 54.
-
40)
Lee, D. (2007) “The Cotton Club: The Africa Group in the Doha Development Agenda” in Lee, D. & Wilkinson, R. (eds.) The WTO After Hong Kong: Progress in, and prospects for, the Doha Development Agenda (pp. 137-154) London: Routledge at p. 141. [Lee (2007)]
-
43)
Baffes (2011).
-
44)
Lee (2007) at p. 140.
-
46)
In 2002, the US was the leading cotton exporter with 32% of the world exports of cotton. See USDA Foreign Agricultural Service “Statistical Database”, available at <www.fas.usda.gov/data.asp>, last visited June 17, 2013.
-
49)
Bown, C. (2005) “Participation in WTO Dispute Settlement: Complainants, Interested Parties, and Free Riders” The World Bank Economic Review 19:2 (pp. 287-310). [Bown (2005)]
-
51)
USDA, Cotton Exports in Baffes (2011) at p. 16.
-
57)
Milligan (2009) at p. 242.
-
60)
Schnepf, R. (2011) “Brazil’s WTO Case Against the U.S. Cotton Program” Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report for Congress No. RL32571. Washington: CRS at p. 15. [Schnepf (2011)]
-
63)
Ridley & Devadoss (2012) at p. 9.
-
65)
Schnepf (2011) at p. 25.
-
74)
Ridley & Devadoss (2012).
-
76)
Nottage, H. (2009) “Developing Countries in the WTO Dispute Settlement System” Global Economic Governance Working Paper 2009/47 at p. 32. [Nottage (2009)]; Shahin, M. (2010) “WTO Dispute Settlement for a middle-income developing country: the situation of Egypt”, in Shaffer, G & Meléndez-Ortiz (eds.) Dispute Settlement at the WTO: The developing Country experience (pp. 275-300) New York: Cambridge University Press at p. 355. [Shahin (2010)]
-
77)
Bown (2005).
-
78)
Shaffer, G. (2006) “The Challenges of WTO Law: Strategies for Developing Country Adaptation” World Trade Review July 2006. [Shaffer (2006)]
-
80)
Shaffer (2006); Alavi, A. (2007) “African Countries and the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Mechanism” Development Policy Review 25:1 (pp. 25-42). [Alavi (2007)] The Cotton Dispute, being complex and technical, required significant technical expertise, as detailed economic analysis was necessary due to the combined violation of the AoA and the SMC. SeeNottage (2009) at p. 11.
-
82)
Bown, C. & McCulloch, R. (2010) “Developing Countries, Dispute Settlement, and the Advisory Centre on WTO Law” Policy Research Working Paper WPS5168, World Bank at p. 17. [Bown & McCulloch (2010)]
-
84)
Busch, M. & Reinhardt, E. (2006) “Three’s a Crowd: Third Parties and WTO Dispute Settlement” World Politics 58: April 2006 (pp. 446-477).
-
85)
Shaffer (2006).
-
86)
Ridley & Devadoss (2012).
-
87)
Kaufmann-Kohler, G. (2010) “Compensation Assessments: Perspective from Investment Arbitration”, in Bown, C. & Pauwelyn, J. (eds.) The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement (pp. 623-640) New York: Cambridge University Press.
-
88)
Baffes (2011) at p. 2.
-
92)
Lee, D. (2004) “Understanding the WTO dispute settlement system” in Hocking, B. & McGuire, S. (eds.) Trade Politics. 2nd ed. London: Routledge at p. 126. [Lee (2004)]
-
93)
Nottage (2009) at p. 3.
-
95)
Bown (2005).
-
96)
Bown, C. (2004) “Trade Policy under the GATT/WTO: Empirical Evidence of the Equal Treatment Rule.” Canadian Journal of Economics 37:3 (pp. 678-720). [Bown (2004)]
-
97)
Zunckel, H. (2005) “The African Awakening in United States – Upland Cotton” Journal of World Trade 39:6 (pp.1071-1093). [Zunckel (2005)]
-
99)
Charnovitz, S. (2002) “The WTO’s Problematic ‘Last Resort’ Against Noncompliance” Aussenwirtschaft, Dec. Vol.57, No.4 (pp. 407-441) at p. 416. [Charnovitz (2002)]
-
100)
Schnepf (2011) at p. 34.
-
101)
Lee (2004) at p. 127.
-
103)
Zunckel (2005) at p. 1079.
-
106)
Lee (2007) at p. 150.
-
107)
Lee & Smith (2008) at p. 262.
-
108)
Zunckel (2005) at p. 1093.
-
118)
Lee (2007) at p. 143.
-
120)
Lee, D. & Smith, N. (2008) “The Political Economy of Small African States in the WTO” The Round Table: The Common Wealth Journal of International Affairs, 97:395 (pp. 259-271) at p. 267. [Lee & Smith (2008)]
-
122)
See also Lee & Smith (2008) p. 267.
-
124)
Milligan (2004) at p. 10.
-
125)
Lee (2007) at p. 147; Hanrahan, C. (2004) “The African Cotton Initiative and WTO Agriculture Negotiations” CRS Report for Congress RS21712 at p. 5. [Hanrahan (2004)]
-
126)
Eagleton-Pierce, M. (2011) “The Competing Kings of Cotton: (Re)framing the WTO African Cotton Initiative” New Political Economy, iFirst at p. 1. [Eagleton-Pierce (2011)]
-
127)
Hanrahan (2004) at p. 4.
-
131)
Nash (2007) at p. 121.
-
133)
Deere, C. & Harbourd, M. (2011) “Developing Country Coalitions in the WTO: Strategies for Improving the Influence of the WTO’s Weakest and Poorest Members” GEGP Working Paper 2011/63 at p. 14. [Deere & Harbourd (2011)]
-
137)
McClanahan, P. (2012) “US pushed to reform cotton subsidies in farm bill as Brazil watches” The Guardian, 19 July, available at <http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/jul/19/us-cotton-subsidies-farm-bill-brazil>, last visited June 17, 2013.
-
141)
Deere & Harbourd (2011) at p. 14.
-
142)
Rolland, S. (2010) “Redesigning the negotiation process at the WTO” Journal of International Economic Law 13:1 (pp. 65-110). [Rolland (2010)]
-
144)
Sumner, D. (2005) “Reducing Cotton Subsidies: The DDA Cotton Initiative” in Anderson, K. & Martin, W. (eds.) Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda, Washington DC, World Bank at p. 287.
-
145)
Nottage (2009) at p. 16. See also article 3.2 of the DSU.
-
149)
Lester & Mercurio (2008) at p. 83.
-
150)
Ghosh, A. (2010) “Developing Countries in the WTO Trade Policy Review Mechanism” World Trade Review 9:3 (pp. 419-455) at p. 421.
-
151)
Charnovitz (2002).
-
153)
Alavi (2007).
-
154)
Mshomba (2009) argues that LDCs should concentrate their resources to promote development at the stage of negotiating agreements as opposed to the DSM, where it will have more weight.
-
157)
Hudec (2002).
-
161)
To be held from the 3-6 December 2013.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 533 | 276 | 2 |
| Full Text Views | 128 | 5 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 74 | 1 | 0 |
Cotton-4 and the Cotton Subsidies Issue: A Litmus Test for the WTO’s Benefits to Least-Developed Countries
In: The Journal of World Investment & TradeSearch for other papers by Amanda Pamela Dakouré in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
The World Trade Organization’s primary purpose is to promote trade liberalization for the benefit of all its members. Being a self-enforcing trading system, the Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) is its central pillar. Despite critics praising the DSM for its efficiency, the aim of this article is to demonstrate that litigation is not always an option for the WTO’s least-developed members. Through a case study of the cotton issue this article will analyze the efficiency of the WTO for its least-developed members. Part I of the article will set out why the issue of cotton is the perfect paradigm to examine how the WTO’s agriculture trade liberalization can benefit its least-developed members. Part II will examine the Brazil-US Upland Cotton Dispute and shed light on its repercussions on a group called Cotton-4. Part III will discuss how Cotton-4 has tried to resolve the cotton issue through negotiations. Finally, part IV will provide least-developed members, such as Cotton-4, with ways around the power inequalities that limit them from fully benefiting from the WTO’s agriculture trade liberalization.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 533 | 276 | 2 |
| Full Text Views | 128 | 5 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 74 | 1 | 0 |
