본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기
kiep logo

Contents

Citation

Citation
No Title

Article View

East Asian Economic Review Vol. 12, No. 1, 2008. pp. 65-109.

DOI https://dx.doi.org/10.11644/KIEP.JEAI.2008.12.1.180

Number of citation : 0

View
558

Download
615

crossmark images crossmark images
PDF PPT Twitter Facebook

National Treatment under GATT Article III: 2 and its Applicability in the Context of Korea’s FTAs

Author

Sherzod Shadikhodjaev

Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)

sherzod1@kiep.go.kr
Creative Commons Attribution License

EAER is an open access journal distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license.

Abstract

GATT Article III: 2 on national treatment on internal taxation is an integral part of Korea’s FTAs. Therefore, GATT/WTO case law provides useful guidance on proper application of this provision in the FTA context. Article III:2 involves a multi-tiered test of several issues including likeness, discriminatory threshold, and protective application of a tax measure. When the FTA parties enter into a dispute over national treatment, the problem of applicable law may arise. First, FTA panels are not obliged to rely on GATT/WTO jurisprudence. Nevertheless, given the incorporation of GATT Article III into the FTA, it is suggested that FTA panels follow WTO case law to secure consistent and predictable applGATT Article III: 2 on national treatment on internal taxation is an integral part of Korea’s FTAs. Therefore, GATT/WTO case law provides useful guidance on proper application of this provision in the FTA context. Article III:2 involves a multi-tiered test of several issues including likeness, discriminatory threshold, and protective application of a tax measure. When the FTA parties enter into a dispute over national treatment, the problem of applicable law may arise. First, FTA panels are not obliged to rely on GATT/WTO jurisprudence. Nevertheless, given the incorporation of GATT Article III into the FTA, it is suggested that FTA panels follow WTO case law to secure consistent and predictable application of the national treatment rule. Second, it is questionable whether WTO panels can examine claims under the GATT-plus provisions on national treatment contained in the FTA. In order to avoid possible jurisprudential difficulties, disputing parties may choose to refer the matter to an FTA panel, instead of launching a WTO dispute settlement procedure. Alternatively, the parties may agree, pursuant to DSU Article 7.3, on non-standard terms of reference of the panel where a GATT-plus provision is explicitly listed. In both scenarios, the GATT-plus provisions, as a lex posterior, should prevail over the corresponding GATT provisions.

JEL classification: F13

Keywords

Non-discrimination, National Treatment, Internal Taxation, Like Product, Directly Competitive or Substitutable Product, FTA

Language

English

References

  1. 이재형. 2002. 「차별적 국내법규에 대한 GATT/WTO의 규제」. 「사법행정」, 제43권 제1호, pp. 11-23. (1월)
  2. 이재형. 2008. 「상품교역에서의 비차별적 내국세 부과의무」. 「통상법률」, 통권 제34호, pp. 7-36. (8월)
  3. Choi, Won-Mog. 2003. ‘Like Products’ in International Trade Law: Towards a Consistent GATT/WTO Jurisprudence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  4. Daly, Michael. 2005. "The WTO and Direct Taxation." WTO Discussion Paper no. 9. (June)
  5. Ehring, Lothar. 2001. "De Facto Discrimination in WTO Law: National and Most-Favored-Nation Treatment ? or Equal Treatment?" Jean Monnet Working Paper 12/01.
  6. GATT. 1995. Analytical Index: Guide to GATT Law and Practice, 6th ed., vol. 1. Geneva.
  7. Howse, Robert and Donald Regan. 2000. "The Product/Process Distinction ? An Illusory Basis for Disciplining ‘Unilateralism’ in Trade Policy." European journal of International Law, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 249-289. CrossRef
  8. Hudec, Robert E. 1990. The GATT Legal System and World Trade Diplomacy, 2nd ed. Salem, NH: Butterworth Legal Publishers.
  9. Hudec, Robert E. 1998. "GATT/WTO Constraints on National Regulation: Requiem for an ‘Aim and Effects’ Test." International Lawyer, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 619-649.
  10. Hudec, Robert E. 2000. " ‘Like Product’: The Differences in Meaning in GATT Articles I and III." In Thomas Cottier and Petros C. Mavroidis eds. Regulatory Barriers and the Principle of Non-Discrimination in World Trade Law, pp. 101-123. USA: University of Michigan Press.
  11. Jackson, John H. 1969. World Trade and the Law of GATT (A Legal Analysis of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). New York: Bobbs-Merill Co.
  12. Jackson, John H. 1989. "National Treatment Obligations and Non-Tariff Barriers." Michigan journal of International Law, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 207-224.
  13. Kwon, Hyouk Woo. 2008. "Relationship between Dispute Settlement Procedures under Regional Trade Agreements and under the World Trade Organization." 「통상법률」, 통권 제79호, pp. 60-90. (February)
  14. Matsushita, Mitsuo et al. 2006. The World Trade Organization: Law, Practice, and Policy, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  15. Pauwelyn, Joost. 2003. Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How WTO Law Relates to other Rules of International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Regan, Donald H. 2002. "Regulatory Purpose and ‘Like Products’ in Article III,4 of the GATT (With Additional Remarks on Article III,2." journal of World Trade, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 443-478. CrossRef
  17. Regan, Donald H. 2003. "Further Thoughts on the Role of Regulatory Purpose under Article III of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, A Tribute to Bob Hudec." journal of World Trade, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 737-760.
  18. Roessler, Frieder. 2003. "Beyond the Ostensible, A Tribute to Professor Robert Hudec’s Insights on the Determination of the Likeness of Products under the National Treatment Provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade." journal of World Trade, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 771-781.
  19. Srinivasan, T. N. 2005. "Nondiscrimination in GATT/WTO: was there anything to begin with and is there anything left?" World Trade Review, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 69-95.
  20. Trebilcock, Michael. 2004. "The National Treatment Principle in International Trade Law." Working Paper no. 8. American Law & Economics Association Annual Meetings.
  21. Verhoosel, Gaetan. 2002. National Treatment and WTO Dispute Settlement: Adjudicating the Boundaries of Regulatory Autonomy. Oxford-Portland Oregon: Hart Publishing.
  22. WTO. 2007. WTO Analytical Index: Guide to WTO Law and Practice, 2nd ed., vol. 1. Geneva.
  23. Zedalis, Rex J. 1994. "A Theory of the GATT ‘Like’ Product Common Language Cases." Vanderbilt journal of Transnational Law, vol. 27, pp. 33-134.
  24. Zhou, Weihuan. 2007. "Non-Discrimination and the Accordion of ‘Like Product.’" at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1000173 (July 15)
  25. GATT. Report of the Working Party on Border Tax Adjustments. L/3464, adopted 2 December 1970.
  26. GATT. Review Working Party II on Tariffs. Schedules and Customs Administration: Report to the Contracting Parties. L/329. 24 February 1955.
  27. GATT Panel Report. Canada ? Measures Affecting the Sale of Gold Coins. L/5863. 17September1985. unadopted.
  28. GATT Panel Report. European Economic Community ? Payments and Subsidies Paid to Processors and Producers of Oilseeds and Related Animal-Feed Proteins. L/6627, adopted 25January1990. BISD37S/86.
  29. GATT Panel Report. Japan ? Customs Duties, Taxes and Labelling Practices on Imported Wines and Alcoholic Beverages. L/6216, adopted 10 November1987. BISD34S/83.
  30. GATT Panel Report. United States ? Measures Affecting Alcoholic and Malt Beverages. DS23/R, adopted 19June1992. BISD39S/206.
  31. GATT Panel Report. United States ? Taxes on Automobiles. DS31/R. 11 October1994, unadopted.
  32. GATT Panel Report. United States ? Taxes on Petroleum and Certain Imported Substances. L/6175, adopted 17June1987. BISD34S/136.
  33. GATT Working Party Report. Brazilian Internal Taxes. GATT/CP.3/42 (First Report), adopted 30June1949. BISDII/181; GATT/CP.5/37 (Second Report), adopted 13December 1950. BISD II/186.
  34. WTO Appellate Body Report. Canada ? Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals. WT/DS31/AB/R. adopted 30July 1997.
  35. WTO Appellate Body Report. Chile ? Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/ DS87/AB/R, WT/DS110/AB/R, adopted 12January 2000.
  36. WTO Appellate Body Report. EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones). WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, adopted 13February 1998.
  37. WTO Appellate Body Report. European Communities ? Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products. WT/DS135/AB/R, adopted 5April 2001.
  38. WTO Appellate Body Report. India ? Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products. WT/DS50/AB/R, adopted 16January 1998.
  39. WTO Appellate Body Report. Japan ? Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages. WT/ DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, adopted 1November 1996.
  40. WTO Appellate Body Report. Korea ? Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS75/AB/R, WT/DS84/AB/R, adopted 17February 1999.
  41. WTO Appellate Body Report. United States ? Final Anti-dumping Measures on Stainless Steel from Mexico. WT/DS344/AB/R, adopted 20 May 2008.
  42. WTO Panel Report. Argentina ? Measures Affecting the Export of Bovine Hides and Import of Finished Leather. WT/DS155/R, adopted 16February 2001.
  43. WTO Panel Report. Canada ? Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals. WT/DS31/R, adopted 30July 1997.
  44. WTO Panel Report. Chile ? Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages. WT/DS87/R, WT/ DS110/R, adopted 12January 2000.
  45. WTO Panel Report. European Communities ? Measures Affecting the Importation of Certain Poultry Products. WT/DS69/R, adopted 23July 1998.
  46. WTO Panel Report. European Communities ? Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas. WT/DS27/R, adopted 25 September 1997.
  47. WTO Panel Report. Indonesia ? Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry. WT/DS54/R, WT/DS55/R, WT/DS59/R, WT/DS64/R, adopted 23July 1998.
  48. WTO Panel Report. Japan ? Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages. WT/DS8/R, WT/DS10/R, WT/DS11/R, adopted 1November 1996.
  49. WTO Panel Report. Korea ? Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages. WT/DS75/R, WT/DS84/R, adopted 17February 1999.
  50. WTO Panel Report. United States ? Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" ? Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities. WT/DS108/RW, adopted 29January 2002.
  51. NAFTA Panel Report under Chapter 20. Cross Border Trucking Services, USA-MEX-98-2008-01. 6 February 2001.
  52. NAFTA Panel Report under Chapter 20. US Safeguard Action Taken on Broom Corn Brooms from Mexico. USA-97-2008-01. 30 January 1998.