For decades, China has maintained State import monopoly in cultural products. The opaque State trading operations ensure a maximum level of flexibility and efficacy in the government censorship of imports. The WTO judiciary held in the China-Publications case that this practice is inconsistent with China's trading rights commitments under its Accession Protocol and cannot be justified by the public morals exception of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. To comply with the WTO ruling, China must restructure its censorship regime, which it apparently is not prepared to do. This article analyses the implications of the WTO decision and provides a critical assessment of the new WTO jurisprudence regarding trading rights and the China Accession Protocol. On 19 January 2010, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of the World Trade Organization adopted the Appellate Body (AB) report in China-Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and AudiovisualProfessor of Law, Wayne State University Law School, USA (email: ya.qin@wayne.edu). I wish to thank Erica Beecher-Monas, Sungjoon Cho, Donald Clarke, Milan Hejtmanek, Hilary Josephs, Amelia Porges, Ruosi Zhang and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments; Michael Hickman, Xiaojie Lu, and a number of other persons who wish to remain anonymous, for sharing insights with me during my research; and Aaron Silvenis for research assistance. The date of completion for this article is 10 April 2011 and all websites cited are current as of this date.10 Chinese Journal of International Law (2011), 271-322 272 Chinese IlL (2011) Entertainment Products (China-Publications),' and the Panel report 2 as modified by the AB report. 3 The AB and Panel found that China violated WTO law by not allowing non-State-owned entities to engage in the importation of cultural products (including books, magazines, newspapers, electronic publications, DVDs, sound recordings and films) and by prohibiting foreign entities from engaging in the distribution services for cultural products inside China. More specifically, the WTO judiciary held that China's restrictions on the right to import are inconsistent with its commitments to liberalize trading rights under its Accession Protocol, 4 and that its restrictions on distribution services are inconsistent with its obligations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Most significantly, the WTO judges rejected China's defence that its restrictions on trading rights are necessary for the conduct of censorship and can therefore be justified by the "public morals" exception of the GATT.2. China was given 14 months, or until 19 March 2011, to comply with the WTO rulings. At the time of writing, China has issued and proposed several amendments to its regulations concerning the right to import cultural products. But these amendments have all fallen short of meeting the \WTO requirements.3. China's failure to fully implement ...
This article seeks to assess the respective contributions of China and India to the law of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and to gain from a comparative perspective a better understanding on the potential impact of China on the WTO system. It observes that, although China's share in world trade is more than four times as large as that of India, China has played a much less significant role than India in both WTO rulemaking and adjudicatory processes. To date the major impact of China on WTO law stems from the special terms of its accession, many of which depart from the basic norms and principles of the WTO. India, on the other hand, has been one of the most active contributors to the development of WTO law and jurisprudence. The author suggests that the divergence in WTO legal practices of the two countries is attributable to a number of factors and that the presence of these factors will continue to influence their behavior within the WTO system.
Forced technology transfer has emerged from the US–China trade war as a new issue of systemic importance. The USA, the European Union, and Japan have jointly condemned forced technology transfer as a practice undermining the proper function of international trade and called for new WTO rules to discipline the practice. This article examines the issue in the broad context of international economic law. It seeks to address the following questions: What does ‘forced technology transfer’ mean? Where did this practice come from? Why is there insufficient international regulation on the issue? What exactly are the problems inherent in such practice? And what can be done to improve the relevant international regulation?
This article assesses the impact of China's accession to the World Trade Organization on its foreign trade and investment regime. While the government had begun liberalizing the Chinese economy long before joining the WTO, the accession induced regulatory, institutional and normative changes that have transformed the landscape of trade and investment in China. The profound impact of the WTO stems directly from the extensive commercial and rule commitments China undertook in its accession. Focusing on the most significant of these commitments, the article examines their implications for Chinese constitutional law and their effect on the regulation of foreign trade, foreign investment, intellectual property rights and domestic governance. Additionally, it looks at the impact of WTO disputes on Chinese law and practice. It concludes that China's accession has made its foreign trade and investment regime far more liberalized and less opaque than a decade ago. More importantly, the accession has institutionalized the process of China's domestic reform externally through the force of WTO obligations. Although much uncertainty remains concerning the future direction of government policies, WTO membership ensures that the course of China's economic development will be charted within the disciplines of the WTO system.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.