Addressing Tensions and Avoiding Disputes: Specific Trade Concerns in the TBT Committee

Abstract

Most specific trade concerns (STCs), which are raised before the WTO Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Committee), disappear from the TBT Committee’s meeting agendas without escalating into formal disputes. At the same time, a relatively small number of TBTrelated disputes have been subject to the WTO dispute settlement (DS) procedures. By examining the practice of raising STCs and the relationship between STCs and disputes, the article emphasizes the role of STCs as a trade tension resolution mechanism. It argues that the STC mechanism is a viable alternative to the currently overburdened WTO DS system. The article also suggests ways to strengthen the STC mechanism of the TBT Committee through dividing TBT Committee meetings into thematic sessions, adopting mediation procedures and reporting on STC resolutions. Further, it underscores the importance of increasing transparency and promoting good regulatory practice in avoiding disputes.

The Role of WTO Committees through the Lens of Specific Trade Concerns Raised in the TBT Committee

“…In our strict definition, transparency relates to the increased flow of information. In line with existing literature (Wolfe, 2003, 2013, 2021; Wijkströmet al, 2012; OECD, 2009; Holzer, 2018; Karttunen, 2020), our analysis supports the claim that STCs enhance transparency, but also qualifies it. In fact, like in Karttunen (2020), we show that STCs bring to the public attention new measures.…”

“…Several authors (Wolfe, 2003; Wijkström et al, 2012; Holzer, 2018; Karttunen, 2020) have argued that WTO committees play an important role in mitigating trade conflicts and have brought in support of this claim the fact that formal WTO disputes are small number in number compared to all notifications and trade concerns raised in committees (Wolfe, 2003). We use the classification of STCs in the TBT committee introduced earlier in this paper to provide additional and stronger evidence in support of this argument.…”

“…These different patterns point to the fact that the unresolved STCs that ended up as disputes were particularly difficult cases (Holzer, 2018; Karttunen, 2020). Holzer (2018) puts forward two explanations.…”

“…These different patterns point to the fact that the unresolved STCs that ended up as disputes were particularly difficult cases (Holzer, 2018; Karttunen, 2020). Holzer (2018) puts forward two explanations. One is the fact that some of the STCs preceding TBT-related disputes were strongly backed by public opinion, making the WTO Members concerned reluctant to cooperate in lifting or modifying their measures (Holzer, 2018).…”

“…Holzer (2018) puts forward two explanations. One is the fact that some of the STCs preceding TBT-related disputes were strongly backed by public opinion, making the WTO Members concerned reluctant to cooperate in lifting or modifying their measures (Holzer, 2018). For instance, the public perception of health risks associated with asbestos made the European Union unwilling to lift or adjust its measures at the request of other WTO Members in the STC EC–Asbestos .…”