Final Draft

International Trade Law

Topic: SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN THE WTO: ITS

CONTENT AND COMPETENCE FOR FACILITATION OF
DEVELOPMENT

V year B.A.LLB (Hons.)

IX SEMESTER

NAME: PARUL MEENA SUBMITTED TO

ENROLLMENT NO: 2015-026 RAGHAV PANDEY

1
 Introduction

The term special and differential treatment (SDT) refers to the set of provisions in trade accords
which have been negotiated to grant developing country exports preferential access to markets
of developed countries, and operationalize the notion that developing countries taking part in
trade negotiations have no obligation to reciprocate fully the concessions they receive. SDT
also implies longer timeframes and lower levels of obligations for developing countries for
adherence to the rules. It is a fundamental cross cutting issue for developing countries in the
Multilateral Trading System (MTS) and is an integral part of the balance of rights and
obligations in the Uruguay Round Agreements (URAs). 1

The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the main worldwide association managing the best
financial difficulties confronting the present reality. The point of this association is to make a
universal framework that expands worldwide development as well as to accomplish a more
noteworthy proportion of value between countries. Its primary capacity is to guarantee that
exchange streams as easily, typically and openly as would be prudent. This multilateral trading
framework comprises a worldwide trading network that indicates to participate in trade
relationship for the monetary prosperity of its locale and its kin. For the running of this
framework, the WTO starts various trade understandings identifying with products,
administrations, scholarly properties, common airplane, broadcast communications and
numerous others. These understandings are the lawful guidelines for worldwide developing
trade and business. Basically they are contracts, ensuring part nations significant trading rights.
They additionally tie governments to keep their trade arrangements inside concurred points of
confinement to everyone's advantage.

As the objective of the WTO is to change trade among its individuals by going into
corresponding and commonly beneficial plans, these understandings are arranged and marked
by the administration of its part states. Nonetheless, it is troublesome issue to apply WTO
administers similarly to all part nations that shift in their advancement arrange. Therefore,
developing nations are inclined to look for exceptional trade discipline. They contend that these
medications are important for them to accomplish their principal financial objectives. As above
portion of the part among 153 individuals from the WTO is developing or least developing
nation, it thinks about the demand of developing nations. For this, the WTO dispatches different

Ricardo Meléndez-Ortiz and Ali Dehlavi, Sustainable Development and Environmental Policy Objectives: A
1

Case for Updating Special and Differential Treatment in the WTO.

2
strategies and methodologies relying upon the level of advancement and this is exemplified in
the idea of 'Special and Differential Treatment'.

Special and Differential Treatment: Concept and its Elements

The term ‘Special and Differential Treatment’ (SDT) has a narrow meaning in the WTO. It
describes preferential provisions that apply only to two groups of members: developing
countries (DCs) and the least developed (LDCs). This treatment should be non-reciprocal.
Measures that have been recognized as SDT are granted unilaterally to developing countries
from developed countries. Reciprocity, which is the fundamental principle of the WTO, does
not apply to SDT measures. Furthermore, SDT should apply in a non-discriminatory manner
among developing countries, irrespective of the level or per capita income or membership in
certain international organization. The WTO Agreements contain special provisions which
give developing countries special rights and which give developed countries the possibility to
treat developing countries more favourably than other WTO Members.

The WTO classifies S&DT measures into six categories:

• to promote market access for developing countries

• to safeguard interests of developing countries
• flexibilities
• transitional periods
• provision of technical assistance
• And flexibilities for Least Developed Countries.

This is highly unsatisfactory because it mixes purposes and tools, and some of the definitions
are redundant, because the last three are merely tools to achieve or rephrasing of the first three.
The purpose of SDT is to give developing countries a greater priority in this process, thus to
allow them to give more priority to their own needs and less priority to those of others. This
does not mean that development or poverty reduction should be the explicit aim of the WTO.
Rather, SDT should be seen as the way of reconciling to increase world welfare through trade
and development. If the WTO members now accept that the organization should aim for
universal membership, in order to ensure that the benefits of certainty and predictability apply
to all trade by its members, then both the possibility that some countries are permanently
‘different’ and the certainty that some will not share the same approach to all rules imply that

3
the WTO must either limit its rules to those which can benefit and be accepted by all members
or allow permanent derogations for countries with different economies or different approaches
to economic pool.

Various Provisions for SDT in the WTO

The periods of improvement of the special treatment of the underdeveloped nations can be
examined as four stages. The main stage begins from the framing of the GATT in 1948 till the
start of the Tokyo Round in 1973. The subsequent stage alludes to the Tokyo Round itself,
from 1973 to 1979. The third stage dates from the finish of the Tokyo Round to the finish of
the Uruguay Round, that is from 1979 to 1995. The fourth stage begins from the finish of the
Uruguay Round until the present. The investigation that pursues recognizes five contentions
that have been progressed for Special &Differential treatment. The five classifications are
expressed as pursues:

1. Special and differential treatment is a procured political right.

2. Creating nations should appreciate advantaged access to the business sectors of their
exchanging accomplices, especially the created nations.

3. Creating nations should reserve the option to confine imports to a more prominent degree
than created nations

4. Creating nations should be enabled extra opportunity so as to finance sends out.

5. Creating nations should be permitted adaptability in lieu of the utilization of certain WTO
rules, or so as to delay the use of standards as expressed by WTO

Purpose and Function of the SDT in WTO

The idea of this differential treatment originates from the understanding that numerous
arrangements that might be actualized with the attention on a created economy could affect a
less fortunate economy. Approaches which may bode well for one country probably won't have
similar results in another economy. Or on the other hand, various economies may have various
qualities and requirements. For instance, an arrangement which may be started to counter the

4
unnecessary appropriations in rich nations, state in the agribusiness division, can without much
of a stretch limit the help that could be given to a poor nation to its farming and along these
lines have undesirable outcomes. To expand the model, the Agreement on Agriculture has
arrangements for the evacuation of specific endowments which had prompted higher
horticultural yield that that could be defended monetarily and in this way the understanding
centered, as one of its centre destinations, on the expulsion of these appropriations. In any case,
the case with creating and least created nations is to such an extent that they experience the ill
effects of disregard and have been not able advantage as much from these sponsorships. These
poor economies still have lower agrarian generation than it ought to be If instruments to expel
the sponsorships were to be presented, their economies would further endure.

In this manner, such strategies must remember the touchy idea of the economies that the
approach is probably going to influence. This should be possible by arranging the nations, as
done under the WTO, into created and creating economies and actualizing these approaches as
per the necessities of the nation and the normal outcomes of the strategy.

Be that as it may, the idea of such special and differential treatment has confronted certain
analysis too. This is transcendently founded on the base of this idea. Such mercy is supported
on the premise that specific laws appropriate to all countries may have a component of misuse
and hostile to improvement. By loosening up such laws when the nation under inquiry is a
creating nation, out of line treatment is doled out to different nations which don't have the
favored tag of being 'creating'. There additionally exists a slip by in the framework versus the
criteria that a nation must meet so as to be qualified for benefits. According to the present
framework, a nation may choose its very own status as either creating or created. This may
prompt incomprehensible circumstances where a nation which may not require certain benefits
might be put at a biased favourable position over different nations by the award of these
benefits. Additionally, if there are laws which have the inclination of being exploitive or cruel,
they ought to be evacuated in general. Besides, there should be an unmistakable understanding
of the differentiation between laws which might be debatable and those which must tie on every
one of the nations

While the shortcomings in the limits of creating nations frames the essential explanation behind
the persistent of such differential treatment, such advantages should just be made accessible to
the nations which are 'low pay' nations and those which may need assistance to wind up

5
incorporated into the universal exchange framework, or as it were, which are in desperate
requirement for exchange openings.

This outcomes in a dumbfounding circumstance. Shouldn't something be said about those

countries which may fall under the tag of 'creating' nations, however as a result be high-salary
countries? Except if some separation is made between these nations, it is absurd to expect to
outline an effective and reasonable arrangement of special and differential treatment.

Despite the fact that the presentation of special arrangements for creating nations in the WTO
strategies would profit the creating nations without influencing the created nations to an
extreme, the counter contention to this tolerant treatment is that the open door cost that the
usage of these arrangements posture to different countries. Numerous nations are of the
sentiment that while formatively these may be alluring, however the open door cost to the
exchange framework is gigantic when contrasted with the irrelevant commitment a portion of
these least created and creating nations would make to the worldwide exchanging framework.
If one somehow happened to buy in to this view, at that point it would be of progressively
attractive result to present these arrangements at a later stage when the nation is in a situation
to add to the worldwide exchange framework all the more altogether consequently and
meanwhile discover better roads which guarantee more noteworthy comes back as to the
consideration, fund and HR that are required for usage of the special advantages.

Conclusion

The SDT of WTO has experienced significant changes over the past, more outstandingly in the
Uruguay Round, which brought about the numerous arrangements over the WTO
understandings to give special rights to creating nations as special treatments and adaptabilities.
As such the new SDT can be viewed as an accomplishment in the push to coordinate creating
nations into the multilateral exchanging framework. The truth anyway is that SDT has not been
as helpful true to form because of its lawful character and definition. It has not been viable in
propelling the interests of creating nations because of issues, for example, understanding,
nonbinding arrangements, and the absence of actualizing techniques. Different factors, for
example, the idea of advancement, elements of dealings, and the nonappearance of modalities
to separate creating nations additionally brought about the absence of focal point of SDT. SDT

6
additionally needs the component to make it more focused, to serve the creating nations that
are most at disservice. The DSU and elucidation of the arrangements in debate cases have not
made a difference in explaining the reason and capacity of SDT, nor has it made the
arrangements progressively exact, successful, or operational. In the event that SDT is to fill its
need, the exchanges must utilize a distinctive methodology so as to at long last close an
understanding. Other than tending to the difficulties and elements that have debilitated the
usage of SDT and made it incapable, part nations would need to truly rethink their interests and
positions to see regardless whether it could genuinely improve SDT or just debilitate it, perhaps
abandon gives that are difficult to concede to, and to concur on what they can without trading
off the centre motivation behind SDT.