Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Reciprocity in the Law of the WTO

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reciprocity in International Law

Part of the book series: Global Issues ((GLOISS))

  • 200 Accesses

Abstract

In international trade relations, the principle of reciprocity is related to equality of states. The concept of exchange underpins the synallagmatic nature of a multilateral trading system. However, reciprocity requires modifications when the factual positions of states differ. For the benefit of all, reciprocity needs to be adapted to reflect the different situations of developing states and address closer regional cooperation. Such modifications are incorporated in the law of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Since a multilateral system would not function effectively without such flexibilities, they are expressions rather of pragmatism than of solidarity or gratitude. Adjustments to reciprocity become increasingly important also for other reasons. As the paradigm of economic growth evolves towards the idea of sustainable development, the WTO legal system is gradually extended beyond reciprocal trade relations. Introduction of the term sustainable development into the preamble of the Marrakech Agreement has opened economic relations to environmental and social values, which surpass the logics of do ut des and are more oriented towards diffuse/stochastic reciprocity. Moreover, interpretation of WTO agreements in the context of Agenda 2030 leads to a closer integration of the multilateral trading system with other subsystems of international law, which are based to a lesser extent on the paradigm of reciprocity. Notwithstanding these changes, negative reciprocity remains a cornerstone of WTO’s dispute settlement and enforcement system. The mechanism of cross-retaliations was designed to counterbalance the differences in the economic potentials of states, but its application has proven only partially effective. The example of WTO law demonstrates therefore the multifaceted nature of reciprocity, its consequences, prospects, and flaws. This will allow to discuss the legal nature of reciprocity in WTO and its possible metalegal nature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Hirsch Lauterpacht, Private Law Analogies in International Law with Special Reference to International Arbitration, Longmans, Green & Co., London 1927.

  2. 2.

    Synallagma, in: Brill’s New Pauly, available at: https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/synallagma-e1127030, last visited 15 June 2020.

  3. 3.

    Quid pro quo, in: Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quid%20pro%20quo, last visited 15 June 2020.

  4. 4.

    Appellate Body—United States—Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline—AB-1996-1—Report of the Appellate Body, 29 April 1996, p. 17; Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, UN GA/CN.4/L.682, 13 April 2006, especially pts. 165–171.

  5. 5.

    Formally, United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, Final Act and related Documents, E/CONF.2/78, United Nations publication, Sales No. 1948.II.D.4.

  6. 6.

    See: Joost Pauwelyn, Conflict of norms in public international law, how WTO law relates to other rules of international law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2003; Lorand Bartels, Applicable Law in WTO Dispute Settlement Proceedings, Journal of World Trade 2001, no. 35.

  7. 7.

    Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, adopted in Marrakesh on 15 April 1994 (UNTS, vol. 1867, at 154).

  8. 8.

    Peter Van den Bossche, The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization: Text, Cases and Materials, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2005, 86–88.

  9. 9.

    Christina Voigt, Sustainable Development as a Principle of International Law. Resolving Conflicts between Climate Measures and WTO Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden-Boston 2009.

  10. 10.

    Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, Judge Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade: An Unwavering Quest for International Justice and for the Universalization and Humanization of International Law, Leiden Journal of International Law 36, no. 2 (2023): 439–44. doi:10.1017/S0922156523000080.

  11. 11.

    Marek Safjan, Prawo cywilne—część ogólna, vol. 1, Zbigniew Radwański, Maciej Zieliński (eds), System Prawa Prywatnego, CH Beck, Warszawa, 2012, p. 386 et seq.

  12. 12.

    Cf. Article 52 of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, 1155 UNTS 331.

  13. 13.

    Treaty of Peace, Amity and Commerce between China and the United States, signed at Wang Hiya, 3 July 1844, Consolidated Treaty Series, no 97, p. 105; also available at: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hncv31&view=1up&seq=5, last visited 23 June 2020.

  14. 14.

    Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between China and France, signed at Whampoa, 24 October 1844, Consolidated Treaty Series, no 97, p. 375.

  15. 15.

    Treaty of Peace, signed at Lausanne, July 24, 1923, Article 28, League of Nations—Treaty Series, 1924, p. 27.

  16. 16.

    Anne Peters, Treaties, Unequal, Oxford Public International Law, http://opil.ouplaw.com, Oxford University Press, 2015, para. 5.

  17. 17.

    Cf. Jiangfeng Li, Equal or Unequal: Seeking a New Paradigm for the Misused Theory of ‘Unequal Treaties’ in Contemporary International Law, Houston Journal Of International Law, vol. 38:2, p. 465.

  18. 18.

    Muthucumaraswam Sornarajah, The International Law on Foreign Investment, Cambridge University Press, 2020, 3rd ed, pp. 178–179.

  19. 19.

    Bruno Simma, From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law, (1994) 250 Recueil des Cours de l’Academie de Droit International, 217, 232.

  20. 20.

    Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 March 2018, Slowakische Republik v Achmea BV, case C-284/16.

  21. 21.

    See, Agreement for the termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union, SN/4656/2019/INIT, OJ L 169, 29.5.2020, pp. 1–41.

  22. 22.

    General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), signed in Geneva on 30 October 1947, published in the UNTS, vol. 55, at 194, and subsequently as GATT 1994 in UNTS, vol. 1867, at 187.

  23. 23.

    Cf. Article XXVIII(3) point (a) of the GATT. Appellate Body Reports, European Communities—Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas—Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Ecuador, WT/DS27/AB/RW2/ECU, adopted 11 December 2008, and Corr.1/European Communities—Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States, WT/DS27/AB/RW/USA and Corr.1, adopted 22 December 2008, para. 385; European Union—Measures Affecting Tariff Concessions on Certain Poultry Meat Products, Report of The Panel, WT/DS492/R, 28 March 2017, para. 7.514.

  24. 24.

    ‘It is further agreed and concluded as a general rule, that all and singular the subjects of each kingdom shall, in all countries and places, on both sides, have and enjoy at least the same privileges, liberties, and immunities, as to all duties, impositions, or customs whatsoever, relating to persons, goods, and merchandizes; ships, freight, seamen, navigation and commerce; and shall have the like favour in all things as the subjects of France, or any other foreign nation, the most favoured, have, possess, and enjoy, or at any time hereafter may have, possess, or enjoy.’

  25. 25.

    See, Forrest Capie, The International Depression and Trade Protection in the 1930s, in: Harold James (ed.), The Interwar Depression in an International Context, pp. 123–138, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1524/9783486594485-010.

  26. 26.

    See, Stephan W. Schill, The Multilateralization of International Investment Law, Cambridge University Press, 2009.

  27. 27.

    See Fredrik Erixon, The Swiss Cheese of Trade Policy: The Case Against Product Exclusions in Trade Agreements, September 2018, available at https://ecipe.org/publications/the-swiss-cheese-of-trade-policy/, last visited 17 June 2020.

  28. 28.

    Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.

  29. 29.

    Diana Zacharias, Article XXXVI, in: Rüdiger Woflrum, Peter-Thobias Stoll, Holger Hestermeyer, WTO-Trade in Goods, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden-Boston 2011, p. 799; Joost Pauwelyn, The Transformation of World Trade, Michigan Law Review, vol. 104, issue 1, p. 20, fn. 73

  30. 30.

    Diana Zacharias, Article XXXVI, note 29, p. 800.

  31. 31.

    Abdulqawi Yusuf, Legal Aspects of Trade Preferences for Developing States: A Study in Influence of Development Needs on the Evolution of International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Hague-Boston-London 1982, pp. 66–67.

  32. 32.

    Diana Zacharias, Article XXXVI, note 29, p. 801.

  33. 33.

    Ibidem, p. 802.

  34. 34.

    Marcin Kałduński [XXX].

  35. 35.

    Cf. Robert O. Keohane, Reciprocity in International Relations, International Organization 1986, vol. 40(1), 1–27; Francesco Parisi, Nita Ghei, The Role of Reciprocity in International Law, Cornell International Law Journal 2003, vol. 36, 93–123.

  36. 36.

    Francesco Parisi, Nita Ghei, The Role of Reciprocity in International Law, 106.

  37. 37.

    Francesco Parisi, Nita Ghei, The Role of Reciprocity in International Law, 108; Robert O. Keohane, Reciprocity in International Relations, 19–24.

  38. 38.

    Thomas Giegrich, Article 60, in: Olivier Dörr, Kirsten Schmalenbach (eds.), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. A Commentary, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg 2012, p. 1022; Bruno Simma, Christian Tams, Article 60, in Olivier Corten, Pierre Klein (eds.), The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2011, p. 1353.

  39. 39.

    Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory opinion, 21 June 1971, para. 96.

  40. 40.

    Countermeasures in the law of the WTO are suspensions of concessions, that is, each state’s individual obligations expressed in their schedules consisting in granting access to its market mainly by not applying tariffs up to a certain amount.

  41. 41.

    Dispute Settlement Understanding, (DSU), UNTS vol. 1869, at 401.

  42. 42.

    Markus Böckenförde, Der Non-violation Complaint im System der WTO, Neue Perspektiven im Konflikt um Handel und Umwelt?, Archiv des Völkerrechts, nr 43 (2005), s. 69, 76.

  43. 43.

    Cf. Articles 8, 9, 10 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, 1869 UNTS 14; Article 13 point (iii) of the Agreement on Agriculture, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, 1867 UNTS 410.

  44. 44.

    Robert E. Hudec, The Adequacy of WTO Dispute Settlement Remedies, in: Bernard Hoekman, Aaditya Mattoo, Philip English (eds.), Development, Trade and the WTO, Washington, 2002, sp. 86.

  45. 45.

    Dispute Settlement Body—Minutes of Meeting—Held in the Centre William Rappard on 19 April 1999, WT/DSB/M/59.

  46. 46.

    Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts recommended to states in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 56/83 12 December 2001, https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/9_6_2001.pdf, last visited 10 July 2020.

  47. 47.

    Cf. Factory at Chorzów, Merits Judgment No. 13, 1928, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 17, p. 47.

  48. 48.

    United States—Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services—Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU—Decision by the Arbitrator, 21 December 2007, para. 2.7. Cf. David Palmeter, Stanimir A. Alexandrov, ‘Inducing compliance’ in WTO dispute settlement, in: The Political Economy of International Trade Law: Essays in Honour of Robert Hudec, Daniel L.M. Kennedy, James D. Southwick (eds.), p. 646; Steven Charnovitz, The WTO’s Problematic ‘Last Resort’, Against Noncompliance, Aussenwirtschaft (Zurich), nr 57/4 (2002), https://www.peacepalacelibrary.nl/ebooks/files/Charnovitz_Last-Resort.pdf, last visited 10 July 2020, p. 16.

  49. 49.

    European Communities—Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities, Under Article 22.6 of the DSU—Decision by the Arbitrators, WT/DS27/ARB, 9 April 1999, para. 6.3.; cf. United States—Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services, Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU, Decision by the Arbitrator, WT/DS285/ARB, 21 December 2007, para. 3.24.

  50. 50.

    Elizabeth Zoller, Peacetime Unilateral Remedies. An Analysis of Countermeasures, Transnational Publisher, Dobbs Ferry NY 1984, pp. 56–57.

  51. 51.

    Cf. ibidem, pp. 57–58.

  52. 52.

    Cf. Petros Mavroidis, Remedies in a WTO Legal System: Between a Rock and a Hard Place, European Journal of International Law, no 11 (2000), p. 770.

  53. 53.

    Enzo Cannizzarro, The Role of Proportionality in the Law of International Countermeasures, European Journal of International Law, 2001, vol. 12, np. 5, p. 893; Yearbook of International Law Commission, 1985, vol. I, p. 104.

  54. 54.

    Judgment of the Court of 5 February 1963. NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration. Case 26–62.

  55. 55.

    Judgment of the Court of 12 December 1972. International Fruit Company NV and others v Produktschap voor Groenten en Fruit. Joined cases 21 to 24–72.

  56. 56.

    Cf. Articles 6.1, 16.4, 17.14 and 22.6 of the DSU.

  57. 57.

    Judgment of the Court of 23 November 1999, Portuguese Republic v Council of the European Union, case C-149/96, para. 42, 46.

  58. 58.

    Cf. Sławomira Wronkowska, Maciej Zieliński, Zygmunt Ziembiński, „Zasady prawa’ w perspektywie teorii prawa oraz szczegółowych nauk prawnych, Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 36, 1974, z. 2, pp. 2–3; cf. Matti Koskenniemi, General Principles: Reflexions on Constructivist Thinking in International Law, in: Matti Koskenniemi, Sources of International Law, Ashgate: London 2000, at 128.

  59. 59.

    However, in such a case, there is no obligation to withdraw the measure and the panel or the Appellate Body shall recommend that the member concerned make a mutually satisfactory adjustment, cf. Article 26(1) (b) of the DSU.

  60. 60.

    Matti Koskenniemi, General Principles: Reflexions on Constructivist Thinking in International Law, in: Matti Koskenniemi, Sources of International Law, Ashgate: London 2000, at 126, 128.

  61. 61.

    Sławomira Wronkowska, Maciej Zieliński, Zygmunt Ziembiński, „Zasady prawa’ w perspektywie teorii prawa oraz szczegółowych nauk prawnych, at 4.

  62. 62.

    Cf. Gerald G. Fitzmaurice, Some Problems Regarding Formal Sources of International Law, in: Symbolae Verzijl: présentées au Professeur J. H. Verzijl à l’Occasion deson LXX-iè Anniversaire, J. H. W. Verzijl, F. M. van Asbeck (eds.), La Haye 1958, at p. 164.

  63. 63.

    ‘DG Azevêdo to launch intensive consultations on resolving Appellate Body impasse’, 9 December 2019, https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news19_e/gc_09dec19_e.htm, last consulted 16 July 2023.

  64. 64.

    Sarah Anne Aarup, Reform or die? If the US gets its way, the WTO might do both, Politico, 9 May 2023, https://www.politico.eu/article/reform-die-usa-washington-world-trade-organization-wto-ngozi-okonjo-iweala-joe-biden/, last visited 16 July 2023.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland

    Piotr Szwedo

Authors
  1. Piotr Szwedo
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Piotr Szwedo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Nicholas Copernicus University, Torun, Poland

    Marcin Kałduński

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Szwedo, P. (2024). Reciprocity in the Law of the WTO. In: Kałduński, M. (eds) Reciprocity in International Law. Global Issues. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-66746-6_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-66746-6_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-66745-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-66746-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics