There’s Something About MEAs Petros C. Mavroidis Edwin B. Parker Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, Professor at the University of Neuchatel

3/13/2016WTO Public Forum, September 16, The Argument The position at both the legislative and the judicial level of the WTO on MEAs is unclear The WTO system accommodates agreements between a sub-part of its Membership There are lessons to draw for MEAs from this experience

3/13/2016WTO Public Forum, September 16, Fact: Lack of Clarity Legislation –No specific regulation of the issue CTE: from CTE/1 (1996) to TN/TE/18 (2008): positive attitude, no concrete results –Not a source of law, interpretative element Judiciary –US – Shrimp (AB): friendly attitude –EC – Trade in Biotech Products (P): skeptical

3/13/2016WTO Public Forum, September 16, Agreements Between WTO Members A list –(a) Non Application –(b) PTAs –(c) Reciprocity –(d) Plurilaterals –(e) Annex I SCM item (k): export credits –(f) ITA

3/13/2016WTO Public Forum, September 16, Comparable? (a), (f) incomparable PTAs: extension non compulsory, whereas the for the rest [(c), (d)] extension compulsory if conditions are met; MEAs could be either, but likelier the latter (e): a sub-set of WTO Membership might affect their obligations vis-à-vis rest of the WTO

3/13/2016WTO Public Forum, September 16, What Can We Learn? MEAs have common elements with (c), (e) and could come into WTO under (d) Is hostility towards MEAs reasonable? –Both trade and systemic interests for non participants could be affected, but incumbents can successfully thwart challenges by invoking their content without invoking the MEA. Should form trump substance? –MEAs are subsequent agreements (Art. 31 VCLT); the key issue should be whether they impose obligations on non parties (trade + systemic interest)