|
|
November 15 PRESS RELEASE: PRESS/TPRB/323 11 and 13 November 2009 TRADE POLICY REVIEW: NIGER AND SENEGAL Further structural reforms would help to improve economic performance Since the previous joint review of their trade policies in 2003, the economic performance of Niger and Senegal has been similar, with an annual average rate of growth of 5,1% for Senegal and 5.0% for Niger over the period, according to a WTO Secretariat report on the trade policies and practices of Niger and Senegal. 
See also:
> More on Niger
> More on Senegal
The WTO report, along with a policy statement by the Government, will be the basis for the Trade Policy Review (TPR) by the Trade Policy Review Body of the WTO. Senegal’s economic growth has been mainly attributable to the expansion in telecommunications and transport services together with construction, boosted by the relatively large flow of public and private investment. Niger’s economic performance is still determined by the outcome of its harvests, much of its economic activities being agricultural, including livestock breeding. The report notes the efforts undertaken by both countries for economic integration in the frames of WAEMU (West African Economic and Monetary Union) and ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States). Nonetheless, considerable structural problems, including supply-side constraints and limited diversification, still impede the economic development of Niger and Senegal. The report also underlines the importance of external aid and technical assistance to enable the two countries to strengthen their WTO commitments, take greater advantage of their participation in the multilateral trading system and support their strategy aimed at achieving the Millennium Development Goals in particular the reduction of poverty.
The report, along with policy statements by the Governments of Niger and Senegal, will be the basis for the second Trade Policy Review (TPR) of Niger and the third of Senegal by the Trade Policy Review Body of the WTO on 11 and 13 November 2009. The following documents are available in MS Word format. -
-
-
Revisions of the above documents may be issued approximately 2 weeks after the meeting. -
Chairperson’s concluding remarks (coming soon) -
Minutes of the meeting are available approximately 6 weeks after the meeting. -
Questions and answers by WTO Members are available approximately 6 weeks after the meeting. Source: WTO | Trade policy review - Niger and Senegal 2009. November 12 THE 21st APEC MINISTERIAL MEETING Singapore 11 - 12 November, 2009 Joint Statement We, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Ministers, met on 11-12 November in Singapore. The meeting was co-chaired by H.E. George Yeo, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Singapore, and H.E. Lim Hng Kiang, Minister for Trade and Industry, Singapore. We welcomed the participation in the meeting of the Director-General of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Mr Pascal Lamy, the APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC), the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PECC). Our discussions centred on "Sustaining Growth, Connecting the Region", the theme for APEC 2009. We reviewed global and regional economic developments, welcomed the progress made towards strengthening regional economic integration (REI), and discussed strategies to sustain economic growth. The global economic situation has eased considerably. The IMF estimates that world GDP will rise by nearly 3 percent in 2010, and that all APEC economies will shift to positive GDP growth next year. But the recovery remains fragile; the growth profile over the next few quarters is likely to be uneven. Unemployment remains unacceptably high in many of our economies. We will work together, and with other international fora, to ensure that the recovery does not stall and to lay a foundation for growth that is inclusive, balanced and sustainable, supported by innovation and a knowledge-based economy, and anchored on APEC's core agenda to promote free and open trade and investment. Our confidence in the medium and long-term growth prospects for the Asia-Pacific region remains unwavering. Addressing the Crisis, Positioning for Recovery Fostering Inclusive Growth We are committed to pursuing economic growth that is inclusive and broad-based, so as to create opportunities for all of our people to enjoy the benefits arising from REI. We endorse our officials' report on inclusive growth, which recognised structural reform as an important approach towards inclusive growth, mapped existing APEC activities that support inclusive growth, and set out possible areas for APEC to focus on. We note that APEC economies and some APEC work streams are already focusing on human capital development through education and worker retraining, and fostering innovation and entrepreneurship through improved business environments that benefit companies of all sizes, especially SMEs. We will direct our efforts to foster inclusive growth in APEC along two broad dimensions. First, we will facilitate structural adjustments that enhance opportunities for all to benefit from growth, focusing on facilitating SME development and enhancing the functioning of labour markets, while ensuring that these support enhanced opportunities for women workers and entrepreneurs. Second, we will strengthen social resilience, focusing on enhancing individual economic security and designing incentive-compatible social safety net programmes. We instruct officials to make further progress on existing inclusive growth work streams, better crystallise the key issues and identify existing gaps of the inclusive growth agenda for APEC, develop a multi-year capacity building programme on inclusive growth, and report on the progress at AMM in 2010. They should do so in close consultation with relevant bodies including the Committee on Trade and Investment (CTI), the Economic Committee (EC), the Senior Officials' Meeting Steering Committee on ECOTECH (SCE) and its subfora, such as the Human Resources Development Working Group (HRDWG), and the SME Working Group (SMEWG). We look forward to China's hosting of the 5th APEC Human Resources Development Ministerial Meeting in 2010, which will provide a good platform to discuss the design and implementation of inclusive growth programmes, including labour market and skills development policies that result in long-term improvements in labour productivity, and enhance cooperation to address the social dimensions of economic downturns. We also look forward to contributions to the inclusive growth agenda by the EC High Level Policy Roundtable and the 17th SME Ministerial Meeting, which will both be hosted by Japan in 2010. Promoting Sustainable Growth We will seek to ensure that economic growth is consistent with sustainable development. Anthropogenic climate change is one of the biggest challenges facing the world. As APEC's key response to addressing this challenge, our sustainable growth agenda will include improved access for Environmental Goods and Services (EGS), development of EGS sectors of APEC economies, enhancing energy efficiency and sustainable forest management and rehabilitation. The EGS market has a key role to play in fostering sustainable growth and advancing efforts to combat climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has highlighted that many climate-friendly technologies and goods are already commercially available and that more are expected to be commercialised soon. These technologies will benefit from trade liberalisation. The World Bank has estimated that the removal of barriers for trade in four basic clean energy technologies (i.e. wind, solar, clean coal, and efficient lighting) alone could boost their trade by as much as 13 percent. We welcome APEC's efforts to enhance understanding of remanufactured products, which reuses inputs and uses less energy than manufacturing new goods. We will explore ways to reduce existing barriers to trade and investment, and refrain from introducing new barriers in EGS. We will also take steps to facilitate the diffusion of climate-friendly and other EGS technologies, including through economic and technical cooperation (ECOTECH) and capacity building activities. We welcome the launch of the APEC EGS Information Exchange to promote greater transparency, information sharing, collaboration, and dissemination of EGS in APEC and globally. We endorse APEC's EGS work programme which has helped to raise awareness of what needs to be done to facilitate trade, investment and development in EGS, and instruct officials to report progress on this work at AMM 2010. We reaffirm that an open global trade and investment system is central to our clean development objectives and market opening in the WTO would advance our climate and energy security goals. We recognise that joint research, development, deployment and transfer of low and zero emission technologies will be crucial in our shared efforts to address climate change. Energy efficiency improvements have resulted in reductions in energy consumption of more than 50 percent over the last 30 years. We will advance work on sharing best practices in energy efficiency, with a view to deploy cleaner and more efficient technologies in power generation, industry, transportation, and residential and commercial buildings. We welcome the implementation of the voluntary APEC Peer Review on Energy Efficiency, and encourage our economies to participate in this Review. We note that Japan will host the 9th APEC Energy Ministers Meeting in 2010, which is an opportunity to explore diversified approaches to clean energy production and use. Supporting Trade Finance We welcome the efforts made by APEC economies over the past year in response to the trade finance situation. These include the progress in expanding the Asia-Pacific Trade Insurance Network (APTIN) through the establishment of additional bilateral re-insurance agreements among some APEC member economies, as well as discussions to take stock of the situation and to exchange experiences and best practices. APEC has continued to monitor the trade finance situation in the region by conducting a follow-up APEC Trade Finance Survey. We are heartened that the situation in the APEC region has improved since the last survey in July 2009, and that economies expect the situation to ease further over the next 6 months. Recognising the importance of facilitating trade finance to supporting the recovery of the global economy, we encourage officials to sustain efforts to strengthen capabilities in the area of trade finance. We call upon APEC members to continue the implementation of necessary policies and measures to support trade finance and to continue their collaboration with their Finance counterparts. Supporting the Multilateral Trading System Resisting Protectionism We remain concerned over the threat of protectionism to our economic recovery. We reaffirm the concrete commitments undertaken at the Singapore Meeting of Ministers Responsible for Trade (MRT) in July 2009 to keep our markets open and resist all forms of protectionism, including the extension of our commitment to refrain from raising new barriers to investments or to trade in goods and services to the end of 2010, and beyond if necessary. We have promptly notified the WTO of any measures that fall short of these commitments. We will continue to do so and urge our trading partners to do the same. Furthermore, we will continue to exercise maximum restraint in implementing measures that may be considered to be WTO consistent if they have a significant protectionist effect and promptly rectify such measures where implemented. Reviewing Commitments to Open Markets We considered the Trade Review report compiled by the APEC Secretariat with inputs from the WTO, ABAC and other relevant bodies, and reviewed the trade, fiscal and monetary measures undertaken by APEC economies since the July 2009 MRT. We note that a pick up in trade and investment were contributing to the recent rebound in global economic activity, but evidence of an increasing use of trade remedies indicates that risks relating to protectionism and recovery remain. We stand by our commitment at the MRT that such reviews will continue in 2010 and instruct the APEC Secretariat to work closely with the said institutions for the reviews. We are pleased that the APEC region as a whole has remained relatively open to trade throughout the global crisis. We recognise the need to calibrate overall policy settings, including temporary support measures, to the pace of recovery and improvement in the global economy. We will continue to undertake regular review of our policies that impact on trade and investment, and reiterate our pledge to maintain free and open markets. Advancing the DDA We remain determined to ensure an ambitious and balanced conclusion to the Doha Round in 2010, based on the progress already made, including with regard to modalities. To this end, we must translate recent political commitments into tangible progress in the negotiations. The Seventh Session of the WTO Ministerial Conference in Geneva from 30 November to 2 December 2009 will be an important opportunity to take stock of progress. We support further intensification of work to reach the 2010 target. In order to do so, we will accelerate efforts to advance into the endgame negotiations in Agriculture and NAMA, and advance in parallel Services, Rules, Trade Facilitation and all other remaining issues in the DDA in accordance with agreed Geneva workplans. We urge greater substantive engagement at all levels utilising all possible avenues, including text-based negotiations under the Geneva Chair led process and direct engagement between Members to evaluate and close the remaining gaps. We note the importance of continued involvement and stand ready to engage directly to ensure momentum is maintained. We agree to direct our officials to exercise pragmatism and maximum flexibility on all issues to narrow gaps and secure convergence on a final package. This will pave the way for Ministers to assess the situation no later than early 2010. Supporting the WTO APEC economies will step up our cooperation with the WTO. We endorse the recommendations by the APEC Secretariat on specific areas for cooperation with the WTO, including greater collaboration in the Aid for Trade agenda. We have instructed the APEC Secretariat to update us on progress in these cooperative efforts. We pledge our support for the 7th Session of the WTO Ministerial Conference and the basic principles of full participation, inclusiveness and transparency that will guide its deliberations. We reiterate our support for the early accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO and underline the importance of efforts to expedite these negotiations. Reaffirming Commitment to Bogor Goals We reaffirm APEC's commitment to the Bogor Goals of free and open trade and investment. APEC will work towards reducing barriers not only within APEC, but also with other non-APEC economies. Noting that the industrialised economies in APEC are targeted to achieve the Bogor Goals by 2010, we agree to the establishment of a credible and meaningful mechanism by which to assess their achievement of the Bogor Goals as set out in the Work Plan of the Assessment on Achievement of the Bogor Goals by the APEC Industrialised Economies. We commend officials for their preparatory work in this regard, and instruct them to report on the final result of this assessment at AMM 2010. We reaffirm the importance of APEC's Individual Action Plans (IAPs) and IAP Peer Reviews as a means to drive progress towards the Bogor Goals. We endorse the 2009 IAPs. We welcome the successful conclusion of the 2009 IAP Peer Reviews of Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, the Russian Federation, Thailand and Viet Nam, and the successful completion of the third cycle of IAP Peer Reviews which commenced in 2007. Exploring Building Blocks towards a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific We welcome work in 2009 to continue to explore building blocks towards a possible Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP) in the future. These include the Further Analytical Study on the Likely Impact of FTAAP which illustrated the possible economic benefits and challenges of establishing an FTAAP; the updated inventory of issues that would need to be addressed as part of a preparatory process for a possible FTAAP including, inter-alia, the possible pathways to an FTAAP; and the expansion of the study on identifying convergences and divergences in APEC's regional and bilateral trade agreements to cover additional agreements and chapters. We instruct officials to take forward this work by exploring a range of possible pathways to achieve FTAAP and provide a progress update to AMM 2010. Accelerating Regional Economic Integration We reaffirm our commitment to accelerating work on APEC's core agenda of strengthening REI. We have taken a comprehensive approach to REI in 2009, focusing our work on trade liberalisation "at the border"; improving the business environment "behind the border"; and enhancing supply chain connectivity "across the border". We welcome the updated matrix of steps to accelerate REI on a multi-year basis. We also welcome the steps taken by officials to promote greater convergence in the areas of Rules of Origin (ROOs) and services. We instruct officials to widen their work to promote convergence on other core FTA chapters, including investment, trade facilitation, and standards. We endorse the 2009 Committee on Trade and Investment (CTI) Annual Report to Ministers, which provides an overview of APEC's work in advancing the Bogor Goals and strengthening REI. INTEGRATION "AT THE BORDER" Making Rules of Origins More Business Friendly We welcome the work to make ROOs more business-friendly, to address the high level of divergences among regional and bilateral free trade agreements and the resulting compliance costs faced by businesses. We applaud the participation of Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Singapore and the United States in the Self-Certification of Origin Pathfinder. This adds to APEC's ongoing work to simplify ROOs documentation and procedures, such as the existing Electronic Certificate of Origin Pathfinder. We also note the agreement to collect information on other elements related to this agenda, including reasonably long validity periods and waivers of certificates of origin or declarations for low value shipments. We instruct officials to continue with their work in this area and provide a progress update at MRT 2010. Facilitating Trade in Products and Services We welcome progress under the APEC Services Initiative (ASI), which seeks to facilitate services trade in the Asia-Pacific. We endorse the APEC Principles for Cross-Border Trade in Services, which will build greater convergences among APEC economies with respect to their policy frameworks relating to trade in services. We also endorse the Services Action Plan which will provide direction to APEC's work to promote trade in sectors which are in the interest of member economies. Taken together, the Services Principles and the Services Action Plan will provide a strong foundation for APEC's future work to promote services trade. We note the 2004 Statement to Implement APEC Policies on Trade and the Digital Economy, and instruct officials to continue work to promote the digital economy. INTEGRATION "BEHIND THE BORDER" Improving Ease of Doing Business and Implementing Structural Reform We have launched an APEC Ease of Doing Business (EoDB) Action Plan that identifies priority areas for reform, sets targets to measure improvements in these areas, and includes capacity building work programmes to achieve the targets. We have set an APEC-wide aspirational target to make it 25 percent cheaper, faster and easier to do business within APEC economies by 2015 in the five priority areas, determined with reference to the World Bank's EoDB indicators. The five areas are: Starting a Business, Getting Credit, Enforcing Contracts, Trading Across Borders, and Dealing with Permits. These targets represent tangible potential gains for businesses, for example: this could potentially reduce on average the cost of importing and exporting a container of goods by up to US$450; reduce on average the time taken to start a business by one week; and remove on average five procedures to obtain a construction permit. As an interim target, we aim to achieve a 5 percent improvement by 2011. We task officials to monitor and regularly review progress towards these targets, and urge officials to work closely with ABAC to identify ways in which the private sector can contribute towards the achievement of these aspirational targets. We also welcome the capacity building work programmes led by "champion economies" and designed to assist APEC in achieving the targets collectively. The champion economies are New Zealand and the United States for Starting a Business, Japan for Getting Credit, the Republic of Korea for Enforcing Contracts, Hong Kong, China and Singapore for Trading Across Borders and Singapore for Dealing with Permits. We endorse the EC's 2009 APEC Economic Policy Report (AEPR), with its timely coverage of regulatory reform. As the Leaders' Agenda to Implement Structural Reform (LAISR) will end in 2010, we instruct officials and the EC to conduct a stocktake of achievements under the LAISR Forward Work Programme (FWP) in 2010 and explore the possible scope of a post-LAISR agenda to respond to medium-term challenges, such as the need to foster more inclusive growth. Structural reform is essential to strengthen long-term growth, ensure inclusive growth and narrow the development gap between economies. It complements trade and investment liberalisation and contributes to promoting deeper REI. Progress on structural reform will be critical for ensuring a sustained recovery in APEC economies from the global economic crisis. We will strengthen APEC's focus on its structural reform agenda. We welcome the completion of various training courses, workshops, seminars, roundtables and studies in 2009 under the LAISR FWP and the report on prioritisation of capacity building programmes in EC as a response to the request by the APEC Ministerial Meeting on Structural Reform (SRMM) held in August 2008, and look forward to the commencement of the process of voluntary review of economies' institutional frameworks and processes supporting structural reform, a seminar on the sidelines of EC1 discussing the economic impact and benefits of structural reform in key infrastructure sectors, and ABAC's proposal to hold a roundtable on procedural fairness in competition cases at the Competition Policy and Law Group (CPLG) meeting. Facilitating Investment We welcome the work undertaken, with the help of the Policy Support Unit (PSU), to identify a set of key performance indicators and establish a methodology to measure progress in the implementation of APEC's Investment Facilitation Action Plan (IFAP). We look forward to this work being finalised by MRT 2010. We note the completion of the second phase of the study on core elements of investment agreements and encourage further capacity building activities to improve member economies' abilities to formulate high quality investment agreements. Strengthening Intellectual Property Rights We reaffirm the importance of effective, comprehensive and balanced intellectual property systems for the sustainability and promotion of knowledge-based activities and investments. We recognise the desirability of taking comprehensive and strategic approaches to building a global IP infrastructure for the promotion of innovation, including human resource development, cooperation in patent examination, and development of IT-based networks among IP agencies. We also recognise the importance of building capacities in this area. We welcome the Report on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions, as well as the progress achieved in patent cooperation, including the work done on the APEC Cooperation Initiative on Patent Acquisition Procedures. We will take concrete steps to stop the proliferation of counterfeit and pirated goods through cooperative efforts such as the APEC Anti-Counterfeiting and Piracy Initiative and related capacity building activities, and information sharing between IPR authorities and stakeholders. We note the efforts to advance work on exploring ways to address satellite and cable signal theft. We reaffirm the importance of ongoing international discussions, especially in the WTO, including the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, regarding genetic resources, and the protection of traditional knowledge and folklore, and encourage continued work on awareness raising and advancing shared objectives regarding these issues. Aligning Standards and Improving Conformance We will reinforce our engagement in international standardisation activities and promote greater alignment with relevant international standards where appropriate, particularly in areas that would contribute to innovation, safety, security, and solutions to energy and environmental issues. Recognising the importance of the involvement of all stakeholders in standardisation activities, we instruct officials to develop a long-term strategy on business engagement in standards and conformity development in 2010. We encourage continued discussions on improving and better aligning toy safety requirements. We welcome the study on models and practices deployed by APEC economies in helping their businesses, particularly SMEs, to gain access to information on technical regulatory requirements and overcome technical barriers to trade. We look forward to the outcomes of these efforts at SOM1 in 2010, and the development of a best practices model. We also welcome efforts to promote awareness and understanding of the APEC Pathfinder initiative on the APEC Electrical and Electronic Equipment Mutual Recognition Arrangement (APEC EE MRA), and the commitment by regulators implementing the APEC EE MRA to facilitate trade of these products through greater dialogue and cooperation. INTEGRATION "ACROSS THE BORDER" Enhancing Transport, Logistics and Digital Connectivity We welcome progress made on trade logistics reform through enhanced supply-chain connectivity and endorse the Supply-chain Connectivity (SC) Framework which has identified eight chokepoints in regional supply chains and suggested actions to address these chokepoints. We welcome in particular the Transparency for Ease of Doing Logistics Business initiative and APEC's efforts to make available online contact points and websites on the full range of issues affecting door-to-door delivery. We also welcome work to study the economic impact of enhanced multi-modal connectivity to improve the flow of goods and services across land, air, and sea. We commend the strong collaboration among the CTI, EC and Transportation Working Group (TPTWG) in developing the SC Framework. We welcome the PSU's report on developing measurable performance targets for the SC Framework. We task officials to further develop the SC Framework in 2010, in close cooperation with relevant APEC fora and ABAC, and look forward to outcomes of the first phase of its development by end 2013. Beyond physical connectivity, we recognise the importance of connectivity in the digital realm in advancing REI, and instruct officials to continue work on enhancing digital connectivity by building upon work carried out on the Digital Prosperity Checklist. Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) has emerged as a useful approach to infrastructure development in the APEC region. In this regard, we encourage officials to explore the feasibility of utilising PPPs for the upgrading of transport infrastructure that contributes to the enhancement of supply chain connectivity in the region. Enhancing Trade Facilitation We commend the good progress made by officials in the implementation of the Second Trade Facilitation Action Plan (TFAP II). We welcome the TFAP II progress report which sets out the approach and methodology to be used for quantifying the impact of TFAP II. We are pleased with the assessment that APEC is overall on track to reduce trade transaction costs by an additional 5 percent by 2010, having already reduced transaction costs by 3.2 percent between 2006 and 2008. We note that several recommendations to improve upon TFAP II have been made in the progress report, and instruct officials to consider and report on this at MRT 2010. We look forward to the final assessment of the TFAP II outcomes in 2011. We note the progress made towards the implementation of international trade "Single Windows" by member economies, and encourage continued experience sharing and discussion of implementation issues in this area. Securing Regional Trade We support the findings and recommendations of the APEC Trade Recovery Programme (TRP) Pilot Exercise. The pilot exercise demonstrated the actions that would help economies minimise the economic impact of a disruption to the supply chain and facilitate the quick recovery of trade in the event of a terrorist attack. We recognise the need to build communication mechanisms to activate and execute the APEC TRP and the importance for economies to establish Authorised Economic Operator (AEO) programmes, as advocated by the World Customs Organisation (WCO). We also note the value of having trusted relationships based on existing international concepts that the APEC TRP embraces, and of recognising AEO programmes to gain mutual benefits to facilitate trade and trade recovery. The findings and recommendations of the APEC TRP Pilot Exercise will provide economies with useful insights into processes to facilitate the resumption of trade expeditiously and smoothen processes such as customs and border controls. We further welcome the creation of an AEO working group at the Sub-Committee on Customs Procedures (SCCP), and instruct SCCP to address the development of AEO programmes among APEC economies in alignment with the WCO SAFE Framework of Standards. Strengthening the Digital Economy and Information Networks We welcome the work to examine how elements of the Digital Prosperity Checklist can contribute to increasing trade flows and achieving broad-based economic growth. To this end, we instruct officials to expand on this work by facilitating implementation of the Checklist among APEC economies, including by completing a gap analysis of current APEC work on elements in the Checklist and a survey of APEC economies' practices in relation to the policy goals outlined in the Checklist. We look forward to receiving a progress report at MRT 2010. We encourage efforts towards sustaining ICT-enabled economic growth, using ICT to address socio-economic issues, and realising the goal of achieving universal access to broadband in all APEC economies by 2015 as set out at the 7th APEC Ministerial Meeting on the Telecommunication and Information Industry. We recognise the progress made during the second phase of the APEC Digital Opportunity Center (ADOC 2.0) Initiative. We endorse the APEC Cooperation Arrangement for Cross-Border Privacy Enforcement and associated documents, a key step in establishing a voluntary system of cross-border privacy rules based on the APEC Privacy Framework. We encourage all economies to continue the development of this system to allow for effective privacy protections while avoiding barriers to information flow and the promotion of trade, investment and economic growth. Strengthening Economic and Technical Cooperation We reaffirm our commitment to a strategic, goal-oriented and multi-year approach to capacity building programmes that assist member economies in achieving the Bogor Goals and common prosperity. We also reaffirm our commitment to the Manila Framework, which serves as the basis for the implementation of the ECOTECH activities outlined in the Osaka Action Agenda. We note the progress made in strengthening the policy agenda of the SCE, including towards the development of a comprehensive framework to guide ECOTECH activities and a reform plan of SCE's operations. We welcome the contributions made by Japan, the United States and Chinese Taipei to the APEC Support Fund (ASF) to promote energy efficiency activities in the region, the contribution of Russia to the ASF to enhance cooperation in strengthening human security and promoting science and technology development, as well as Australia's contributions to both the ASF General Fund and the Subfund on Human Security which will increase capacity building initiatives focused on developing economies. We also welcome the contributions made by China and Korea to the ASF. We welcome Singapore's launch of a series of capacity building programmes aimed at specific priority areas such as trade facilitation and services over the next three years. We also welcome the activities of the APEC Climate Centre to promote capacity building on climate science and research. We note the SCE's efforts to strengthen APEC's engagement with other multilateral organisations and ABAC, and welcome the Programme of Independent Assessments of all SCE Fora. Enhancing Human Security Countering Terrorism The recent terrorist attacks in the region remind us of the international imperative to fight against terrorism. We commend the active role that the Counter Terrorism Task Force (CTTF) has continued to play to improve the environment for safer trade and investment in the APEC region. We reaffirm the importance of our initiatives in areas such as trade security, port and aviation security, anti-terrorist protection of energy and information infrastructure, countering terrorism financing, and protecting the food supply from terrorist contamination, and in this regard encourage all economies to update their Counter Terrorism Action Plans (CTAPs), which will provide useful information for identifying capacity building needs and prioritising actions accordingly. We recognise the need for aviation security within the APEC region. We look forward to the upcoming APEC Air Cargo Security Workshop, which will be held in Singapore during the summer of 2010. We commend APEC's efforts to promote further exchange of best practices and lessons learned in the area of air cargo security, and to explore available technological solutions to the unique challenges of air cargo security. Preparing for Emergencies Recent catastrophes in the region - such as the devastating typhoons that hit China, Japan, the Philippines, Chinese Taipei and Viet Nam, and the earthquakes in Indonesia - remind us of the importance of APEC's work in disaster management, relief and recovery. We welcome the renewed mandate and work of the Taskforce on Emergency Preparedness (TFEP) this year on strengthening business and community resilience, enhancing PPPs, and reducing disaster risks. We welcome the outcomes of the 3rd APEC Emergency Management CEOs' Forum held in Hanoi in September, and the APEC principles on disaster damage and loss assessment and the APEC principles on integrating disaster education into school curricula. We also welcome the upcoming Workshop on the Framework of Long-Term Capacity Building for Disaster Risk Reduction hosted by Chinese Taipei from 30 November to 1 December 2009 to encourage collaboration between regional institutes and strengthen regional emergency management capacity, as well as Japan's offer to host the 4th APEC Emergency Management CEOs' Forum in January 2010. We encourage the establishment of the APEC SME Crisis Management Center proposed by Chinese Taipei as a mechanism to help APEC SMEs enhance their capacity to overcome the impact of crises. Improving Food Security Responding to food security challenges in the region remains a major priority for APEC. Building on the APEC Senior Officials' Work Plan on Food Security, we instruct relevant APEC sub-fora to undertake capacity building projects and other practical initiatives, review best policies and best practices, and report back to APEC Leaders in 2010. We welcome Japan's offer to lead a review of APEC food security activities. We recognise the importance of promoting technologies that make food storage, transportation and distribution systems more efficient. We encourage the adoption of WTO consistent and science-based regulation of new advanced technologies, including biotechnology, to promote utilisation of such technologies. We recognise the importance of promoting efficient and well-functioning markets in agricultural products and avoiding trade policies that impede the international trade of these products. We will ensure that we use our fresh water, marine and terrestrial resources efficiently and sustainably. We express support for the L'Aquila Joint Statement on Global Food Security. Strengthening Food Safety We commend the considerable progress made to improve information sharing and the coordination of APEC food safety capacity building efforts, including the successful meeting of the Food Safety Cooperation Forum (FSCF) held in July 2009. We also note the successful inaugural workshop by the FSCF Partnership Training Institute Network (PTIN) on Examination of Hot Issues in Risk Analysis held in August 2009 in Singapore. The network seeks to build capacity in the use of international standards and best practices in food safety for regulators, manufacturers and producers. We strongly support activities planned for the FSCF and the FSCF PTIN in 2010, including the launch of the first reproducible training modules in 2010. We note APEC's collaboration with the World Bank on food safety and encourage future collaboration with international organisations on future APEC food safety activities. Ensuring Health We reaffirm the strong relationship between health, economic development and security. The emergence of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic underscores the need for international cooperation to prepare for and respond to public health threats. We commend APEC for facilitating regional dialogue on H1N1 and other pandemic response and encourage continued work to strengthen pandemic preparedness, including the leveraging of health innovations such as health information technology, to strengthen health systems, treatments, and disease surveillance. We further support APEC expert collaboration to address the possible health impacts of environmental change and the impact of the global financial crisis on health systems. We urge economies to recognise that investing in health systems and health innovations have significant economic benefits due to the increased productivity of a larger and healthier workforce. In this regard, we also recognise the Health Working Group (HWG)'s recommendations regarding HIV/AIDS prevention and management in the workplace. Improving Governance and Transparency We recognise that corruption is a complex economic, political and social challenge that threatens democracy, sustainable development, the rule of law, the welfare and health of our citizens, our environment, and global security across our economies. We welcome the Anti-Corruption and Transparency Experts' Task Force's Singapore Declaration on Combating Corruption, Strengthening Governance and Enhancing Institutional Integrity, as well as the APEC Guidelines on Enhancing Governance and Anti-Corruption. We encourage economies to implement measures to give practical effect to the Declaration and Guidelines. We also welcome the outcomes of the Workshop on Applying APEC Anti-Corruption Principles, Preventing Conflicts of Interest, co-hosted by China and the United States in October 2009 in Beijing. We commend the comprehensive capacity building efforts with regard to enforcement of laws and regulations, setting of strategies, systems of compliance and promoting standards of governance and ethical behaviour. In view of the threat of cross-border illicit criminal networks and its linkages with corruption nodes, we encourage member economies, where applicable, to ratify the UN Conventions against Corruption and Transnational Organised Crime, and take measures to implement their provisions, in accordance with economies' legal frameworks. Welcoming Sectoral Initiatives Small and Medium Enterprises We welcome the outcomes of the 16th APEC SME Ministerial Meeting held in Singapore on 8-9 October 2009, which discussed policies and initiatives to help SMEs overcome the global economic crisis and access global markets. We note the progress made in the implementation of the four-year SMEWG Strategic Plan 2009-2012 and welcome various projects and initiatives under the strategic plan's six priority areas. In this regard, we encourage the training of SMEs in good business practices that will ensure their sustainability as suppliers to overseas markets. Transport We welcome the outcomes of the 6th APEC Transportation Ministerial Meeting held in the Philippines from 27-29 April 2009. We support the call by Transport Ministers for APEC to recognise the long-term benefits of open markets and economic integration, and to continue to work towards agreements or other means to achieve air services liberalisation in the region. We also support the activities undertaken by member economies to enhance maritime trade, including the APEC Port Services Network (APSN) Conference on Port Development held 2-3 November 2009 in China to facilitate communication and cooperation among ports and related sectors, and promote greener, safer and more secure development of ports and shipping industries in the Asia-Pacific region. We also support the call by the Transport Ministers to encourage further concerted efforts to fight against piracy and welcome the activities undertaken by TPTWG, including the piracy workshop held on 29 July 2009 in Singapore. We encourage the TPTWG to continue their work to promote sustainable transportation, including the sustainable expansion of air transport services through the work of the APEC Aviation Emissions Task Force, cooperation with the Energy Working Group to identify and adopt energy efficient policies, practices, and technologies, and with the Agricultural Technical Cooperation Working Group to promote the development of next-generation biofuels. Women We welcome the recommendations arising from both the 7th Gender Focal Point Network Meeting (GFPN) and the 14th Women Leaders Network (WLN) Meeting held in Singapore, in particular, that to maximise economic opportunities for women by investing in targeted policies and programmes that promote gender equality and women's economic security in the current economic climate. These include facilitating women's access to capacity building programmes, technology and infrastructure; and supporting measures to promote safe employment for women in informal and vulnerable sectors, access to financing, growth in women-led SMEs, and support for social enterprises for women. We welcome the efforts of the Human Resources Development Working Group (HRDWG) to provide new information on promising practices in ensuring gender equity in mathematics education during the 2010 mathematics education conference supporting essential skills of the 21st Century workplace. Tourism We welcome the efforts of the Tourism Working Group (TWG) in facilitating the development of the tourism industry in the Asia-Pacific region. We recognise the valuable contribution that tourism makes during all stages of the economic cycle, and that tourism is vulnerable but responds quickly to changed economic circumstances. As we recover from the crisis, tourism will be a key driver for sustained economic growth, increasing business activity and integration across the region. Marine Resources and Fisheries We note that Peru will host the 3rd APEC Oceans-related Ministerial Meeting (AOMM3) in 2010, which will build on the Bali Plan of Action and the recent review of its implementation. We welcome the ongoing work of the Fisheries Working Group and Marine Resource Conservation Working Group which will support the AOMM3. We also welcome the holding of the World Ocean Conference and support the resulting Manado Ocean Declaration. We underline the importance of the role of the ocean in climate change, and an integrated coastal and ocean management approach to prepare for and adapt to the effects of climate change as well as other threats on the coasts and oceans. We welcome the discussion of climate change, ecosystem based management and food security at the AOMM3. Engaging the Business Community We support continued public-private dialogues and interactions to improve the business environment in our region. In this regard, we welcome the enhanced engagement between ABAC and APEC officials this year, particularly in the areas of resisting protectionism, accelerating REI, and improving the ease of doing business in APEC. We express our appreciation to ABAC for their continued work to provide views, proposals and recommendations to help ensure tangible benefits in the pursuit of APEC goals. APEC's established dialogues with the automotive, chemical and life sciences industries have also helped APEC move forward our trade and investment liberalisation and facilitation agenda. In this regard, we welcome and support the continuation of the work by the Life Sciences Innovation Forum (LSIF) to assess returns to the economy of investment in health innovations, and create an enabling environment for private sector investment in these innovations. We commit to further deepening work streams to support health innovation in 2010. We commend Singapore for being the first economy to complete the LSIF Enablers of Investment Checklist and encourage other APEC economies to complete the checklist in order to identify capacity building needs. We welcome the development of a multi-year strategic plan and projects for achieving regulatory harmonisation, where appropriate, for both medicines and medical devices. We welcome the report and recommendations of the 11th APEC Automotive Dialogue (AD) and in particular, the AD's strong support for the commitment made by APEC Leaders in November 2008 to refrain from raising new barriers to investment or trade in goods and services, or implementing WTO inconsistent measures, particularly in the automotive sector. We welcome the active role of the Mining Task Force (MTF) in fostering cooperation in mining, particularly its constructive contribution to efforts to enhance sustainable development in the sector. We encourage relevant APEC fora to initiate a productive dialogue with the European Commission towards establishing a science-based methodology for the classification of nickel alloys as dangerous substances. We encourage the Chemical Dialogue (CD) to continue promoting best practices and information exchange in chemicals regulation and management in the APEC region, and welcome its contributions to the global Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM). We further encourage the CD to share information to assist members with implementation questions on chemicals management regulations, including the European Union's Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH), and move forward work that contributes to sustainable growth. We note the work of the CD on a common approach to simplify ROOs in the chemicals sector, including the completion of a comparative study on ROOs in the 32 FTAs in the region, and consideration of exploratory work on the development of business friendly guidance on ROOs. Strengthening the APEC Secretariat We will continue to strengthen the operational and institutional capacities of the APEC Secretariat. We welcome the successful selection and appointment of the Secretariat's first Executive Director for a fixed term (FT-ED). The establishment of the FT-ED post constitutes a huge step forward in our ongoing efforts to professionalise the Secretariat and to ensure that it is well-equipped to meet the growing demands of member economies. We commend the Secretariat's efforts to improve the fiscal sustainability of the Secretariat and in supporting the efforts of the Budget and Management Committee to introduce project management reforms to make APEC's project assessment and monitoring processes more transparent and aligned with our strategic goals. We approve the recommendation that APEC maintain three project approval sessions per year. We welcome the new branding strategy, together with the mission statement and tagline, and commend the Secretariat's efforts in implementing the revitalised APEC Communications and Outreach strategy. We encourage the APEC Secretariat to seek collaborative technology solutions similar to the HRDWG wiki website, which can serve as a model for collaborative communications and the dissemination of Open Education Resources. We are encouraged by the PSU's performance since it commenced operation in August 2008. Since its establishment, the PSU has grown to ten staff members and completed thirteen research projects. The PSU has provided useful contributions to APEC's policy deliberations on logistics and effective responses to the global economic crisis as well as the assessment of APEC's progress towards the implementation of our trade and investment facilitation action plans. Studies on Improving Food Markets in APEC Economies and Good Regulatory Practices for Goods and Services Necessary or Desirable for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation will inform the development of APEC work in these areas. We are pleased with the PSU's creation of the APEC economic indicators database, which for the first time provides members with a single source of comprehensive data relating to APEC economies, including bilateral trade and investment linkages. We are also pleased with the PSU's paper on Trade Creation in the APEC Region. We remain committed to supporting the PSU post-2010. We further welcome any voluntary contributions from member economies in this regard. We welcome the contribution to the APEC Secretariat by the US-APEC Technical Assistance and Training Facility (TATF) in helping to strengthen the Secretariat and its operations, train staff to improve project quality and the project management process, upgrade the Secretariat's information technology, and promote cooperation with the ASEAN Secretariat. We also welcome Australia's Effectiveness Grant. We endorse the 2009 SOM Report on APEC's work programme including the recommendations contained therein, note the 2009 Annual Report of the APEC Secretariat Executive Director, and approve the 2010 APEC Budget and member contributions. We welcome the preparations underway for APEC 2010 in Japan. Source: APEC. MEMBER INFORMATION Italy and the WTO This page gathers information on Italy's participation in the WTO. Italy has been a WTO member since 1 January 1995. It is a member State of the European Union (more info). All EU member States are WTO members, as is the EU (for legal reasons known as the European Communities in WTO matters) in its own right. Goods schedules and tariff data -
The Tariff database contains both bound and applied rates and can be searched by member, year and product. -
-
-
Italy's Uruguay Round goods schedules are included in those of the European Communities (zip format, 759KB) -
-
See the bound tariffs at HS 6-digit subheading level for the European Communities -
See the latest available MFN applied tariffs at HS 6-digit subheading level for the European Communities -
-
Services schedules and MFN exemptions Trade Policy Reviews Reviews of Italy Dispute cases involving Italy Italy is also included in dispute settlement cases of the EU/EC. Place your mouse over a dispute number in the table below to see the title of the dispute. Click on the dispute number to go to a page giving detailed information for that dispute. as complainant as respondent as third party Italy 0 cases 0 cases 0 cases See the dispute settlement gateway for explanations and background. Italy is included in TPRs of the EU/EC
See the TPR gateway for explanations and background DDA negotiating documents from or mentioning Italy See also documents relating to the European Communities. Notifications from Italy -
Agriculture (Document code G/AG/N/ITA/*) > search -
Antidumping (Document code G/ADP/N/* and ITA) > search -
Balance of payments (Document code WT/BOP/N/*) > search -
Customs valuation (Document code G/VAL/N/* and ITA) > search -
Government procurement (Document code GPA/* and keyword varies) > search -
Import licensing (Document code G/LIC/N/* and ITA) > search -
Information technology products (Document code varies) > search -
Intellectual Property Rights (see TRIPS below) -
Regional trade Agreements (Document code WT/REG* and N) > search -
Rules of origin (Document code G/RO/N/*) > search -
Safeguards (Document code G/SG/N/* and ITA) > search -
Sanitary and phytosanitary measures (Document code G/SPS/N/ITA/*) > search -
Services (Document code S/C/N/*) > search -
State trading enterprises (Document code G/STR/N/* and ITA) > search -
Subsidies and countervailing measures (Document code G/SCM/N/* and ITA) > search -
Technical barriers to trade notifications under the TBT Agreement can be found under the TBT gateway -
-
Trade and development (Document code WT/COMTD/N/*) > search -
Trade-related investment measures (Document code G/TRIMS/N/* and ITA) > search -
TRIPS notifications can be found by Article under the TRIPS gateway Notifications submitted by the European Communities are valid for all EU members. However, occasionally individual EU members notify certain measures which are specific to their country only. These are included below. Other official documents from or mentioning Italy See also documents relating to the European Communities. Source: WTO. November 05 PRESS RELEASE: PRESS/TPRB/322 4 and 6 November 2009 TRADE POLICY REVIEW: BOTSWANA, LESOTHO, NAMIBIA, SOUTH AFRICA AND SWAZILAND Deeper integration is necessary for more balanced development Since the previous review in 2003, SACU members (Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland), have collectively expanded at an average annual rate of about 4% in real terms, although this GDP growth has been somewhat erratic mainly reflecting infrastructure and other constraints, according to a WTO Secretariat report on the trade policies and practices of SACU. The five member states of this Customs Union continue to show substantial differences in levels of economic development and, so far, the only trade policy instruments harmonized are the applied customs tariff, excise duties, duty rebates, refunds and drawbacks, customs valuation, non-preferential rules of origin, and contingency trade remedies. The report notes that the complete implementation of the 2002 SACU Agreement, which entered into force in July 2004, would result in further harmonization of policies, deeper economic integration and more balanced development that now seem elusive. While noting that South African economy, the biggest and most advanced of the Union, remains relatively diversified, the report also says that the principal policy imperative faced by the other SACU countries remains diversification away from the current key export products (diamonds and other minerals in Botswana and Namibia, textiles in Lesotho and sugar in Swaziland). The report, along with policy statements by the Governments of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU), will be the basis for the third Trade Policy Review (TPR) of SACU by the Trade Policy Review Body of the WTO on 4 and 6 November 2009. The following documents are available in MS Word format. -
-
-
Revisions of the above documents may be issued approximately 2 weeks after the meeting. -
Chairperson’s concluding remarks (coming soon) -
Minutes of the meeting are available approximately 6 weeks after the meeting. -
Questions and answers by WTO Members are available approximately 6 weeks after the meeting. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ See also: >> Press release: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/tp322_e.htm
>> More on Botswana: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/botswana_e.htm
> >More on Lesotho: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/lesotho_e.htm
> >More on Namibia: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/namibia_e.htm
> >More on South Africa: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/south_africa_e.htm
> >More on Swaziland: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/swaziland_e.htm. October 27 PRESS RELEASE: PRESS/TPRB/321 26 and 28 October 2009 TRADE POLICY REVIEW: MALDIVES Economic diversification is needed to sustain growth The Maldives is a physically and economically small, vulnerable developing country, heavily dependant for its prosperity on international trade. Real GDP growth averaged 7,4% between 2003 and 2008, driven mainly by the tourism sector. However growth is expected to contract by 1,3% in 2009 due to a decline in tourism activity, according to a WTO Secretariat report on the trade policies and practices of the Maldives. Given the concentration of the economic activity in few areas, the report highlights that to be able to sustain growth, the country needs to diversify the economy, specially in light of its expected graduation from least developed country (LDC) status in 2011, and to create a viable tax structure. Diversifying the economy would require significant private sector involvement, for which a conducive business environment also needs to be created, the report notes. The Secretariat report also states that the Maldives’ tariff remains unduly complex and its level and structure is a major potential distortion to the allocation of resources and domestic efficiency, and an impediment to the competitiveness of the economy. The report, along with a policy statement by the Government of Maldives, will be the basis for the second Trade Policy Review (TPR) of the Maldives by the Trade Policy Review Body of the WTO on 26 and 28 of October 2009. he following documents are available in MS Word format. -
-
-
Revisions of the above documents may be issued approximately 2 weeks after the meeting. -
Chairperson’s concluding remarks (coming soon) -
Minutes of the meeting are available approximately 6 weeks after the meeting. -
Questions and answers by WTO Members are available approximately 6 weeks after the meeting. October 23 Washington, D.C. - The Office of the United States Trade Representative today released a preliminary comparison of the Korea-EU Free Trade Agreement, initialed on October 15 in Brussels, with the pending U.S.-Korea (KORUS) FTA. An analysis of select provisions is provided below. The text of the Korea-EU agreement was made public today. "The recently initialed EU-Korea FTA has similarities to, and differences from, the KORUS FTA. We look forward to engaging with Korea and the EU to fully understand the agreement and its implications for the United States. USTR will carefully consider this agreement as it continues its review of the KORUS FTA," said USTR spokeswoman Carol Guthrie. According to USTR's initial analysis of the text and tariff schedules, the Korea-EU FTA is a comprehensive agreement that in many respects is similar and comparable to KORUS. With respect to tariff commitments, the overall tariff package for industrial goods under the Korea-EU FTA appears to be comparable in ambition and comprehensiveness to the KORUS tariff schedule, with 92 percent of Korean tariffs eliminated in three years (the KORUS FTA eliminates 94.5 percent). However, there are key differences as well. USTR will closely examine these and other issues as it continues its review of the KORUS FTA and consults with Congress and interested stakeholders. -
For motor vehicles, both the EU and Korea will eliminate tariffs on cars in three or five years, depending on engine size. Under KORUS, Korea's eight percent auto tariff will be eliminated immediately. The United States would eliminate its 2.5 percent tariff on small cars immediately and on large cars (3000cc and greater) over three years. The US-Korea Free Trade Agreement contains some key features lacking in the Korea-EU FTA with respect to autos. In particular, KORUS has a specific enforcement mechanism that includes the ability to "snap back" U.S. tariffs on Korean cars if Korea takes measures that impair the Agreement's expected benefits. Korea also committed to eliminate many aspects of the discriminatory effect of its current automotive tax system. The Korea-EU FTA does not allow for a "snap back" remedy, and with respect to taxes simply affirms that any modifications to Korean autos taxes will be made on an MFN basis. With respect to trucks, under KORUS FTA, Korea will eliminate its 10 percent tariff immediately, and the United States will phase out its 25 percent tariff over ten years. In the Korea-EU FTA, Korea will eliminate tariffs on most trucks immediately. The EU will eliminate its 22% truck tariffs over 3 or 5 years, depending on specific type. -
The two agreements take a different approach to address the issue of unique Korean automotive safety standards. In KORUS, the United States obtained an exemption that allows each U.S. automaker to sell up to 6,500 vehicles a year in Korea built to U.S. safety standards (and which do not need to be modified for Korea). Instead of such an exemption, the Korea-EU FTA contains provisions committing Korea to harmonize some of its standards to European standards over time. USTR will look into this issue further and consult with stakeholders to fully understand the commercial implications of this difference. -
On areas of interest to manufacturers, the KORUS FTA appears to contain more detailed and extensive provisions on regulatory transparency and stakeholder input into the process of developing standards and other regulatory measures, to address concerns that non-transparent procedures result in measures that act as non-tariff barriers to goods. The KORUS FTA contains specific provisions to ensure that remanufactured goods - a key component of the U.S. manufacturing industry -qualify as originating goods. -
There is no investment chapter or investor-state dispute settlement provisions in the Korea-EU FTA (competency for investment matters rests with the individual EU Member States), whereas KORUS features investor protections. -
Unlike the Korea EU FTA, KORUS labor and environment provisions are subject to the same binding dispute settlement mechanism as the KORUS agreement's trade provisions. Labor and environment provisions in the Korea-EU agreement are not similarly subject to binding dispute settlement. -
KORUS uses a negative list approach for opening Korea's services and financial services market, adding certainty that new services will be covered automatically; the Korea-EU FTA instead uses a positive list approach. BACKGROUND: U.S. and EU Trade Relationships with Korea The United States was Korea's fourth-largest goods trading partner in 2008, with two-way goods trade close to $85 billion in 2008. According to Korean trade data, the European Union is Korea's second-largest goods trading partner, with total two-way goods trade in 2008 reaching $98.4 billion. EU exports to Korea reached nearly $40 billion (approximately $1.6 billion more than the United States exported to Korea), while it imported $58.4 billion worth of goods from Korea. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is engaging in a thorough review of the KORUS FTA to ensure meaningful market access for U.S. goods and services. In response to a recent call for public comments, USTR received more than 300 submissions on the range of issues under review, some of which expressed support for the agreement and others that raised specific concerns. Key U.S. automakers continue to express concern over Korea's historic, longstanding use of trade barriers in this sector. Source: Office of the United States Trade Representative. October 17 Congressional-Executive Commission on China www.cecc.gov
For Immediate Release Friday, October 16, 2009 Dorgan Contact: Justin Kitsch, 202.224.2551
Levin Contact: Alan Mynek, 202.225.4961
CECC Contacts: Charlotte Oldham-Moore, 202.226.3798; Doug Grob, 202.226.3777 CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA RELEASES ANNUAL REPORT
ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE RULE OF LAW IN CHINA (Washington, D.C.)—The Congressional-Executive Commission on China released its 2009 Annual Report on human rights and the rule of law in China on October 16, along with a PDF containing case summaries of 1,279 political prisoners currently detained or imprisoned in China. The full text of this year’s report and the prisoner list are available on-line at www.cecc.gov. The Commission was created by Congress in 2000 to monitor human rights and the development of the rule of law in China. “We are deeply concerned about continued human rights abuses and stalled rule of law reform documented in the Commission's 2009 Annual Report. Many Chinese government policies designed to address social unrest and bolster the Communist Party's authority are resulting in a period of declining human rights for Chinese citizens,” said Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Chairman of the Commission in a joint statement with Representative Sander Levin, Co-Chairman of the Commission. “The Chinese Government has made economic development a priority, and has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. But, Chinese government policies and practices continue to violate the rights of Chinese citizens and fall far short of meeting international standards,” said Dorgan and Levin in a joint statement. "The Report documents the challenges and opportunities that exist for China to create a more open society with greater respect for human rights, including workers rights, and the rule of law. Holding the Chinese government accountable to its international commitments, including trade, fundamental rights, and the rule of law is an essential element for securing progress. "A stable China firmly committed to the rule of law and fundamental rights is in the national interest of the United States. Those rights include the right to speak freely, the right to organize into independent unions, and to practice the religion of one's choosing. To ensure a positive U.S.-China relationship, it is vital that China’s leaders demonstrate genuine commitment, not just in words but in deeds, to prioritizing fundamental rights in no lesser measure than they have prioritized economic development," added Dorgan and Levin. The Commission consists of nine members of the House of Representatives, nine Senators and five senior Administration officials appointed by the President. The Commission’s Annual Report is among the most comprehensive, public examinations of the state of human rights and the rule of law in China produced by the US government. October 09 PRESS RELEASE: PRESS/TPRB/320 7 and 9 October 2009 TRADE POLICY REVIEW: CHILE Open trade policy has contributed to growth and poverty reduction Chile’s trade and investment regime continues to be characterized by openness, transparency, and predictability, and together with sound macroeconomic management, it has contributed to growth and poverty reduction, according to the WTO Secretariat review on the trade policies and practices of Chile. Since the last review in 2003, Chile has adopted measures to modernize customs and facilitate trade, maintained a single MFN tariff rate of 6% with a few exceptions, abolished some import taxes and export subsidies, and introduced significant reforms to its competition policy, government procurement and intellectual property systems. The report notes that benefits could arise from re-examining and eventually changing measures such as the imposition of non-ad valorem tariffs on a few agricultural products and the application of reciprocity requirements in a handful of activities. The report also notes that, one of the most prominent features of Chile's trade policy regime is the central role it gives to Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) of which it has 21 in force with 57 trading partners. At the same time, Chile remains strongly committed to the multilateral trading system. The report, along with a policy statement by the Government of Chile, will be the basis for the fourth Trade Policy Review (TPR) of Chile by the Trade Policy Review Body of the WTO on 7 and 9 of October 2009. The following documents are available in MS Word format. August 13 WTO: 2009 NEWS ITEMS 12 August 2009 DISPUTE SETTLEMENT Panel issues report on US-China dispute over publications and audiovisual products The WTO, on 12 August 2009, issued the report of the panel that had examined a complaint by the United States against “China — Measures affecting trading rights and distribution services for certain publications and audiovisual entertainment products” (DS363). DS363: China — Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products Download: > Just the findings and conclusions in pdf format In MS Word format:
Panel report
Annex A In pdf format:
Panel report
Annex A > Summary of the case DS363 August 06 Pending Congressional Approval The United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, sometimes called the Colombia Free Trade Agreement or FTA, was signed on November 22, 2006. The Colombia FTA is a comprehensive free trade agreement. When the Colombia FTA enters into force, Colombia will immediately eliminate most of its tariffs on U.S. exports, with all remaining tariffs phased out over defined time periods. The Colombia FTA also includes important disciplines relating to customs administration and trade facilitation, technical barriers to trade, government procurement, investment, telecommunications, electronic commerce, intellectual property rights, and labor and environmental protection. U.S. firms will have better access to Colombia's services sector than other WTO Members have under the General Agreement on Tarrif and Trade. All service sectors are covered under the Colombia FTA except where Colombia has made specific exceptions. Colombia's Congress approved the agreement and a protocol of amendment in 2007. Colombia's Constitutional Court completed its review in July 2008, and concluded that the Agreement conforms to Colombia's Constitution. President Obama tasked the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative with seeking a path to address outstanding issues surrounding the Colombia FTA. Summaries and Text Full Text of the Agreement (English) Full Text of the Agreement (Spanish) Reports on the Agreement ITC Report Interim Environmental Review Source: Office of the U.S. Trade Representative August 03 Boumediene v. Bush - Case Basics Docket No.: 06-1195 Petitioner: Lakhdar Boumediene, et al. / Respondent: George W. Bush, President of the United States, et al. Consolidation: Khaled A. F. Al Odah, Next Friend of Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad Al Odah, et al. v. United States, et al., No. 06-1196 Decided By: Roberts Court (2006-) Opinion: 553 U.S. ___ (2008) Granted: Friday, June 29, 2007 Argued: Wednesday, December 5, 2007 Decided: Thursday, June 12, 2008 Facts of the Case: In 2002 Lakhdar Boumediene and five other Algerian natives were seized by Bosnian police when U.S. intelligence officers suspected their involvement in a plot to attack the U.S. embassy there. The U.S. government classified the men as enemy combatants in the war on terror and detained them at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, which is located on land that the U.S. leases from Cuba. Boumediene filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging violations of the Constitution's Due Process Clause, various statutes and treaties, the common law, and international law. The District Court judge granted the government's motion to have all of the claims dismissed on the ground that Boumediene, as an alien detained at an overseas military base, had no right to a habeas petition. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the dismissal but the Supreme Court reversed in Rasul v. Bush, which held that the habeas statute extends to non-citizen detainees at Guantanamo. In 2006, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA). The Act eliminates federal courts' jurisdiction to hear habeas applications from detainees who have been designated (according to procedures established in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005) as enemy combatants. When the case was appealed to the D.C. Circuit for the second time, the detainees argued that the MCA did not apply to their petitions, and that if it did, it was unconstitutional under the Suspension Clause. The Suspension Clause reads: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of the government on both points. It cited language in the MCA applying the law to "all cases, without exception" that pertain to aspects of detention. One of the purposes of the MCA, according to the Circuit Court, was to overrule the Supreme Court's opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which had allowed petitions like Boumediene's to go forward. The D.C. Circuit held that the Suspension Clause only protects the writ of habeas corpus as it existed in 1789, and that the writ would not have been understood in 1789 to apply to an overseas military base leased from a foreign government. Constitutional rights do not apply to aliens outside of the United States, the court held, and the leased military base in Cuba does not qualify as inside the geographic borders of the U.S. In a rare reversal, the Supreme Court granted certiorari after initially denying review three months earlier. Questions: 1. Should the Military Commissions Act of 2006 be interpreted to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by foreign citizens detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? 2. If so, is the Military Commissions Act of 2006 a violation of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution? 3. Are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and of the Geneva Conventions? 4. Can the detainees challenge the adequacy of judicial review provisions of the MCA before they have sought to invoke that review? Conclusion: A five-justice majority answered yes to each of these questions. The opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated that if the MCA is considered valid its legislative history requires that the detainees' cases be dismissed. However, the Court went on to state that because the procedures laid out in the Detainee Treatment Act are not adequate substitutes for the habeas writ, the MCA operates as an unconstitutional suspension of that writ. The detainees were not barred from seeking habeas or invoking the Suspension Clause merely because they had been designated as enemy combatants or held at Guantanamo Bay. The Court reversed the D.C. Circuit's ruling and found in favor of the detainees. Justice David H. Souter concurred in the judgment. Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia filed separate dissenting opinions. Decisions Decision: 5 votes for Boumediene, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 2: Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus Source: The Oyez Project, Boumediene v. Bush , 553 U.S. ___ (2008) available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_06_1195)(last visited Monday, August 3, 2009). BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH (Nos. 06-1195 and 06-1196)
476 F. 3d 981, reversed and remanded. Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321 . SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BOUMEDIENE et al. v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit
No. 06–1195. Argued December 5, 2007—Decided June 12, 2008**
In the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Congress empowered the President “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those … he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks … on September 11, 2001.” In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507 , five Justices recognized that detaining individuals captured while fighting against the United States in Afghanistan for the duration of that conflict was a fundamental and accepted incident to war. Thereafter, the Defense Department established Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) to determine whether individuals detained at the U. S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were “enemy combatants.” Petitioners are aliens detained at Guantanamo after being captured in Afghanistan or elsewhere abroad and designated enemy combatants by CSRTs. Denying membership in the al Qaeda terrorist network that carried out the September 11 attacks and the Taliban regime that supported al Qaeda, each petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court, which ordered the cases dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Guantanamo is outside sovereign U. S. territory. The D. C. Circuit affirmed, but this Court reversed, holding that 28 U. S. C. §2241 extended statutory habeas jurisdiction to Guantanamo. See Rasul v. Bush, 542 U. S. 466 . Petitioners’ cases were then consolidated into two proceedings. In the first, the district judge granted the Government’s motion to dismiss, holding that the detainees had no rights that could be vindicated in a habeas action. In the second, the judge held that the detainees had due process rights. While appeals were pending, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA), §1005(e) of which amended 28 U. S. C. §2241 to provide that “no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to … consider … an application for … habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained … at Guantanamo,” and gave the D. C. Court of Appeals “exclusive” jurisdiction to review CSRT decisions. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U. S. 557 , the Court held this provision inapplicable to cases (like petitioners’) pending when the DTA was enacted. Congress responded with the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), §7(a) of which amended §2241(e)(1) to deny jurisdiction with respect to habeas actions by detained aliens determined to be enemy combatants, while §2241(e)(2) denies jurisdiction as to “any other action against the United States … relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement” of a detained alien determined to be an enemy combatant. MCA §7(b) provides that the 2241(e) amendments “shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after [that] date … which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained … since September 11, 2001.” The D. C. Court of Appeals concluded that MCA §7 must be read to strip from it, and all federal courts, jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ habeas applications; that petitioners are not entitled to habeas or the protections of the Suspension Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, §9, cl. 2, which provides that “[t]he Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it”; and that it was therefore unnecessary to consider whether the DTA provided an adequate and effective substitute for habeas. Held: 1. MCA §7 denies the federal courts jurisdiction to hear habeas actions, like the instant cases, that were pending at the time of its enactment. Section §7(b)’s effective date provision undoubtedly applies to habeas actions, which, by definition, “relate to … detention” within that section’s meaning. Petitioners argue to no avail that §7(b) does not apply to a §2241(e)(1) habeas action, but only to “any other action” under §2241(e)(2), because it largely repeats that section’s language. The phrase “other action” in §2241(e)(2) cannot be understood without referring back to §2241(e)(1), which explicitly mentions the “writ of habeas corpus.” Because the two paragraphs’ structure implies that habeas is a type of action “relating to any aspect of … detention,” etc., pending habeas actions are in the category of cases subject to the statute’s jurisdictional bar. This is confirmed by the MCA’s legislative history. Thus, if MCA §7 is valid, petitioners’ cases must be dismissed. Pp. 5–8. 2. Petitioners have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus. They are not barred from seeking the writ or invoking the Suspension Clause’s protections because they have been designated as enemy combatants or because of their presence at Guantanamo. Pp. 8–41. (a) A brief account of the writ’s history and origins shows that protection for the habeas privilege was one of the few safeguards of liberty specified in a Constitution that, at the outset, had no Bill of Rights; in the system the Framers conceived, the writ has a centrality that must inform proper interpretation of the Suspension Clause. That the Framers considered the writ a vital instrument for the protection of individual liberty is evident from the care taken in the Suspension Clause to specify the limited grounds for its suspension: The writ may be suspended only when public safety requires it in times of rebellion or invasion. The Clause is designed to protect against cyclical abuses of the writ by the Executive and Legislative Branches. It protects detainee rights by a means consistent with the Constitution’s essential design, ensuring that, except during periods of formal suspension, the Judiciary will have a time-tested device, the writ, to maintain the “delicate balance of governance.” Hamdi, supra, at 536. Separation-of-powers principles, and the history that influenced their design, inform the Clause’s reach and purpose. Pp. 8–15. (b) A diligent search of founding-era precedents and legal commentaries reveals no certain conclusions. None of the cases the parties cite reveal whether a common-law court would have granted, or refused to hear for lack of jurisdiction, a habeas petition by a prisoner deemed an enemy combatant, under a standard like the Defense Department’s in these cases, and when held in a territory, like Guantanamo, over which the Government has total military and civil control. The evidence as to the writ’s geographic scope at common law is informative, but, again, not dispositive. Petitioners argue that the site of their detention is analogous to two territories outside England to which the common-law writ ran, the exempt jurisdictions and India, but critical differences between these places and Guantanamo render these claims unpersuasive. The Government argues that Guantanamo is more closely analogous to Scotland and Hanover, where the writ did not run, but it is unclear whether the common-law courts lacked the power to issue the writ there, or whether they refrained from doing so for prudential reasons. The parties’ arguments that the very lack of a precedent on point supports their respective positions are premised upon the doubtful assumptions that the historical record is complete and that the common law, if properly understood, yields a definite answer to the questions before the Court. Pp. 15–22. (c) The Suspension Clause has full effect at Guantanamo. The Government’s argument that the Clause affords petitioners no rights because the United States does not claim sovereignty over the naval station is rejected. Pp. 22–42. (i) The Court does not question the Government’s position that Cuba maintains sovereignty, in the legal and technical sense, over Guantanamo, but it does not accept the Government’s premise that de jure sovereignty is the touchstone of habeas jurisdiction. Common-law habeas’ history provides scant support for this proposition, and it is inconsistent with the Court’s precedents and contrary to fundamental separation-of-powers principles. Pp. 22–25. (ii) Discussions of the Constitution’s extraterritorial application in cases involving provisions other than the Suspension Clause undermine the Government’s argument. Fundamental questions regarding the Constitution’s geographic scope first arose when the Nation acquired Hawaii and the noncontiguous Territories ceded by Spain after the Spanish-American War, and Congress discontinued its prior practice of extending constitutional rights to territories by statute. In the so-called Insular Cases, the Court held that the Constitution had independent force in the territories that was not contingent upon acts of legislative grace. See, e.g., Dorr v. United States, 195 U. S. 138 . Yet because of the difficulties and disruption inherent in transforming the former Spanish colonies’ civil-law system into an Anglo-American system, the Court adopted the doctrine of territorial incorporation, under which the Constitution applies in full in incorporated Territories surely destined for statehood but only in part in unincorporated Territories. See, e.g., id., at 143. Practical considerations likewise influenced the Court’s analysis in Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1 , where, in applying the jury provisions of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment s to American civilians being tried by the U. S. military abroad, both the plurality and the concurrences noted the relevance of practical considerations, related not to the petitioners’ citizenship, but to the place of their confinement and trial. Finally, in holdingthat habeas jurisdiction did not extend to enemy aliens, convicted of violating the laws of war, who were detained in a German prison during the Allied Powers’ post-World War II occupation, the Court, in Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U. S. 763 , stressed the practical difficulties of ordering the production of the prisoners, id., at 779. The Government’s reading of Eisentrager as adopting a formalistic test for determining the Suspension Clause’s reach is rejected because: (1) the discussion of practical considerations in that case was integral to a part of the Court’s opinion that came before it announced its holding, see id., at 781; (2) it mentioned the concept of territorial sovereignty only twice in its opinion, in contrast to its significant discussion of practical barriers to the running of the writ; and (3) if the Government’s reading were correct, the opinion would have marked not only a change in, but a complete repudiation of, the Insular Cases’ (and later Reid’s) functional approach. A constricted reading of Eisentrager overlooks what the Court sees as a common thread uniting all these cases: The idea that extraterritoriality questions turn on objective factors and practical concerns, not formalism. Pp. 25–34. (iii) The Government’s sovereignty-based test raises troubling separation-of-powers concerns, which are illustrated by Guantanamo’s political history. Although the United States has maintained complete and uninterrupted control of Guantanamo for over 100 years, the Government’s view is that the Constitution has no effect there, at least as to noncitizens, because the United States disclaimed formal sovereignty in its 1903 lease with Cuba. The Nation’s basic charter cannot be contracted away like this. The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply. To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this Court, say “what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177. These concerns have particular bearing upon the Suspension Clause question here, for the habeas writ is itself an indispensable mechanism for monitoring the separation of powers. Pp. 34–36. (iv) Based on Eisentrager, supra, at 777, and the Court’s reasoning in its other extraterritoriality opinions, at least three factors are relevant in determining the Suspension Clause’s reach: (1) the detainees’ citizenship and status and the adequacy of the process through which that status was determined; (2) the nature of the sites where apprehension and then detention took place; and (3) the practical obstacles inherent in resolving the prisoner’s entitlement to the writ. Application of this framework reveals, first, that petitioners’ status is in dispute: They are not American citizens, but deny they are enemy combatants; and although they have been afforded some process in CSRT proceedings, there has been no Eisentrager–style trial by military commission for violations of the laws of war. Second, while the sites of petitioners’ apprehension and detention weigh against finding they have Suspension Clause rights, there are critical differences between Eisentrager’s German prison, circa 1950, and the Guantanamo Naval Station in 2008, given the Government’s absolute and indefinite control over the naval station. Third, although the Court is sensitive to the financial and administrative costs of holding the Suspension Clause applicable in a case of military detention abroad, these factors are not dispositive because the Government presents no credible arguments that the military mission at Guantanamo would be compromised if habeas courts had jurisdiction. The situation in Eisentrager was far different, given the historical context and nature of the military’s mission in post-War Germany. Pp. 36–41. (d) Petitioners are therefore entitled to the habeas privilege, and if that privilege is to be denied them, Congress must act in accordance with the Suspension Clause’s requirements. Cf. Rasul, 542 U. S., at 564. Pp. 41–42. 3. Because the DTA’s procedures for reviewing detainees’ status are not an adequate and effective substitute for the habeas writ, MCA §7 operates as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ. Pp. 42–64. (a) Given its holding that the writ does not run to petitioners, the D. C. Circuit found it unnecessary to consider whether there was an adequate substitute for habeas. This Court usually remands for consideration of questions not decided below, but departure from this rule is appropriate in “exceptional” circumstances, see, e.g., Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., 543 U. S. 157 , here, the grave separation-of-powers issues raised by these cases and the fact that petitioners have been denied meaningful access to a judicial forum for years. Pp. 42–44. (b) Historically, Congress has taken care to avoid suspensions of the writ. For example, the statutes at issue in the Court’s two leading cases addressing habeas substitutes, Swain v. Pressley, 430 U. S. 372 , and United States v. Hayman, 342 U. S. 205 , were attempts to streamline habeas relief, not to cut it back. Those cases provide little guidance here because, inter alia, the statutes in question gave the courts broad remedial powers to secure the historic office of the writ, and included saving clauses to preserve habeas review as an avenue of last resort. In contrast, Congress intended the DTA and the MCA to circumscribe habeas review, as is evident from the unequivocal nature of MCA §7’s jurisdiction-stripping language, from the DTA’s text limiting the Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction to assessing whether the CSRT complied with the “standards and procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense,” DTA §1005(e)(2)(C), and from the absence of a saving clause in either Act. That Congress intended to create a more limited procedure is also confirmed by the legislative history and by a comparison of the DTA and the habeas statute that would govern in MCA §7’s absence, 28 U. S. C. §2241. In §2241, Congress authorized “any justice” or “circuit judge” to issue the writ, thereby accommodating the necessity for factfinding that will arise in some cases by allowing the appellate judge or Justice to transfer the case to a district court. See §2241(b). However, by granting the D. C. Circuit “exclusive” jurisdiction over petitioners’ cases, see DTA §1005(e)(2)(A), Congress has foreclosed that option in these cases. Pp. 44–49. (c) This Court does not endeavor to offer a comprehensive summary of the requisites for an adequate habeas substitute. It is uncontroversial, however, that the habeas privilege entitles the prisoner to a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate that he is being held pursuant to “the erroneous application or interpretation” of relevant law, INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U. S. 289 , and the habeas court must have the power to order the conditional release of an individual unlawfully detained. But more may be required depending on the circumstances. Petitioners identify what they see as myriad deficiencies in the CSRTs, the most relevant being the constraints upon the detainee’s ability to rebut the factual basis for the Government’s assertion that he is an enemy combatant. At the CSRT stage the detainee has limited means to find or present evidence to challenge the Government’s case, does not have the assistance of counsel, and may not be aware of the most critical allegations that the Government relied upon to order his detention. His opportunity to confront witnesses is likely to be more theoretical than real, given that there are no limits on the admission of hearsay. The Court therefore agrees with petitioners that there is considerable risk of error in the tribunal’s findings of fact. And given that the consequence of error may be detention for the duration of hostilities that may last a generation or more, the risk is too significant to ignore. Accordingly, for the habeas writ, or its substitute, to function as an effective and meaningful remedy in this context, the court conducting the collateral proceeding must have some ability to correct any errors, to assess the sufficiency of the Government’s evidence, and to admit and consider relevant exculpatory evidence that was not introduced during the earlier proceeding. In re Yamashita, 327 U. S. 1 , and Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1 , distinguished. Pp. 49–57. (d) Petitioners have met their burden of establishing that the DTA review process is, on its face, an inadequate substitute for habeas. Among the constitutional infirmities from which the DTA potentially suffers are the absence of provisions allowing petitioners to challenge the President’s authority under the AUMF to detain them indefinitely, to contest the CSRT’s findings of fact, to supplement the record on review with exculpatory evidence discovered after the CSRT proceedings, and to request release. The statute cannot be read to contain each of these constitutionally required procedures. MCA §7 thus effects an unconstitutional suspension of the writ. There is no jurisdictional bar to the District Court’s entertaining petitioners’ claims. Pp. 57–64. 4. Nor are there prudential barriers to habeas review. Pp. 64–70. (a) Petitioners need not seek review of their CSRT determinations in the D. C. Circuit before proceeding with their habeas actions in the District Court. If these cases involved detainees held for only a short time while awaiting their CSRT determinations, or were it probable that the Court of Appeals could complete a prompt review of their applications, the case for requiring temporary abstention or exhaustion of alternative remedies would be much stronger. But these qualifications no longer pertain here. In some instances six years have elapsed without the judicial oversight that habeas corpus or an adequate substitute demands. To require these detainees to pursue the limited structure of DTA review before proceeding with habeas actions would be to require additional months, if not years, of delay. This holding should not be read to imply that a habeas court should intervene the moment an enemy combatant steps foot in a territory where the writ runs. Except in cases of undue delay, such as the present, federal courts should refrain from entertaining an enemy combatant’s habeas petition at least until after the CSRT has had a chance to review his status. Pp. 64–67. (b) In effectuating today’s holding, certain accommodations—including channeling future cases to a single district court and requiring that court to use its discretion to accommodate to the greatest extent possible the Government’s legitimate interest in protecting sources and intelligence gathering methods—should be made to reduce the burden habeas proceedings will place on the military, without impermissibly diluting the writ’s protections. Pp. 67–68. 5. In considering both the procedural and substantive standards used to impose detention to prevent acts of terrorism, the courts must accord proper deference to the political branches. However, security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom’s first principles, chief among them being freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers. Pp. 68–70. 476 F. 3d 981, reversed and remanded. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Souter, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Ginsburg and Breyer, JJ., joined. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined.
Notes ** Together with No. 06–1196, Al Odah, Next Friend of Al Odah, et al. v. United States et al., also on certiorari to the same court. Source: Cornell University Law School, LII/Legal Information Institute, Supreme Court Collection. August 01 WTO: 2009 NEWS ITEMS 31 July 2009 DISPUTE SETTLEMENT DSB establishes panel in China-US poultry case At a meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) on 31 July 2009, a panel was established regarding US measures that, according to China, affect imports of Chinese poultry. Panel establishment DS392: United States — Certain measures affecting imports of poultry from China
The panel was established of the basis of China's second request for a panel (WT/DS392/2). Under the rules of the WTO's Dispute Settlement Understanding, the establishment of a panel is automatically approved by the DSB in response to a second request for a panel by a Member. In its request, China noted that on 11 March 2009, the US President signed the US Omnibus Appropriation Act of 2009 into law. China pointed out that Section 727 of the Act states that “none of the funds made available in this Act may be used to establish or implement a rule allowing poultry products to be imported into the United States from the People's Republic of China”. China said that the matter had not been solved during consultations with the United States, and therefore renewed its request for a panel, which was first presented at the 20 July 2009 DSB meeting. The US expressed disappointment with China's decision to pursue its request for a panel. The US said that it does not agree with China's claims that the measures in question are discriminatory or protectionist. It said that nothing in the measures identified by China prevents the relevant U.S. authorities from working to reach an objective, science-based response to China's request for a declaration of equivalence with respect to poultry, and such authorities are continuing to do so. The US also noted certain technical deficiencies in the Chinese request. The EC, Guatemala, Korea and Turkey reserved their third-party rights. July 28 WTO: PRESS RELEASE: PRESS/TPRB/319 27 and 29 July 2009 TRADE POLICY REVIEW: ZAMBIA Diversification of the economy and structural reforms essential for continuing stability and growth From 2003 to mid 2008, Zambia’s economy moved from stagnation towards steady growth, greater prosperity and better access to foreign investment. Real GDP grew at an annual average rate of 5-6% led by the mining, construction and services sectors, according to a WTO Secretariat report on the trade policies and practices of Zambia. The report notes the problem of the Zambian economy’s increasing dependence on mining —copper now accounts for over 75% of total exports, up from 65% in 2002— and stresses the need for progress on structural reforms to diversify the economy and reduce dependence on natural resources.
Zambia’s relatively open trade policy has remained substantially unchanged during the review period, although the continuing large gap between the average applied MFN tariff rate (13%) and the bound rate (105%), and the absence of bindings for over 83% of tariff lines, tend to create a degree of unpredictability for traders, according to the report. The report, along with a policy statement by the Government of Zambia, will be the basis for the third Trade Policy Review (TPR) of Zambia by the Trade Policy Review Body of the WTO on 27 and 29 of July 2009. >>Read full news item here. July 21 PRESS RELEASE: PRESS/TPRB/316 10 and 12 June 2009 TRADE POLICY REVIEW: NEW ZEALAND Sustained growth depends on international competitiveness Since its previous Trade Policy review in 2003, New Zealand has remained among the more open economies in the world, with prudent macroeconomic policies together with liberalization and restructuring contributing to steady real GDP growth averaging 3.2% between 2003/04 and 2007/08, according to a WTO Secretariat report on the trade policies and practices of New Zealand. However, GDP growth is expected to slow down significantly in 2008/09 owing to a recession in the first three quarters of the current fiscal year. Although by and large New Zealand’s economic fundamentals remain sound, sustained growth depends on the Government addressing macroeconomic imbalances such as the current account deficit and heavy reliance on foreign borrowing, as well as on boosting productivity growth. The report notes New Zealand’s high concentration of exports in the agriculture sector and the marginal increase in Foreign Direct Investment. Already low tariffs have been further reduced during the period under review and the country has had limited recourse to non-tariff barriers except for those maintained for health and safety reasons. While maintaining its commitment to the strengthening and liberalization of the multilateral trading system, New Zealand pursues bilateral or plurilateral Preferential Trade Agreements to complement its wider trade strategy. The report, along with a policy statement by the Government of New Zealand, will be the basis for the fourth Trade Policy Review (TPR) of New Zealand by the Trade Policy Review Body of the WTO on 10 and 12 June 2009. July 20 WTO: 2009 NEWS ITEMS 9 July 2009 TARIFFS New website database offers comprehensive tariff information Comprehensive information on customs duties became available to WTO website users on 9 July 2009 through a new database, the WTO Tariff Download Facility. Users can now search for members’ customs duty rates, as actually charged as well as legally bound maximums, and in many cases imports, down to a high level of detail. > WTO Tariff Download Facility
> Brief explanation and user guide Users can obtain and compare the legally bound commitments on customs duty rates, which act as ceilings on the tariffs that member governments can set and are known as “bound rates”, with the rates that governments actually charge on imports, which can be lower, are known as “applied rates” and have a direct impact on trade. The tariffs in the database are for individual products, disaggregated to the most detailed level available according to a standardized definition. They provide more detail than the World Tariff Profiles, where the figures were for broader categories of products. July 18 PRESS RELEASE: PRESS/TPRB/317 24 and 26 June 2009 TRADE POLICY REVIEW: MOROCCO Further trade reforms would sustain economic growth The economic and trade reforms pursued by Morocco since its previous Trade Policy Review in 2003 have contributed to the positive overall performance of its economy, including its growing diversification, with an annual real GDP growth rate of 4.5% on average during the period 2002-2007, and 5.8% in 2008; nonetheless, the economy is beginning to feel the negative impact of the current economic crisis, according to a WTO Secretariat report on the trade policies and practices of Morocco. Morocco has taken steps to liberalize its economic sectors, in particular key services. It has reduced the level of its average tariff protection by 13.2 percentage points to 20.2%. However, Morocco still imposes some tariffs at rates higher than the bound levels, and maintains a VAT regime that does not respect the principle of national treatment. The report notes that a taxation reform, including the simplification of the tariff structure through the elimination of variable duties, and a reduction of the number and levels of rates, particularly in the agricultural sector, would help Morocco to fully honour its multilateral commitments and would further simplify its trade regime. Improved commitments under the GATS would enable Morocco to consolidate its reforms in areas such as tourism and telecommunications, where its commitments fall short of the liberalization efforts already achieved. The report, along with a policy statement by the Government of Morocco, will be the basis for the fourth Trade Policy Review (TPR) of Morocco by the Trade Policy Review Body of the WTO on 24 and 26 June 2009.
|
Tools 
