INTRODUCTION
As discussed in Chapter 1, discrimination in matters relating to trade breeds resentment and poisons the economic and political relations between countries. Moreover, discrimination makes scant economic sense as, generally speaking, it distorts the market in favour of goods and services that are more expensive and/or of lower quality. Non-discrimination is, therefore, a key concept in WTO law and policy. The importance of eliminating discrimination is highlighted in the Preamble to the WTO Agreement, where the ‘elimination of discriminatory treatment in international trade relations’ is identified as one of the two main means by which the objectives of the WTO may be attained.
As stated in Chapter 1, there are two main non-discrimination obligations under WTO law: the most-favoured-nation (MFN) treatment obligation and the national treatment obligation. In simple terms, an MFN treatment obligation relates to whether a country favours some countries over others. An MFN treatment obligation prohibits a country from discriminating between and among other countries. A national treatment obligation relates to whether a country favours itself over other countries. A national treatment obligation prohibits a country from discriminating against other countries. The national treatment obligation under WTO law will be discussed in the next chapter; the MFN treatment obligation under WTO law is the topic of this chapter. This MFN treatment obligation applies to trade in goods as well as trade in services. The key provision dealing with the MFN treatment obligation for measures affecting trade in goods is Article I:1 of the GATT 1994. The key provision dealing with the MFN treatment obligation for measures affecting trade in services is Article II:1 of the GATS. This chapter discusses these MFN treatment obligations in turn.
With regard to the MFN treatment obligation under Article I:1 of the GATT 1994, the questions that may arise include the following:
(1) Can Richland, a WTO Member, impose a 10 per cent ad valorem customs duty on beer from Newland, also a WTO Member, while imposing a 5 per cent ad valorem customs duty on beer from Oldland, another WTO Member?
(2) Can Richland impose a 10 per cent domestic sales tax on soft drinks from Newland while imposing a 5 per cent domestic sales tax on mineral water from Oldland?
(3) Can Richland impose on soft drinks a labelling requirement to indicate the sugar content while not imposing such a requirement on fruit juice?
Review the options below to login to check your access.
Log in with your Cambridge Aspire website account to check access.
There are no purchase options available for this title.
If you believe you should have access to this content, please contact your institutional librarian or consult our FAQ page for further information about accessing our content.