 |
Eyes on TradePublic Citizen's Global Trade Watch blog on globalization and trade |
What's New -
|
WTO and Democracy: Dispute Settlement System
|
One of the most dramatic changes made to the global trade system by the Uruguay Round negotiations of the GATT was the establishment of a new free-standing global commerce agency, the WTO, with a powerful, binding dispute resolution system replete with tribunals whose rulings are automatically binding unless there is unanimous consensus by all WTO Members to reject the new interpretation. The new WTO enforcement system replaced the consensus-based GATT contract and its dispute resolution system, which was based on diplomatic negotiation and required consensus of the GATT countries to adopt a ruling by a GATT dispute resolution. In contrast, the Uruguay Round contained hundreds of pages of new regulations going beyond tariffs and quotas and instead affecting domestic standards on matters as diverse as food and product safety to environmental rules on invasive species and toxins. The Uruguay Round also brought new economic sectors such as services, investment and government procurement under international commercial disciplines. The expanded coverage of the international commercial rules newly implicated issue areas loaded with subjective, value-based decisions about the level of health, safety or environmental protection a society desires or relative social priorities, for instance in designing the balance between access to medicine for poor consumers and the degree of protection of intellectual property rights. It sought to apply one-size-fits-all rules on these issues to the whole world. Uruguay Round rules extended the realm of commercial rules beyond requiring that domestic and foreign goods be treated under the same standard (non-discrimination) to actually seeking to set a global standard to which all countries must adapt; a much more complicated, subjective decision. |
Copyright © 2011 Public Citizen. All rights reserved. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation.
Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.
Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation
| Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen. Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site. You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible. |
To become a member of Public Citizen, click here. |