Latest news with #GeneralAgreementonTariffsandTrade
United News of India
2 hours ago
- Business
- United News of India
Investment strategist Christopher Wood urges collective response to tackle tariffs
New Delhi, Aug 9 (UNI) Christopher Wood, Global Head of Equity Research at Jefferies, has urged for a collective response against the latest tariffs imposed by the United States in the latest edition of his 'GREED & Fear' report. Wood has been awarded the tag of 'best strategist' in Asia multiple times by prestigious magazines. Wood has been publishing the renowned weekly investment 'GREED & Fear' report since July 1996. In the latest edition, the report urged countries to act collectively, stating that " the rest of the world should act collectively rather than each country seeking to do its deal with the US.' Earlier, the renowned investment strategist Wood termed the 50 per cent tariff imposition of Trump on India and Brazil as 'Xenophobic autarky.' Wood also highlighted that the US showed its incompetence regarding following international trade practices. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) is related to governing international trade practices by providing a framework for tariff reduction and other trade barriers. UNI SAS PRS
Hindustan Times
01-08-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Tariffs as a tool to extort, and slight India's sovereignty
US President Donald Trump, in an executive order dated July 31, announced imposing an additional 25% tariff on all Indian imports, on grounds of national emergency and lack of reciprocity. Trump has also said that he would impose an undetermined 'penalty' on India for buying oil and weapons from Russia. This latest measure is further evidence of the complete derision with which the Trump administration deals with its partners and with international law. Insulting a partner's economy by calling it 'dead', as Trump has done with India, undermines the cardinal principles of mutual respect and sovereign equality that are fundamental to international relations. The American penalty threat to India also violates general international laws of non-intervention in a country's sovereign affairs, as laid down by the ICJ. (HT Photo) It is worth noting that India and the US have been negotiating a bilateral trade agreement since March 2025. Despite the ongoing negotiations, the Trump administration announced reciprocal tariffs on India in April, which were then put on hold, subject to the sides quickly agreeing to an interim trade deal. The two sides have not reached an agreement on an interim trade deal because, reportedly, India is unwilling to open its agricultural and dairy markets. This stance is understandable, as it aims to protect India's politically-sensitive farming sector. The US announcement of a 25% tariff is a blatant attempt to pressure India into agreeing to a trade deal. As per the executive order, this additional tariff will remain until the two sides agree to a trade deal. The US is trying to negotiate while holding a gun to India's head. These tariffs would hit Indian exports to the US, especially of labour-intensive sectors such as textiles. Additionally, the US imposing an additional 25% tariff on all Indian goods is a blatant violation of international law. It not only breaches the most favoured nation principle laid down in Article I of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) but also violates the US's bound tariff commitments — a promise not to impose tariffs that exceed the rates mutually agreed upon — under Article II of GATT. The current situation extends beyond merely imposing high tariff rates. Trump's assertion that India would incur a penalty for purchasing oil and weapons from Russia constitutes a frontal assault on India's sovereignty. It's unclear whether this penalty refers to additional tariffs or something different. Regardless, the threat of such a penalty violates several fundamental canons of international law. Let us examine this under the law of the World Trade Organization (WTO), of which both India and the US are founding members. Under the WTO law, a member country is not allowed to adopt unilateral trade measures against another member country unless supported by the WTO agreement. A key provision in this regard is that a WTO member country can limit or even forbid trade with another member country on grounds of national security. This principle is codified in Article XXI of GATT, which, inter alia, allows a country to take any actions it deems necessary for protecting its essential security interests during times of war or other emergencies in international relations. This includes measures such as imposing a trade embargo. The WTO panels have interpreted this principle narrowly. The Russian invasion of Ukraine represents an emergency in international relations. This situation could potentially empower the US to sever its trade ties with Russia. However, the US cannot legally justify restricting trade with countries that engage in commerce with Russia. Imposing additional tariffs on India would be too disconnected from the security threats posed by Russia's aggression in Ukraine to the US, making such an action implausible. The American penalty threat to India also violates the general international law of non-intervention in a country's sovereign affairs, as laid down by the International Court of Justice in the US v Nicaragua case. From whom to buy oil and weapons is part of India's reserved domain, that is, part of India's sovereign economic and foreign policy. While the US may disapprove of India's policy choices and may seek to influence them through legal measures, it cannot impose unlawful actions — such as tariffs that are WTO-inconsistent — to coerce India into signing a trade deal or to punish it for lawfully trading with Russia. This, as international lawyer Marko Milanovic describes it, can be characterised as coercion-as-extortion, which violates customary international law. However, viewing the latest actions of Trump merely from the vantage point of international trade would mean missing the woods for the trees. The US, under Trump, appears determined to wage a war with international law and the liberal international order it assiduously built after World War II. The US has traditionally maintained a policy of exceptionalism regarding international law, viewing itself as 'distinct' and thus an 'exception' to the rules that apply to other countries. However, the Trump administration has escalated this attitude to a whole new level. American professor Mark Pollack has rightly described Trump as a 'hostile change agent' in international law who adopts unilateral measures that undermine the international rule of law and topple the law-based order. This is different from many past American presidents who might be characterised as 'traditional change agents' trying to persuade others to accept change based on reinterpretation of existing norms or even adoption of new ones. The real worry is that the current hostility to international law might get so entrenched that it would be difficult to reverse it even after Trump leaves office. Keeping this larger picture in mind, India should stand up against American bullying. While the US is undoubtedly a significant partner for India, New Delhi should send a clear message that it cannot be taken for granted. One effective way to convey this message would be to legally challenge the US's illegal tariffs at the WTO's dispute settlement body. A just and fair rule-based international order is the best antidote to Trumpian unilateralism. India, an essential member of the comity of nations, should take a lead in industriously defending the international rule of law. Prabhash Ranjan is professor and vice-dean (research), Jindal Global Law School. The views expressed are personal.
Economic Times
28-07-2025
- Business
- Economic Times
Tariff trouble: Multilateralism in the time of unilateral trade actions
iStock While many rue the powerlessness of the WTO, a germane question to ask is how come the multilateral trading system came to be seen as a villain or, worse still, a side actor in the saga of international trade. As nations frantically pursue trade deals with the US, many governments and trade experts have raised concerns regarding unilateral tariffs potentially violating the Articles of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which serve as the foundation for the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The US government holds the view that the WTO regime has been unfair to their economy, and to redress the imbalance caused by trade helmed by WTO rules, the US needs tariff protection and fair market access to other countries. While many rue the powerlessness of the WTO, a germane question to ask is how come the multilateral trading system came to be seen as a villain or, worse still, a side actor in the saga of international trade. Souring on rules based free trade Any international body created by countries needs to reconcile the conflicting urges towards national sovereignty versus international welfare and fair play. In fact, before the founding of the WTO in 1995, there were fierce debates, especially in developing countries, about the potential surrender of economic sovereignty. A notable Opposition leader in India and ex-Prime Minister had stated at that time, 'It is the West's attempt to transgress on our sovereignty.' Prior to 1995 and later, the developed countries, including the US, led the charge in convincing developing countries that such surrender would lead to more trade and economic betterment. In the past decade, however, the US and some developing countries have openly expressed doubt about the benefits and efficacy of the WTO. The latest actions of the US government in imposing tariffs, based on its perception of national interest and negotiating strength, were waiting to happen. The current US administration only acted upon the thoughts that have been circulating for more than a decade. The fact that the dispute settlement understanding under the rules of the WTO is ineffective due to a defunct appellate body shows it up as an ineffectual organisation. Its claims to set and enforce a rules-based order for the world trade ring hollow. The consensus-based approach wherein even one dissenting member can defeat a proposal is another hurdle in effective multilateral action. A bystander in world tradeIf one looks at the history of international organisations, the WTO's failures have parallels in the League of Nations, which was formed after the First World War. While the League of Nations was primarily a political body, less concerned with trade, its demise does hold lessons for all international bodies. Leaving aside the onerous terms of peace imposed on Germany after the First World War, the League collapsed as it depended upon the consensus of all members and did not have an enforcement mechanism for its decisions. While it is early to foretell a similar collapse of the WTO, there is no doubt that recent events have reduced it to a bystander in world trade. The Future: A new multilateral trade regime Even as countries negotiate with the US for 'tariff deals,' they should not lose sight of the need of reviving and strengthening a rules-based world trade order. In the absence of a credible rules-based world trade regime, disruptions like the current one can happen with unpredictable frequency. A breakdown in international trade law would create chaos and a decline in trade as well as global prosperity. It remains to be seen which countries in the world will take the initiative to build a new WTO and how far they would succeed in convincing the others. Over the years, the jurisprudence and institutional knowledge generated by the WTO, together with bodies like the World Customs Organisation, have served international trade well. They cannot be allowed to go in vain. Examples are common standards on classification, valuation, origin of goods, agreement on technical barriers to trade, and agreements on subsidies and countervailing measures, to name a few. Even though they are not perfect tools, they have considerably reduced arbitrariness in trade governance across the world. The three pet peeves of some governments against the WTO seem to be a lack of a mechanism to set right trade imbalances, an inordinately long dispute resolution process, and dysfunction in its appellate body. Add to that the need for consensus in decision-making, which makes decisions on contentious issues a near impossibility. Yet another gap is the WTO's irrelevance in the global monetary system, components of which do impact global trade. Perhaps a reimagined multilateral trade organisation, which is much stronger and more agile and alive to its members' concerns than the WTO, is needed. The unilateral trade actions, reactions by some governments, and recent disruptions clearly underscore such a need. The writer is an independent trade expert.
Time of India
28-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Tariff trouble: Multilateralism in the time of unilateral trade actions
As nations frantically pursue trade deals with the US, many governments and trade experts have raised concerns regarding unilateral tariffs potentially violating the Articles of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which serve as the foundation for the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The US government holds the view that the WTO regime has been unfair to their economy, and to redress the imbalance caused by trade helmed by WTO rules, the US needs tariff protection and fair market access to other countries. While many rue the powerlessness of the WTO, a germane question to ask is how come the multilateral trading system came to be seen as a villain or, worse still, a side actor in the saga of international trade. Souring on rules based free trade Any international body created by countries needs to reconcile the conflicting urges towards national sovereignty versus international welfare and fair play. In fact, before the founding of the WTO in 1995, there were fierce debates, especially in developing countries, about the potential surrender of economic sovereignty. A notable Opposition leader in India and ex-Prime Minister had stated at that time, 'It is the West's attempt to transgress on our sovereignty.' Prior to 1995 and later, the developed countries, including the US, led the charge in convincing developing countries that such surrender would lead to more trade and economic betterment. In the past decade, however, the US and some developing countries have openly expressed doubt about the benefits and efficacy of the WTO. The latest actions of the US government in imposing tariffs, based on its perception of national interest and negotiating strength, were waiting to happen. The current US administration only acted upon the thoughts that have been circulating for more than a decade. The fact that the dispute settlement understanding under the rules of the WTO is ineffective due to a defunct appellate body shows it up as an ineffectual organisation. Its claims to set and enforce a rules-based order for the world trade ring hollow. The consensus-based approach wherein even one dissenting member can defeat a proposal is another hurdle in effective multilateral action. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Degree healthcare MBA Artificial Intelligence Others MCA Product Management Project Management Public Policy Design Thinking Technology Leadership Healthcare Finance CXO Data Science Data Analytics PGDM Data Science Operations Management others Digital Marketing Management Skills you'll gain: Data-Driven Decision-Making Strategic Leadership and Transformation Global Business Acumen Comprehensive Business Expertise Duration: 2 Years University of Western Australia UWA Global MBA Starts on Jun 28, 2024 Get Details A bystander in world trade If one looks at the history of international organisations, the WTO's failures have parallels in the League of Nations, which was formed after the First World War. While the League of Nations was primarily a political body, less concerned with trade, its demise does hold lessons for all international bodies. Leaving aside the onerous terms of peace imposed on Germany after the First World War, the League collapsed as it depended upon the consensus of all members and did not have an enforcement mechanism for its decisions. While it is early to foretell a similar collapse of the WTO, there is no doubt that recent events have reduced it to a bystander in world trade. The Future: A new multilateral trade regime Even as countries negotiate with the US for 'tariff deals,' they should not lose sight of the need of reviving and strengthening a rules-based world trade order. In the absence of a credible rules-based world trade regime, disruptions like the current one can happen with unpredictable frequency. A breakdown in international trade law would create chaos and a decline in trade as well as global prosperity. It remains to be seen which countries in the world will take the initiative to build a new WTO and how far they would succeed in convincing the others. Over the years, the jurisprudence and institutional knowledge generated by the WTO, together with bodies like the World Customs Organisation, have served international trade well. They cannot be allowed to go in vain. Live Events Examples are common standards on classification, valuation, origin of goods, agreement on technical barriers to trade, and agreements on subsidies and countervailing measures, to name a few. Even though they are not perfect tools, they have considerably reduced arbitrariness in trade governance across the world. The three pet peeves of some governments against the WTO seem to be a lack of a mechanism to set right trade imbalances, an inordinately long dispute resolution process, and dysfunction in its appellate body. Add to that the need for consensus in decision-making, which makes decisions on contentious issues a near impossibility. Yet another gap is the WTO's irrelevance in the global monetary system, components of which do impact global trade. Perhaps a reimagined multilateral trade organisation, which is much stronger and more agile and alive to its members' concerns than the WTO, is needed. The unilateral trade actions , reactions by some governments, and recent disruptions clearly underscore such a need. The writer is an independent trade expert.
23-07-2025
- Business
Affordable Despite High Tariffs? Private Rice Imports Spike in Japan
In 1995, Japan made the decision to open up its rice market. Up to that point, there had been very few imports of rice into the country, but under the Uruguay Round Agreement, part of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Japan agreed to import a 'minimum access' quota (currently 770,000 tons of unpolished rice each year) tariff-free. Minimum access rice is imported and sold centrally by the government in order to minimize its impact on distribution of domestically produced rice. Out of the current 770,000 tons of imports, a maximum of 100,000 tons is allocated for human consumption, which equates to approximately 1.5% of the recent annual demand for staple rice (7 million tons). When private companies import rice, they are subject to a high tariff of ¥341 per kilogram. In recent years, these private imports have generally stayed in the range of 600 to 800 tons per year. The graph below shows rice import volumes, with yellow representing minimum access rice and red private imports, which, as can be seen, were such a small amount up to 2024 that they were practically invisible. A graph of just the private imports shows a sharp increase since the start of 2025. The 1,280 tons in March exceeded the total of 1,015 tons for the whole of 2024, and this rose to 6,838 tons in April, and then 10,607 tons in May. The soaring price of domestically produced rice makes it seem that foreign rice is cheaper, even when tariffs and other import costs are taken into account. In the past, the majority of foreign rice was imported from Thailand, Vietnam, India, and other Asian countries. However, since the beginning of 2025, the ratio of rice being imported from the United States has been increasing, surpassing 70% in May. In June, the major retailer Aeon began selling 100% US-grown rice in its stores, mainly in urban areas, while restaurant chains and other establishments are moving forward with using foreign-grown rice, as well as blends of domestic rice with US and other foreign-grown rice. Data Sources (Translated from Japanese. Banner photo: Karoyaka, 100% Californian-grown Calrose rice from the United States, being sold at Aeon on May 13, 2025. © Jiji.)
