Despite the absolute need to have a successful conclusion of the ongoing Doha Round, with "successful" being defined as the attainment of the "developmental" aspects of the negotiations, nevertheless the volume of global trade, interestingly enough, has been increasing the last few years. Of course, the global economic crisis may finally put the brakes on this and thus the need for greater vigilance by those who correctly believe that protectionism should be held at bay.

In the meantime, as a sign that global trade is still, just still, on the right side of healthy, there is a slew of disputes that have been recently resolved. The number of trade cases is actually a good indicator that the volume of trade is doing well. Otherwise, the level of disputes would certainly be on the way down. This, also, confirms the efficiency and respect that the WTO’s dispute system commands.

In DS294, United States — Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins, the EC complained that the US failed to comply with the panel rulings in the original dispute. The US, of course, is the most known user of "zeroing," which is essentially the practice of changing price comparisons that do not indicate dumping and considering them instead as "zero" in calculating the overall average dumping margin, thus justifying the need to impose anti-dumping measures on imported products almost every single time. The WTO panel in this case found that the US did indeed fail to comply with the original ruling, violating as it did Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI:2 of GATT 1994.

In DS362, China — Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, the US complained that China violated the TRIPS Agreement with its lack of criminal laws on counterfeiting and piracy. Furthermore, it alleged that authors of published works do not seem to enjoy the "minimum standards of protection" provided under the Berne Convention. The panel concluded that China’s copyright laws are indeed inconsistent with Article 5.1 of the Berne Convention, as incorporated by Article 9.1 and 41.1 of TRIPS.

The WTO’s Appellate Body — in DS339, DS340, and DS342 — presided over by our very own Lilia Bautista, issued a report in "China — Measures Affecting Imports of Automobile Parts." This is a case that consolidated the complaints and consequent panel findings initiated by the EC, US, and Canada. The AB recommended that China bring its measures consistent with WTO rules, mostly upholding the panel findings that the Chinese measures are inconsistent with GATT 1994.

Finally, there is still the ongoing dispute docketed as DS371 and formally designated as Thailand — Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the Philippines. The dispute, as a whole, involves the provisions of Articles 1 and 4 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding, Article XXII:1 of GATT 1994, and Article 19 of the Customs Valuation Agreement.

As we mentioned last year, some trade commentators are already referring to this case as Thai Cigarettes II (a landmark trade case during the GATT days relating to health measures), as well as containing elements of the Korea — Beef case. The primary question here is how the Thai dual licensing requirement leads to discriminatory treatment against Philippine cigarette exports and thus a probable violation of Article III.4 of the GATT, which states that "the products of the territory of any contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin x x x."

Information on this case is hard to come by, which could be attributed to the fact that disputes in the consultation stage are "confidential, and without prejudice to the rights of any Member in any further proceedings."

The consultation stage is a necessary procedure under the WTO dispute system, with members encouraged to obtain satisfactory adjustment of the matters subject of the dispute. Nevertheless, if the consultations fail to settle a dispute within 60 days after the date of receipt of the request for consultations, then the complaining party may request the establishment of a panel. The complaining party may request a panel during the 60-day period if the consulting parties jointly consider that consultations have failed to settle the dispute. So far as I can tell, no panel has yet been formed for this case, which was initiated last Feb. 7, 2008.

This is on top of the two complaints we filed in 2002 against Australia (DS270 and DS271) due to its alleged discriminatory treatment of our fruit and vegetable exports. Despite the cases being filed years ago, no resolution of the cases has yet been had, with the latter case not yet even having a panel formed.

It would be interesting to see how our government proceeds with these assertions of Philippine rights in the global trading arena in this year of economic uncertainty for Filipinos.