An analysis of selected World Trade Organisation agreements to determine whether they discriminate unfairly against developing economices
- Authors: Grimett, Leticia Anthea
- Date: 2013-07-29
- Subjects: World Trade Organization Foreign trade regulation General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) Free trade -- Developing countries Foreign trade regulation -- Developing countries Competition, Unfair -- Developing countries
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Doctoral , PhD
- Identifier: vital:3718 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1008368
- Description: The focus of this thesis is the question whether or not the WTO discriminates unfairly against developing economies. In the absence of a test of guidelines for detennining unfairness or fairness of WTO provisions or Agreements has been drawn up using welfare economic and constitutional law principles as a foundation. Unfairness is therefore determined by asking whether the provisions of each Agreement are rational, proportional, efficient and whether they prevent the abuse of power amongst states. In addition, the economic effects of the provisions of the selected Agreements have been analysed to determine whether the relevant provisions are welfare enhancing and conclusive to promoting growth and development within developing economies. The Agreements chosed for analysis are the Agreements on Trade-related Investment Measures (TRIMS), Trade-related Intellectual Property (TRIPS), Agriculture and Services (GATS). The dispute settlement and negotiating process, labour standards and the impact of decreasing most-favoured nation rates on developing economy competitiveness is also discussed. Application of the test has shown that the WTO provisions do not reflect the interests of all members. Even though most member states are developing economies, the3 Agreements constantly cater foe developed country concerns and interests. Where provision is made for developing country interests, it is the LDC's who are favoured, with nonnal developing economies being bound by the same provisions as the developed economies. A fonnal, as opposed to a substantive, defmition has been adopted by the WTO, with a result that the process of equality is placed above the outcomes. While concessions have been made to development, members have not gone for enough. A main reason for the imbalance can be attributed to the negotiating process, which is based upon concessionary bargaining and trade-off. Those states with greater economic power are therefore at an advantage as they have the leverage needed to influence the outcomes of negotiations and hence the provisions of the various Agreements. Even with the LDC's, the WTO has been found to discriminate unfairly against developing economies because it does not adequately address developing country concerns. , KMBT_363 , Adobe Acrobat 9.54 Paper Capture Plug-in
- Full Text:
- Authors: Grimett, Leticia Anthea
- Date: 2013-07-29
- Subjects: World Trade Organization Foreign trade regulation General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) Free trade -- Developing countries Foreign trade regulation -- Developing countries Competition, Unfair -- Developing countries
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Doctoral , PhD
- Identifier: vital:3718 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1008368
- Description: The focus of this thesis is the question whether or not the WTO discriminates unfairly against developing economies. In the absence of a test of guidelines for detennining unfairness or fairness of WTO provisions or Agreements has been drawn up using welfare economic and constitutional law principles as a foundation. Unfairness is therefore determined by asking whether the provisions of each Agreement are rational, proportional, efficient and whether they prevent the abuse of power amongst states. In addition, the economic effects of the provisions of the selected Agreements have been analysed to determine whether the relevant provisions are welfare enhancing and conclusive to promoting growth and development within developing economies. The Agreements chosed for analysis are the Agreements on Trade-related Investment Measures (TRIMS), Trade-related Intellectual Property (TRIPS), Agriculture and Services (GATS). The dispute settlement and negotiating process, labour standards and the impact of decreasing most-favoured nation rates on developing economy competitiveness is also discussed. Application of the test has shown that the WTO provisions do not reflect the interests of all members. Even though most member states are developing economies, the3 Agreements constantly cater foe developed country concerns and interests. Where provision is made for developing country interests, it is the LDC's who are favoured, with nonnal developing economies being bound by the same provisions as the developed economies. A fonnal, as opposed to a substantive, defmition has been adopted by the WTO, with a result that the process of equality is placed above the outcomes. While concessions have been made to development, members have not gone for enough. A main reason for the imbalance can be attributed to the negotiating process, which is based upon concessionary bargaining and trade-off. Those states with greater economic power are therefore at an advantage as they have the leverage needed to influence the outcomes of negotiations and hence the provisions of the various Agreements. Even with the LDC's, the WTO has been found to discriminate unfairly against developing economies because it does not adequately address developing country concerns. , KMBT_363 , Adobe Acrobat 9.54 Paper Capture Plug-in
- Full Text:
The fundamental right to just administrative action: judicial review of administrative action in the democratic South Africa
- Authors: Plasket, Clive
- Date: 2003
- Subjects: Judicial review of administrative acts -- South Africa Administrative acts -- South Africa Administrative law -- South Africa Public administration -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Doctoral , PhD
- Identifier: vital:3693 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1003208
- Description: For most of its existence South African administrative law has been shaped by the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty – the heart of the constitutional order from 1910 to 1994 – and a racist political system that favoured the white minority at the expense of the black majority. In these circumstances, the rules of administrative law were of limited use in protecting the individual from exercises of administrative power that infringed fundamental human rights, often on a grand scale. On 27 April 1994, however, a new political and constitutional order came into existence that swept away the very foundations of the old order: parliamentary sovereignty was replaced by constitutional supremacy and the racial exclusivity of the old order was replaced by a commitment to equality, freedom and dignity in a democratic state. A justiciable Bill of Rights was at centre stage in this new order. That Bill of Rights includes a fundamental right to just administrative action. It is both the new constitutional order and this rather unusual fundamental right that have changed the nature of South African administrative law. This thesis examines the effect of the fundamental right to just administrative action on the law and practice of the judicial review of administrative action. It does so principally by examining the legal position before and after 27 April 1994 with particular reference to: what is meant by administrative action; the exercise of administrative power by private bodies regulated by the rules of administrative law, on the one hand, and exercises of private power regulated by rules of private law, on the other; the rules of standing, the notion of justiciability and the constitutionality of rules that seek to limit the right of the individual to approach a court to review administrative action; the meaning and scope of the right to lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair administrative action, in terms of the common law, the Constitution and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000; the meaning, scope and efficacy of the rights to reasons for administrative actions and of access to information; the procedure of judicial review and remedies that may be granted for the infringement of a person’s right to just administrative action; and conclusions and recommendations with regard to progress made in the construction of South Africa’s new, democratically based, administrative law.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2003
- Authors: Plasket, Clive
- Date: 2003
- Subjects: Judicial review of administrative acts -- South Africa Administrative acts -- South Africa Administrative law -- South Africa Public administration -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Doctoral , PhD
- Identifier: vital:3693 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1003208
- Description: For most of its existence South African administrative law has been shaped by the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty – the heart of the constitutional order from 1910 to 1994 – and a racist political system that favoured the white minority at the expense of the black majority. In these circumstances, the rules of administrative law were of limited use in protecting the individual from exercises of administrative power that infringed fundamental human rights, often on a grand scale. On 27 April 1994, however, a new political and constitutional order came into existence that swept away the very foundations of the old order: parliamentary sovereignty was replaced by constitutional supremacy and the racial exclusivity of the old order was replaced by a commitment to equality, freedom and dignity in a democratic state. A justiciable Bill of Rights was at centre stage in this new order. That Bill of Rights includes a fundamental right to just administrative action. It is both the new constitutional order and this rather unusual fundamental right that have changed the nature of South African administrative law. This thesis examines the effect of the fundamental right to just administrative action on the law and practice of the judicial review of administrative action. It does so principally by examining the legal position before and after 27 April 1994 with particular reference to: what is meant by administrative action; the exercise of administrative power by private bodies regulated by the rules of administrative law, on the one hand, and exercises of private power regulated by rules of private law, on the other; the rules of standing, the notion of justiciability and the constitutionality of rules that seek to limit the right of the individual to approach a court to review administrative action; the meaning and scope of the right to lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair administrative action, in terms of the common law, the Constitution and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000; the meaning, scope and efficacy of the rights to reasons for administrative actions and of access to information; the procedure of judicial review and remedies that may be granted for the infringement of a person’s right to just administrative action; and conclusions and recommendations with regard to progress made in the construction of South Africa’s new, democratically based, administrative law.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2003
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »