Abstract
This article examines the institution-related impediments to China’s compliance with WTO transparency requirements provided in GATT Article X. The problem of transparency in China’s national trade administration was not only the centre of focus in the negotiations before its accession to the WTO, but is one of remaining obstacles and sources of complaints after the accession. It argues that the strategy of imposing WTO-plus obligations on China would not be rational or more effective at promoting compliance in the sense that it requires weaker members to undertake more. For a possible solution of better compliance, an in-depth analysis of those impediments would be a crucial and necessary step. This provides an essential point to be considered for the discussion on the extent to which GATT Article X, as one of the most abstract and intrusive obligations, should be applied in the WTO case law.
Highlights
With regard to its oversight of national trade and trade-related regulations, World Trade Organisation (WTO) law requires governments to maintain a certain level of transparency
For a possible solution of better compliance, an in-depth analysis of those impediments would be a crucial and necessary step. This provides an essential point to be considered for the discussion on the extent to which General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Article X, as one of the most abstract and intrusive obligations, should be applied in the WTO case law
The idea of transparency as a norm for the trading system is recognised as being based on US administrative law,[18] and the language of Article X was borrowed from the 1946 US Administrative Procedure Act (APA).[19]
Summary
With regard to its oversight of national trade and trade-related regulations, World Trade Organisation (WTO) law requires governments to maintain a certain level of transparency. Article X of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) could be seen as the most representative rule to embody the principle of transparency at national level It provides that trade-related laws, regulations, judicial decisions and administrative rulings shall be published promptly, and no measure shall be enforced before such measure has been officially published.[1] The essential implication of this requirement is that Members and other. Its importance is increasingly recognised as a rule of law/good governance norm for the trading system after the expansion of WTO jurisdiction from border measures to many areas that were traditionally under the domestic regulatory domain This requirement may seem to have been less significant during the GATT period (1947-1995) since it only regulated border measures such as tariffs and quotas that are for the most part relatively transparent already.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
