Abstract
This contribution examines the degree of policy space the WTO leaves its Members to support export credits for non-agricultural goods. In the light of existing case law, it illustrates that export credit support offered by export credit agencies that aims at complementing the private trade finance market would in principle be prohibited under the SCM Agreement. However, while some low-income countries can rely on a specific exception on the prohibition on export subsidies, all WTO Members can, on the basis of the Illustrative List of Export Subsidies, justify certain subsidized export credits that are in accordance with the interest rate provisions of the OECD Arrangement. But, as the case law and the OECD Arrangement currently stand, subsidized export credit guarantees and insurance as well as subsidized short-term export credits cannot rely on this safe haven. Hence, the article shows that export credit agencies, except for those of some low-income countries, cannot play a complementary role to the private market in offering such support. Moreover, this contribution demonstrates that export credit support in accordance with the safe haven might still be countervailable and actionable. Finally, it is argued that an exception which can be modified by a subgroup of WTO Members, like the safe haven, can no longer be accepted.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: 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.