Skip Navigation



Journal of International Economic Law Advance Access published online on April 24, 2007
Journal of International Economic Law, doi:10.1093/jiel/jgm009
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
10/2/363    most recent
jgm009v2
jgm009v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ochieng, C. M. O.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Oxford University Press 2007, all rights reserved

The EU–ACP Economic Partnership Agreements and the ‘Development Question’: Constraints and Opportunities Posed by Article XXIV and Special and Differential Treatment Provisions of the WTO

Cosmas Milton Obote Ochieng*

Correspondence: *Research Fellow, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington DC, USA and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Email: c.ochieng{at}cgiar.org.


  Abstract

This article argues that Article XXIV and special and differential treatment (SDT) provisions of the WTO present a number of constraints and opportunities to the design and scope of the proposed economic partnership agreements between the European Union (EU) and African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. It examines the negotiating positions of both sides to argue that were the EU's position to prevail, ACP and other developing countries would likely suffer an ‘erosion of the development principles’ embedded within the WTO. It is shown that the differences between the two groups over the desirability and/or applicability of negotiating free trade agreements between developed and developing countries under the ‘strict’ jurisdiction of Article XXIV, and of negotiating agreements on services and the ‘Singapore Issues’, amount to a contestation over the principles of reciprocity and SDT within the WTO, and of the scope of the WTO.

The author is indebted to Hanna Wossenyeleh for her research assistance.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.