Comments
Should India and a handful of other countries be stopped from blocking consensus at the World Trade Organization (WTO) over issues such as fisheries subsides and investment facilitation by introducing the concept of ‘responsible consensus’ in decision-making?
Experts debating the matter at the ongoing WTO Public Forum 2024 in Geneva differed over the need, scope and fallouts of such a move but most agreed that ‘responsible consensus’ cannot over-ride the concept of ‘consensus’, which was the cornerstone of WTO decisions.
“Is it justifiable for one country or a small group of countries to block an agreement that is supported by most of the members,” asked Chris Horseman, host of Trade Bites, a podcast on trade policy by the Centre for Inclusive Trade Policy, UK.
Horseman, in a live recording of his podcast at the forum, named India as the country that was seen blocking consensus.
“Globalisation rules make it clear that nothing can be agreed unless there is consensus among members… If certain countries are getting into the habit of just saying ‘no’, then where does that leave the WTO as a decision- making organisation,” Horseman remarked, setting the tone for the debate on whether the concept of ‘responsible consensus’ will significantly advance decision-making at the WTO and increase its relevance.
Pushback against ‘abuse’
Hung Seng Tan, Ambassador to the WTO for Singapore, one of the eight proponent countries for ‘responsible consensus’ at the WTO, said the concept represented collective good faith. “The idea of responsible consensus is to stregthen the idea of consensus. It does not diminish the practice of consensus. If all WTO members exercise consensus responsibly we can selectively re-energise the WTO,” he said.
Tan added that a small number of members had “abused” the practice of consensus and, consequently, the WTO had lost much of its shine. The WTO was unable to address emerging issues, including e-commerce, and was at risk of losing its relevance, he said.
“The growing collective frustration is palpable after MC 13 (WTO’s 13th Ministerial Conference in January). Many members believe we let the conclusion of second phase of fisheries negotiations slip through our fingers… they realise that status quo is no longer tenable,” he said.
The Indian view
From India’s perspective, the content of the proposed fisheries subsidies agreement did little to foster sustainability of fish stocks as countries with large industrial fishing fleet negotiated provisions that would allow them to continue to deplete fish stocks, said Abhijit Das, international trade expert, on India’s refusal to support it.
Secondly, there was insufficient special and differential treatment provisions to protect developing country fishers.
The exact meaning of ‘responsible consensus’ is not known, he pointed out.
“Consensus in decision-making incentivises the participation of members. It fosters making compromises, which ensures the final agreement is acceptable to all and is mature for consideration. It builds trust among members and, most importantly, for our stakeholders in our domestic constituencies it signals acceptability and predictability of outcomes. If we depart from the principle of consensus, many of these benefits will get lost,” he said.
Justifying a ‘no’
Consensus has been the basis for all decisions at the WTO since the beginning, and it is clear that consensus and the right to exercise consensus can bring positive things, said Gabrielle Marceau, Professor, UNIGE. But the opposite could also happen, she said.
“This is why I think it is very healthy to just reconsider how states exercise their rights and possibly discuss how they can best exercise their rights. But I don’t see it at all as setting aside consensus,” she said.
Marceau highlighted the view that the dissenting country should have the obligation to justify why it was saying ‘no’.
Were the concept of ‘responsible consensus’ to become an accepted general principle, one should expect other elements of hard negotiating practice to be up for scrutiny, cautioned Andrew Lang, Professor, Edinburgh Law School.
‘And I would worry a little that it would make the agreement on future negotiating mandates more difficult,” he said.
(The reporter is in Geneva at the invitation of the WTO)
Comments
Comments
Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.
We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of TheHindu Businessline and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.