James5

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or to email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

This new project by the BBC, called The Box, sounds really interesting. They are tracking an average shipping container using a GPS device. The container will be actually used for really shipping and criss-cross the globe while being tracked on the BBC website. If it comes to Melbourne hopefully I’ll get a photo.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Over the winter I visited Geneva for two weeks studying Institutions in International Law, this post is part of a series on what I learnt and thought about the institutions we visited. See them all here.

While in Geneva, we had the pleasure of visiting the Advisory Centre for WTO Law and having a presentation on the work that they do. The ACWL is a kind of ‘legal aid’ for developing countries needing assistance with WTO law. Their membership includes 25% of WTO members, and is mostly developing countries. They have an important role to play in levelling out the power imbalances inherent in the WTO system, as well as providing more general training on WTO law. So far they have been used in about 20% of disputes.

Importantly the Centre only provides legal advice, so is unable to assist with general policy advice or advice on negotiating positions at the WTO. Their limited mandate ensures they can do excellent work with a very small staff, I was amazed at how much work they do given how small their staff is.

Theoretically the WTO Dispute Settlement System is a very empowering system for poorer or less powerful nations. By giving defined rights to countries, regardless of their size or power, and providing a forum within the rights can be enforced, the WTO lessens the ‘bullying’ that once accompanied trade disputes. Rich nations can’t do what they like without fear of real repercussions.

However, I wonder if the reality of the system is that the WTO dispute settlement is most useful to middle powers, nations that aren’t rich and powerful but aren’t extremely reliant on other powers. While it isn’t necessarily helpful for major powers, depending on what deal was struck during negotiations, because of their prior ability to get their way anyway. And recourse to legal dispute resolution may be out of reach for many poor nations due to cost in many instances. For middle powers, though, the Dispute Settlement System is an empowering way to resolve disputes with major powers and other nations, one that they can afford to use.

I haven’t read any statistics or analysis on this, so I’d be interested to hear what anyone else thinks. Of course thanks to the work of the ACWL and other institutions dispute settlement means more for poorer nations as they are able to realise their rights against powerful nations.

Popularity: 11% [?]

Gresser writes over at Yale Global of the broadening consensus that is emerging out of Doha, suggesting they were quite the failure we all think they were.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Over the winter I visited Geneva for two weeks studying Institutions in International Law, this post is part of a series on what I learnt and thought about the institutions we visited. See them all here.

The job of the Secretariat of an international institution is to provide administrative support to the institution. This means it provides information, studies and research to allow the institution to carry on its functions, organises the conferences and meetings of the Members, consults with Members, helps to resolve disputes, and sometimes provides assistance for Members who need it.

Some Secretariats are well-known and relatively interventionist, the WTO and UN Secretariats come to mind as high-profile bodies who drive a great deal of policy making and action within their institutions. For example, the UN Secretary-General, under Kofi Annan, produced the Peoples’ Report in 2000 which ultimately led to the Millennium Declaration.

There’s debate over the autonomy given to some Secretariats, whether they should be allowed to actively pursue their own agenda or should be restrained by the Members’ wishes. This obviously raises issues of accountability and good governance if an unelected Secretariat is shaping and pushing the agenda of an institution.

Perhaps one of the crucial most roles for the Secretariat, however, is to act as the ‘institutional memory’ of an international institution. Whereas, Member representatives may come and go, the Secretariat’s staff is relatively stable. It is the Secretariat who know the procedure and how things work. They know intimately the history of an organisation, what is realistic and what is unachievable. This role is critical to the proper functioning of any institution.

What the Secretariat does ultimately demonstrate, is that these institutions are more then just the some of their Members. That they aren’t just forums for discussion and negotiation of certain issues. Rather they are actors in their own right, and who is in charge can make a real difference to the direction and results of the work of the institution.

Popularity: 7% [?]

Rodrik’s article in the Guardian makes some good points about the recent failure over Doha. Let’s hope that when things get back on track we can get a real development agenda going and the WTO can start living up to its preamble more.

Popularity: 3% [?]