Digital Commons Network^™

Harmonizing Preferential Rules Of Origin In The Wto System, John J. Barceló Iii

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Preferential arrangements (bilateral and multilateral free trade areas and GSP systems (preferences for developing countries)) are emerging everywhere in the world trading system and are causing concern because they discriminate against non-members and add complexity, distortions and inconsistency to the global system. Rules of origin (ROOs) linked to these arrangements are a significant part of the problem. More and more they have become the source in their own right of distortions in trade patterns, complexity, non-transparency and inconsistency. This essay argues that WTO members should authorize negotiations seeking to harmonize preferential ROOs (rules of origin linked to preferential arrangements) around …

The Status Of Wto Rules In U.S. Law, John J. Barceló Iii

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Under U.S. implementing legislation and recent court decisions the WTO agreements and rulings have neither direct nor even indirect effect within the U.S. legal system. Political-economic theory can explain this result and the paradox of Congressional support (even mandate) for the more legally binding WTO dispute settlement regime that emerged from the Uruguay Round appearing side-by-side with Congressional insistence on a firewall of separation between WTO law and the U.S. legal system. It can also explain the few exceptional cases - for example, the TRIPS and Government Procurement Agreements - in which the parties adopted a form of quasi-direct effect. …

Horizontal Agreements: Concept And Proof, George A. Hay

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

It is well established that, absent some very special circumstances, agreements on price or certain other terms of trade by otherwise competing entities (i.e., "horizontal agreements") are unlawful per se under the Sherman Act. In practical effect, once the fact of the horizontal agreement has been established, an adverse impact on competition is presumed, and therefore that the plaintiff is spared the burden of proving such an impact. The principal task for plaintiffs in such cases, therefore, is establishing the existence of an agreement.

In the ideal world (from plaintiffs' perspective), there would be "hard" evidence of a "formal" agreement. …