Clipping – Negociações Internacionais
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
18.03.2015 CLIPPING INTERNACIONAL NEGINT Brasília, 18 de março de 2015 Índice I. OMC ______________________________ 3 Ambassador: WTO Win For Australian Plain Packaging Could Lead to Alcohol Labeling _______________________________________________________ 3 Biased Import Policy of some countries towards Indian Exporters __________ 6 The WTO Work Programme on Electronic Commerce ____________________ 7 WTO's GPA: US applauds Pakistan for attaining observer status ___________ 8 Algeria May Submit WTO Accession File in December, Says Benyounes _____ 9 US wants WTO to stamp out evasion of antidumping duties______________ 10 II. NEGOCIAÇÕES REGIONAIS E BILATERAIS 12 White House Reaches Out To Obama Backers To Boost TPA, TPP Support ___ 12 Backing Levin, Pelosi Says Discussion Of TPP Details Must Precede TPA Decision ______________________________________________________ 13 More than trade, TTIP leads to confident Atlanticism ___________________ 15 Trans-Pacific Partnership: Trade deal could force Australian Government to spend millions to subsidise medicines, expert warns ___________________ 18 Analizan el impacto global en las ciudades del Mercosur ________________ 21 III. OUTROS _________________________ 23 Korea Accuses U.S. Of Failing To Provide 'Patent Linkage' For Biologics ____ 23 RI yet to take full advantage of international trade agreements __________ 25 The big picture behind Brazil's protests ______________________________ 26 1 18.03.2015 The Guardian view on the Petrobras scandal: a big test for Brazil _________ 28 Brazil: a cautionary tale for India Live Mint (Índia) ____________________ 29 2 18.03.2015 I. OMC Ambassador: WTO Win For Australian Plain Packaging Could Lead to Alcohol Labeling Inside U.S. Trade (EUA) Indonesia’s Ambassador to the World Trade Organization Iman Pambagyo last week signaled that a win for an Australian law requiring plain packaging of cigarettes as an anti-smoking measure could lead his country to introduce a similar measure for alcoholic beverages. If the Australian law survived Indonesia’s current challenge in the WTO, it would set a dangerous precedent for countries being able to implement measures that are more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfill a legitimate policy objective without providing supporting scientific evidence that they could achieve the intended goal, he said in an interview with Inside U.S. Trade. Pambagyo said there have been some officials talking about plain packaging for wine and alcoholic beverages on the ground that Indonesia has a large Muslim population. He said he would not like to see such an expansion of plain packaging in the future. No law on plain packaging for alcoholic products is currently being developed because of Indonesia's challenge in the DSB, according to Pambagyo. But he said a WTO win for Australia on this issue would leave the door open for the Indonesian government to expand plain packaging to alcoholic products without needing to justify that the law would advance the legitimate objective of protecting against moral hazards. Indonesia would be able to base its law “on a moral high ground” because Indonesia is a largely Muslim country and many Muslims do not consume alcohol based on religious principles, Pambagyo said. Pambagyo’s veiled, carefully worded warning about the possibility of retaliation is more explicit than a four-page briefing paper on the WTO plain packaging fight that Indonesia prepared to journalists. 3 18.03.2015 It says that a win for plain packaging could mean it would spread to other products, such as palm oil or alcoholic beverages “for a religious reason of moral hazards." Plain packaging requires companies to use standard colors and typefaces instead of brand logos on package, usually with large health warnings. The law is the last in a series of systematic steps that Australia has undertaken over the years to curtail smoking among its population, in line with the international treaty on tobacco approved by members of the World Health Organization (WHO). Supporters of the law have long made the case that the expansion of plain packaging to products other than tobacco such as sugary drinks is highly unlikely since cigarettes are the only product that will kill people if it is used as intended. They also note that tobacco is the only product that is subject to a WHO treaty called the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which requires signatories to implement a series of policy recommendations that range from tobacco advertisement restrictions and graphic health warnings on packaging to protections from tobacco smoke exposure and the testing and regulating of the contents and emissions of tobacco products. Pambagyo also said Indonesia fears that other countries such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand and Chile will follow Australia's example by enacting plain packaging measures on tobacco products. For instance, Irish President Michael Higgins signed into law plain packaging measures on March 10, according to the president's website. In its WTO challenge of Australia’s measure, Indonesia included a violation of Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), which requires WTO signatories to refrain from imposing technical regulations that are more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve a legitimate policy objective in technical regulations, taking into account of the risks non-fulfillment. The TBT article contains an illustrative list of possible legitimate policy objectives, including the protection of human health or safety, but not the prevention of moral hazards. The risks of non-fulfillment can be assessed by relevant “scientific and technical information” among others, according to Article 2.2. Indonesia and the other complainants have charged that the Australian law was adopted without prior presentation of scientific analysis showing that its measures could meet the intended objective. Australia has claimed its law is backed by several studies showing 4 18.03.2015 that such a requirement will help reduce smoking if it is part of a comprehensive set of tobacco control measures. The law was recommended by Australia's National Preventative Health Task Force, which said its findings were backed by 12 peer-reviewed research papers and nine additional studies that are publicly available. Additionally, Indonesia’s briefing paper claims that an analysis conducted since the implementation of Australia's law in 2013 has shown that law has had no effect on Australian smoking rates. According to the briefing paper, Indonesia does not oppose any effort to address the harmful effects of tobacco products and itself taken measures to discourage smoking. This includes a regulation that requires graphic health warnings on 40 percent of a cigarette pack compared to the 30 percent minimum required by the WHO framework. The briefing paper notes that some signatories of the framework have not implemented that minimum requirement. The brief also claims that some of Indonesia's smoking regulations are stricter or as strict than those of major economies including the European Union. Indonesia considers that its graphic warning requirement is less trade restrictive than necessary because it does not deny the use of a trademark, as does the Australian law, Pambagyo said. The objective of protecting public morals is a possible exception to otherwise prevailing trade obligations under Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Article XX allows members to impose measures necessary to protect public morals under the condition that they are not a disguised trade restriction and do not constitute an unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail. In the WTO case, Indonesia also charges a violation of Article 2.1 of the TBT, which states that members shall give imports treatment that is “no less favourable” than that of like products of national origin. It also charges that it is a violation of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), including the rights of trademark owners and rules on geographic indications (GIs). In the WTO fight, Indonesia has claimed that the Australian measures do not allow cigarettes to display trademarks, GIs, or “any other marking other than an alphanumeric code for product identification purposes.” 5 18.03.2015 It has charged that this constitutes violations of Articles 22.2(b) and 24.3 of TRIPS, which apply to GIs. Article 22.2(b) protects against “unfair competition” as defined by the 1967 Paris Convention, which defines unfair competition as acts that “create confusion by any means whatever with the establishment, the goods, or the industrial or commercial activities, of a competitor.” Indonesia has also charged that the Australian law violates TRIPS Article 20, which state that the use of a trademark shall not be unjustifiably encumbered by special requirements. Indonesia requested a panel on March 3, 2014 and one was subsequently established on March 26, 2014. Indonesia is joined by Honduras, Cuba, Ukraine and the Dominican Republic as co-complainants. In October 2014, the DSB panel announced it would not issue a ruling before the first half of 2016. Biased Import Policy of some countries towards Indian Exporters Business Standard (Índia) Government monitors the measures/actions being taken by countries including the WTO member countries which Government considers as inconsistent with the existing agreement or otherwise, and take up the matter in the appropriate forum in case the measure impacts India's exports. India has taken up such issues either at the bilateral level or multilateral level (under WTO Committee meetings or the WTO Dispute Settlement System). In the recent past, India had taken up such matters with the importing countries and had been successful in such matters to a large extent. A few of them are:- (i) Successful negotiation leading to replacement of the inconsistent EU Regulation 1383/2003 by EU Regulation 608/2013 on the issue related to seizure of Indian drugs in transit. (ii) Result oriented outcome in trade remedial actions such as the withdrawal of safeguard duty by Turkey on cotton yarn, safeguard duty by Egypt on cotton fabric and cotton yarn etc.