long pending India- U.S. poultry dispute

 Settling trade disputes through ‘litigotiation’

artful settlement of complex disputes during litigation, or broadly ‘litigotiation’, was key to solving the long pending India- U.S. poultry dispute

मुकदमेबाजी' के माध्यम से व्यापार विवादों का निपटारा

कदमेबाजी के दौरान जटिल विवादों का कुशलतापूर्वक निपटारा, या मोटे तौर पर 'मुकदमेबाजी', लंबे समय से लंबित भारत-अमेरिका पोल्ट्री विवाद को सुलझाने की कुंजी थी।  

India and the U.S. have managed to do exactly that in just under a year, burying differences in the seven-long outstanding trade disputes at the World Trade Organization (WTO).

dispute on poultry products at the WTO 

In late March this year, the two countries settled their last trade dispute on poultry products at the WTO.

 India and the U.S. notified the WTO of reaching a mutually agreed solution in the poultry dispute, withdrawing their respective pending WTO cases in the matter, following the settlement reached between the two countries last September. 

This comes on the settlement of six other WTO disputes between the two countries, following Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the U.S. Yet the poultry dispute stands out for several reasons.

The dispute

विवाद का इतिहास 

dispute was filed more than a decade ago, relating to certain import restrictions taken by India against the imports of poultry products from the U.S. on grounds of avian influenza or bird flu. 

 Initiated by the U.S. in 2012, the dispute challenged India’s import restrictions on poultry products on account of avian influenza which could potentially transmit to humans.

india refer -  animal, and human health and safety-related measures, broadly referred to as ‘sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures’ initiated by a developing WTO member was brought before a WTO panel.

 The U.S.’s primary contention 

 

India, in deviating from internationally recognised standards set by the World Organization for Animal Health (formerly the OIE),

 failed to provide scientific justifications for its poultry measures, as mandated by the WTO’s SPS Agreement.

Both the panel and the WTO Appellate Body ruled in favour of the U.S. Subsequently, India was given a year to modify or withdraw its inconsistent measures. 

The U.S. later alleged that India had still failed to meet its obligations, and filed a retaliation claim at the WTO.

 In response, India 

india  filed its own counter-dispute to establish that its revised measures conformed with WTO rules. 

India has dodged a yearly $450 million claim, as part of the larger settlement of pending disputes between the two countries. 

In exchange, India has agreed to reduce tariffs on select products such as

 cranberries, blueberries, frozen turkey, and premium frozen duck meat destined for luxury hotels.

this dispute may not rank as the most economically significant for India

 particularly when contrasted with some of the other WTO disputes settled with the U.S. involving challenges to various Indian foreign trade policy schemes such as special economic zones and export-oriented unit schemes, its resolution represents a significant diplomatic breakthrough. 

Takeaways from the outcome

settling disputes by arriving at a bilateral solution is not uncommon at the WTO

For example, the U.S. and the European Union’s disputes over aircraft subsidies to Boeing and Airbus ultimately required a diplomatic resolution, despite several iterations of challenges before the WTO panels and the Appellate Body. 

In fact, WTO rules encourage countries to resolve disputes amicably / आपसी बातचीत से , with litigation only to be pursued as a last resort. 

However, the significance of this settlement package lies in both the total number of disputes settled and the diversity and complexity of their subject matter — ranging from different types of subsidies to countervailing duties to SPS measures.

 In the absence of a functional Appellate Body (it became defunct in 2019), resolution of long-standing trade conflicts requires out-of-the-box solutions. It also points to a greater emphasis and thrust on using bilateral diplomatic channels to resolve such issues.

This outcome demonstrates that paralysis within a multilateral body need not prevent large trading partners from resolving differences through focused bilateral negotiations within the framework of litigation. This bodes well for newer attempts at fostering a more stable international trade environment where trade disputes are not allowed to simmer.

source the hindu