A few reflections after WTO MC 13

On the WTO’s X acco­unt, we can read that “WTOMC13AbuDhabi conc­lu­des with out­co­mes on deve­lop­ment, e‑commerce work pro­gram­me, and mora­to­rium, and dispu­te set­tle­ment reform. Mem­bers have reaf­fir­med the­ir com­mit­ment to con­ti­nue wor­king on out­stan­ding issu­es.” But is it a suc­cess? Espe­cial­ly con­cer­ning digi­tal issu­es, it is doubtful.

Dr hab. Mag­da­le­na Słok-Wód­kow­ska, Prof. UW, legal ana­lyst DELab UW

The Thir­te­enth WTO Mini­ste­rial Con­fe­ren­ce, which took pla­ce in Abu Dha­bi this year, ended on the 2nd of March, two days later than pre­vio­usly sche­du­led. The Mini­ste­rial Con­fe­ren­ce is the most impor­tant organ of the WTO, making deci­sions regar­ding the futu­re of the orga­ni­za­tion. As is custo­ma­ry in such cases, on the­ir websi­te, we can read that it was a suc­cess, and eve­ry­thing is moving in a bet­ter direc­tion for the WTO, which has been in cri­sis for a few years now.

One of the deci­sions made during MC13 con­cer­ned elec­tro­nic com­mer­ce (WT/MIN(24)/38 WT/L/1193, all the docu­ments here). It pri­ma­ri­ly focu­ses on the Work Pro­gram­me on Elec­tro­nic Com­mer­ce, which was adop­ted by the Gene­ral Coun­cil back in 1998. What is stri­king in the wor­ding of the deci­sion, taken during times of unpre­ce­den­ted deve­lop­ment of the digi­tal eco­no­my and, the­re­fo­re, elec­tro­nic com­mer­ce, is its vagu­eness. WTO mem­bers agre­ed that it is cru­cial to discuss the mat­ter fur­ther. They high­li­gh­ted the impor­tan­ce of con­si­de­ring deve­lop­ment and the digi­tal divi­de in the­ir futu­re deliberations.

The question rema­ins, during times of a huge pro­li­fe­ra­tion of regio­nal tra­de agre­ements dealing with the digi­tal eco­no­my and rare­ly taking into acco­unt the needs of sta­tes (as oppo­sed to cor­po­ra­tions), let alo­ne deve­lo­ping sta­tes, whe­ther such a vague sta­te­ment is any­thing more than yet ano­ther pro­of of the weak­ness of the WTO as a forum for nego­tia­tions capa­ble of brin­ging abo­ut chan­ge in the glo­bal economy.

What seems par­ti­cu­lar­ly wor­ri­so­me is the wor­ding rela­ted to the mora­to­rium on customs duties on elec­tro­nic trans­mis­sions. Mem­bers of the WTO agre­ed to enga­ge in fur­ther discus­sions and gather empi­ri­cal evi­den­ce of the poten­tial­ly detri­men­tal influ­en­ce that the mora­to­rium has on deve­lop­ment. More­over, for the first time, the mora­to­rium was not pro­lon­ged until the next meeting. The exact wor­ding sta­tes that it was pro­lon­ged „until the 14th Ses­sion of the Mini­ste­rial Con­fe­ren­ce or 31 March 2026, whi­che­ver is ear­lier.” If the MC14 in Came­ro­on is delay­ed for wha­te­ver reason, tho­se who do not have the mora­to­rium writ­ten in the­ir RTAs will be able to levy duties on elec­tro­nic transitions.

Many sta­tes alre­ady have per­ma­nent mora­to­riums on duties on elec­tro­nic trans­mis­sion in the­ir Regio­nal Tra­de Agre­ements, as it is the most com­mon pro­vi­sion rela­ted to the digi­tal eco­no­my used by the Euro­pe­an Union and the Uni­ted Sta­tes. The­se sta­tes will not be able to levy taxes on data trans­fers. But major pro­po­nents of tariffs on elec­tro­nic trans­mis­sion, like India and the rest of the Glo­bal South are like­ly to add addi­tio­nal taxes for elec­tro­nic trans­mis­sion in the hope of dimi­ni­shing the glo­bal digi­tal divi­de. Altho­ugh the out­co­me rema­ins unc­le­ar and high­ly deba­ta­ble (more here).

Such an out­co­me may be a huge set­back for the deve­lop­ment of the digi­tal eco­no­my depends on a sta­ble regu­la­to­ry fra­me­work for data flow and huge dif­fe­ren­ces betwe­en tho­se who would like to char­ge data flows and tho­se who would not and pose a lot of questions abo­ut its impact on deepe­ning the digi­tal divide.

Scroll to Top