Search Results

To further the study of differential treatments within international environmental agreements, this chapter looks into the several different aspects of differential treatment in international law. Also, since differential treatment may manifest itself either implicitly or explicitly and through different degrees, this chapter also examines the different needs for such differential treatment. This chapter presents an illustrative survey that shows how differential treatment is evident in different parts of international law, how differential treatment would probably bring about better effects across different countries in different international regimes, and how various controversies are encountered in attempts to establish and push through with such differential treatment. In this chapter, differential treatment in industrial countries is distinguished from that in developing countries so that the factors and characteristics of the two setups — in terms of various laws like economic law, international development law, human rights law, disarmament law and international arms control — may be emphasized.

A differentiation between industrial countries and its developing counterparts in coming up with international environmental agreements results from the dissonance in the formation of dialogues regarding international environmental issues of such countries. While international environmental agreements are associated with ambiguities and various uncertainties, it is believed that looking into the varied norms of differential treatment and their legal characters would reveal a common burden-sharing structure that is rooted on differential treatment. In this chapter, the various provisions of differential treatment involved in several environmental treaties are sorted out into logical groupings that would show how differential treatment is entrenched within international agreements while pointing out how some differential treatment categories remain subject to several arguments.

Although the main focus of behavioral genetic studies is to disentangle sibling resemblance due to genetic factors from resemblance due to shared environmental factors, the same studies typically demonstrate that two siblings raised in the same family are very different from one another. This chapter elucidates the nature of environmental factors that make two children in the same family different. Probably the most studied aspect of non-shared environment has been maternal differential treatment (MDT), or the extent to which mothers treat two children in the same family differently. The majority of research on MDT has focused on the extent and consequences of such treatment (child well-being and sibling relationship quality). Few studies, however, have examined these links longitudinally. In addition, longitudinal associations with adjustment over time have not been examined across early adolescence. This chapter presents the findings of a study that explored the stability of MDT, the possible origins (genetic influences) of such treatment, and the link between MDT and child well-being (overall well-being and competence in extra-familial settings) over three ages during early adolescence.

The divergence in the culpability and contributions of developing and industrial countries persists and results in the lack of ideological sympathy. The principle of common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR) explains the need for international environmental law to implement differential treatment as it is able to exemplify the attempts in establishing a joint venture despite certain boundaries made by these said countries in hopes of attaining international environmental protection. Through looking into the legal status of the CBDR and extracting both its practical and philosophical bases, this chapter attempts to establish the principle as a doctrinal basis for pursuing differential treatment. Also, it attempts to examine the limits and boundaries to the application of the said principle.

This chapter examines the state of food security in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), based on analysis of a selection of indicators of food security and nutritional well-being during the period 1990-2002 within the context of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. It argues that it may be advisable for those SSA countries with both static and dynamic comparative advantage in agriculture to pursue policies towards ‘food self-sufficiency’ as a means to attain food security, considering their large rural farming population, at least until such time that international trade in agriculture is fully integrated into the WTO disciplines. This is particularly relevant in view of the fact that high agricultural protectionism in the north currently distorts price signals and thus the opportunity costs of allocating factors of production in these economies. The SSA countries that lack comparative advantage in agriculture may want to aim for a ‘food self-reliance’ strategy to attain food security.

This chapter begins by arguing that the link between free trade and poverty reduction is not as straightforward as some believe. Though there is a role for trade liberalization, its pace, sequencing and other complementary policies are also crucial to its success. Special and differential treatment can be justified for vulnerable, developing nations. The chapter considers what economic justice requires. Rejecting Kapstein's model, it argues for an alternative account of economic justice, according to which the international community makes it possible for each country to have reasonable opportunities to achieve the kind and level of economic activity necessary to sustain the goals of global justice introduced in Chapter 3. The chapter discusses ways in which we can discharge this obligation and also ways in which the global economic order can assist in improving working conditions and wages, through programs such as “Just Linkage”, advocated by Barry and Reddy.

Nationally, African Americans and Hispanic youths are arrested in numbers greatly disproportionate to their representation in the general population. Despite decades of research, there is no clear consensus on why minority youths enter and penetrate the juvenile justice system at such disproportionate rates. Both public and academic discourses have tended to highlight two explanations: (1) minority overrepresentation reflects race and ethnic differences in the incidence, seriousness, and persistence of delinquent involvement (the “differential offending” hypothesis) and (2) overrepresentation is attributable to inequities—intended or unintended—in juvenile justice practice (the “differential treatment” hypothesis). This chapter reviews the research literature bearing on the second of these claims and, more specifically, explores the mechanisms through which race and ethnicity influence juvenile justice system responses.

International efforts in coming up with common strategies in addressing various environmental issues are confronted by not just economic and ecological interdependence but by the discrepancies and disputes experiences between and within several different states as well. Integrating diverse states into participating in environmental treaty regimes is one of the fundamental challenges today. As such, we see that three decades of environmental dialogue has successfully resulted in how the community of sovereign states has come up with a conceptual legal framework that enables burden-sharing arrangements. Also, various techniques are being adopted by industrial and developing countries in implementing international environmental regimes. This final chapter asserts how differential treatment proves to be one of the most effective measures in imposing such environmental regimes as such would not undermine the capabilities of developing countries to contribute to such environmental efforts.

Chapter 1 defines discrimination in the generic sense and then distinguishes between three different and more specific senses of discrimination, which are all prima facie or even necessarily, morally wrong kinds of differential treatment. One of these senses—group discrimination, i.e. treating people differently on the basis of their membership in different socially salient groups—is then explained in greater detail as this is the sense of discrimination that is employed in the rest of the book.

Developing countries have been complainants in over 150 disputes, respondents in close to 140 cases and have participated as third parties in over 530 instances. They have made arguments relating to development or to Special and Differential Treatment (SDT) in over 60 cases since 1947. As a result there is a significant body of legal analysis that informs the WTO's understanding of trade and development, usually in reference to SDT provisions. This chapter identifies trends in panels and AB analysis on SDT to help developing country litigants to devise more effective litigation strategies and better position their arguments. It also identifies some recurrent blind angles of adjudicators (panelists, AB members, and arbitrators) and proposes some evolutions in the understanding of the provisions.

This chapter examines the legal nature of Special and Differential Treatment (SDT) provisions in the WTO agreements. What rights and obligations do they create and for whom? Using the language of the provisions as well as developments in international law generally, this chapter argues that many SDT provisions could be given more legal force than has been the case so far, and hence become operational tools for developing members. It then surveys the implementation record of SDT provisions to assess whether developing members have in fact used them since the inception of the GATT. It demonstrates that only a handful of SDT provisions have been invoked consistently, and even some of those have fallen into disuse since the inception of the WTO.

This chapter focuses on the special and differential treatment provision provided to developing countries. The enabling clause allows for beneficial treatment of developing countries as one of the main exceptions to the most favored nation clause. A discussion of the schemes to benefit developing countries and their economic rational is traced from the generalized system of preferences to Aid for Trade. Aid for Trade is discussed as an acknowledgement for the failings of GSPs and a way for the WTO to contribute to development through the sphere of trade.

Over the past decade a consensus has been emerging amongst policy makers, reform groups, voluntary agencies and academics that women offenders should be treated differently by the criminal justice system and in particular by the courts. This desire for differential treatment has culminated in the call for abolishing women’s imprisonment growing louder and gaining momentum. This chapter will explore the theoretical basis for this call for reform questioning ‘why’ women should be treated differently from men and trying to refine the way in which we think about women offenders as ‘different’. This chapter will discuss how and why women offenders’ status is depicted as that of victims, carers, oppressed, and/or offenders and whether a debate based on such reduced women’s status is sufficient to justify the call for a different approach to sentencing.

This chapter considers the issue of ‘balancing of interests’ of producers and consumers. It also describes the rationale of mandating the inclusion of a public interest clause in the Anti-dumping Agreement (ADA) and the proposals of how inclusion of a public interest test should be applied. It then discusses the possible costs and time implications of the proposal. The Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) held that consumer interests are not balanced against producer interests as a matter of course. Inclusion of a public interest clause in the Agreement may prove to be highly effective in balancing the interests of the domestic producers and the interests of consumers. Developing countries must push hard to achieve meaningful reforms in the provisions of the special and differential (S&D) treatment in the current round. The state of implementation of S&D provisions in the ADA is a source of deep concern to developing countries.

Hindsight will tell us for certain whether the Doha Round will ever live up to its promises, but throughout the Round, it has been clear that despite developing countries' unprecedented level of participation, there has been no new approach to addressing development issues at the WTO. Most of the proposals submitted by developing countries are strikingly similar in form and content to existing special and differential treatment provisions, and are likely to be equally fraught with failure. Perhaps even more importantly, there has been little questioning of the institutional and systemic issues alongside trade commitments in agriculture, NAMA and services negotiations. The combination of limited institutional opportunities and inadequate trade commitments determines developing members' positions at the WTO, but attempting to change trade commitments without rebalancing the institutional process is bound to fail.

Neither general international law nor the WTO legal system have a set definition of “developing country.” Members simply designate themselves as developing countries for purposes of particular WTO provisions. In practice, however, a more nuanced picture emerges. This chapter examines the theory and practice of the developing country designation under the GATT and WTO agreements, particularly through the lens of accessions. The accession process, including the availability of special and differential treatment and other benefits and the level of concessions extracted from the acceding members, has effectively become a critical threshold issue for the 59 developing countries and 14 transitional countries (Eastern and Central European countries) that became WTO members since 1995, and 29 countries currently negotiating their accession.

To date, there has been no integrated or systematic legal framework to accommodate developing countries' needs in the WTO legal regime. Instead, exceptions to the general rules and disciplines provide some flexibility for developing countries (special and differential treatment). The objective of this book is to analyze the nature and content of developing countries' rights at the WTO and to consider whether such rights could evolve from their current status as exceptions to a more coherent system of rules embedded in the WTO legal regime that would more effectively address developing countries' demands. The introduction briefly traces current practice to identify what informs the development dimension at the WTO and introduces two paradigms for the trade and development relationship: development as an idiosyncrasy and trade and development as normative co-constituents.

This chapter starts from the premise of Amartya Sen's definition of ‘development’ as the expansion of substantive human freedom and personal self-development. It derives from this approach four development dimensions for the Doha Development Round negotiations: fair trade, capacity-building for the poorest countries, balanced rules, and good governance. This chapter emphasizes that Special and Differential Treatment is only one aspect of the broader development dimension of the trading system and no substitute for it. Each of the five critical issues negotiated in the World Trade Organization (WTO) July General Council (GC) Meeting — i.e. agriculture, cotton, non-agricultural market access, Singapore issues, and the development issues — are then explained and evaluated. This chapter concludes that the outcome of the July GC Decision justifies cautious optimism, and calls on all WTO members to build on this platform.