From time to time, developing country officials have expressed concerns
that anti-competitive practices by private enterprises could
restrict access by developing country firms to industrialized
countries' markets.
UNCTAD
(February 1998) has proposed that measures be taken to ensure that
that
-
trade obligations are not frustrated by private anti-competitive
practices
-
there is a convergence in the objectives, and the application,
of national competition policies to prohibit cartel and collusive
tendering.
The WTO has no specific provisions on competition rules, though the
GATT contains some relevant articles, as do other Uruguay Round agreements.agreements
-
Article III on national treatment, which requires governments
to treat domestic and imported goods equally, subject to border
charges
-
Article XXIII on nullification and impairment makes provision
for dispute settlement where 'reasonable expectations' from the
agreement are not met. This principle of non-violation could be
adapted to allow sanctions against a country that refused to investigate
and report on a grievance from non-enforcement of competition policy
-
Uruguay Round agreements on subsidies and trade safeguards
removed some government measures that impede competition
-
The GATS contains specific commitments on national treatment
and market presence for investments in listed service industries
-
Extending the Agreement on Government Procurement (AGP) would
also increase scope for import competition in the public sector
-
The new WTO dispute settlement procedures do not cover complaints
against anti-competitive private business behaviour.
Among
the advantages of using the WTO to draw up rules on competition are
its its
-
comprehensive membership
-
dispute settlement procedures, and
-
continuous machinery for consultation.
On the other hand, the WTO does not deal directly with business
practices.
The Singapore Ministerial Meeting of WTO, in December 1997, established
a working group to consider the need for WTO rules on competition.
