US Admits Defeat in Antigua Gambling Case at the WTO

[Uglyowl]

The entire withdrawal from the WTO is probably my bad, I didn't think they could pick and choose their involvement level (although it sounds like it could lead to the U.S. leaving or the end of the WTO).

Looks like they are going to try to ask for a mulligan on their involvement.

[Grasshopp3r]

This is an interesting development, but what does it change? The US ignores plenty of international trade law. The WTO is ineffective, anyway. Surely if the WTO intends to be effective, it can simply reject the US attempt to leave this market of GATS. That would be a better response to the US, but I doubt that will occur.

[yeahright]

bottom line is this...

Stop wasting your time think Antigua is going to have any effect on what the US wants to do. The US doesn't give a damn about the WTO and the WTO isn't going to force the US to do anything.

We all heard how "eh...the US wants China to abide by the WTO.....How can they expect China to do that....."

China said last week they would work with the US on the issue.

[mengzi]

[ QUOTE ]



This has international trade implications and could lead to the break up of the WTO.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is just a bit over the top, don't you think? hyperbole like this brings the accuracy of the entire piece into doubt. why not provide details on the original source? when that info is left out it immediately raises questions about credibility

i am not an expert in international law, and judging by the responses in this thread i think it's safe to say no one else here is either, but i find it extremely unlikely that the wto is going to fall apart over this.

as the world's largest economy and largest trading nation, the us has more of a vested interest in maintaining a rules based approach to trade(which the wto is the pillar of) than any other country.

generalities aside, clearly this case has not yet reached a point of resolution. the us has lost several WTO cases(the overwhelming majority if i am not mistaken), and in some cases has chosen to pay the punitive damages handed down instead of adjusting their trade practices in accordance with wto rulings. who is to say that an agreement won't be reached in the 11th hour?

suppose i could dig around a bit....

sure hope i come up with something a bit more substantial and a bit less one sided

[Jestocost]

U.S. To Alter WTO Agreement In Light Of Gambling Issue

The United States will seek to amend its services commitments at the World Trade Organization to make clear that they do not cover gambling, in response to a successful WTO lawsuit by Antigua and Barbuda. The United States must resort to the rarely used WTO procedure because, officials said, it will not change its laws to alter current prohibitions on interstate gambling and never intended to open gambling services to foreign providers. "The process we are starting today will allow us to clarify our schedule to make clear that we did not intend to have gambling services be a part of our commitment," Deputy Trade Representative John Veroneau told reporters. "This is not a question of the U.S. rethinking its commitments, it is a question of getting us back to a place that reflects our intent at the time."

Antigua and Barbuda charged that the U.S. commitment in the General Agreement on Trade in Services to provide equal treatment for foreign providers of "recreational services"
included gambling. The case they brought to the WTO turned on the argument that the United States allows interstate bets on horseracing but does not allow similar treatment for foreign gambling interests. In March, the WTO Appellate Body ruled against the United States. The U.S. effort to amend its GATS commitments means that any WTO member may make a claim to be compensated by the United States, in the form of additional market openings elsewhere in the services area. If the U.S. refuses, the WTO could rule that members are allowed to suspend market access for U.S. service providers to the extent that it is affected by the withdrawal of the U.S. commitment. Veroneau said the United States is not obligated to provide compensation because it is not reneging on a commitment, merely clarifying a concession it never intended to make. "There is no reasonable basis that anyone in the Uruguay Round thought or expected the U.S. to be opening up its gambling services, in light of the fact that it was banned by federal and state laws," he said.

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States will clarify to the World Trade Organization it never intended to allow Internet gambling services as part of market-opening commitments it made in the early 1990s, the U.S. Trade Representative's office said on Friday.


[/ QUOTE ]

This rings incredibly hollow after a trial on the merits. I am not sure what rights a country has to withdraw from sections of the WTO, but this type of argument or action is something that imho should have been raised at the outset of the trial. The US should NEVER have submitted to a trial on something if it had no intention of abiding by the ruling. Putting aside most of our interest in legal online poker play, this is shameful conduct on the part of our Country (those of us who are US citizens). Disgusting!

[Dunkman]

This isn't news for us, or anyone else, at all. This was inevitable as soon as the decision came down. Hopefully, Antigua will agree to compromise with H.R. 2046 or something similar, and we can use WTO compliance as one of our talking points in pushing for passage. Antigua may not like it, Jay sure doesn't like it (understandably), but it's absolutely all we can hope for in the current political climate. It's either this or the ever strengthening UIGEA regulations and enforcement.

[mengzi]

not trying to be patronizing here, but i think that there is a misconception of what the fundamental mission of the wto is. it would be great if someone who deals with these issues much more closely could come along and address this in a succinct manner

at the end of the day the wto is an international organization made up of member states. they can't force the us to do anything they dont want to do. the us has complied with the dozens of rulings that have come down against it because it is in their broader interest to have a predictable trading system.

i am unaware of any wto cases that the us has just ignored outright. when the eu raised the issue of the helms burton act before the wto, the us said that the wto had no authority to rule on the case because it involved national security. the eu backed down and a settlement was reached before the case went for a final decision. this is an extreme example though

many of the cases are settled by the parties involved before a final decision is rendered by the wto. perhaps the us is playing this card to leverage a more favorable agreement

[fnord_too]

So, basically, our defense (now that we lost, not at the time compliance was still being decided) is that we are too incompetent to read and understand the treaties we are signing? niiiiiiiice.

Is there any record of the debate and such behind joining the WTO, like the congressional record, that can show if the gambling issue was addressed?

I don't see how the WTO can allow for a post ruling ammendmant like this. That is, I don't see how this will stop their ruling that Antigua can ignore US copyrights and change our status if we wish to pursue complaints of our own in the future. I think we will still have to pay whatever damages were assessed to clear ourselves, since Antigua was acting by what we agreed to, and lost money by our failure to honor our agreement. Of course that would open the door for lots of others.

I know next to nothing about international law, but I am assuming treaties are reasonably similar to contracts, which I know a little bit about. I don't know, for instance, how we can legally pull out of international agreements and treaties. I cannot believe that the constitution would have an oversight that would say allow one administration to not be bound by a previous administrations commitments.

[Skallagrim]

Talk about sniveling, lying lawyers who will say anything to win a case... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]. "Point 1, your Honors, we are right. Point 2, if we are not right then what we said isnt what we meant."

I too dont know enough about the WTO to comment on the exact mechanisms here. It sounds like the US is trying to use a provision that allows for correcting mistakes of a clerical nature to allow for correcting mistakes of a substantive nature.

From my area of law its akin to: "We didnt mean to prosecute the innocent man, we really meant to name someone else in the indictment." A statement, which of course, continuing with the analogy, is ludicrous on its face after the prosecutor spends years trying to prove that the innnocent man was guilty.

Final point, it has to be a clerical matter or the Administration cant do this on its own. Once a treaty is ratified by the Congress, the Executuve cant just change its terms on its own, Congress would have to vote again.

Unless, of course, its just a matter of having misspelled things. "Ooops, we didnt mean to sign that gambling treaty, we thought we signed the RAMBLING treaty, and of course Antiguans can ramble in the US (if they get the right papers)."

Skallagrim