3 ms·
My layman understanding is that the WTO is not an executive organisation, but an independant arbitor that decides on basically who’s right and who’s wrong. Fro
by hrktb 8y ago
My layman understanding is that the WTO is not an executive organisation, but an independant arbitor that decides on basically who’s right and who’s wrong.
From the decision, each party can discuss a settlement, and if no agreement is reached the wronged party is free to apply whatever retaliation it judges fair to the wrongdoing party.
The WTO’s decision would serve as a backing of the retaliation, to prove they are not just arbitrary.
In that sense China breaking the rules is a issue with the “victim” country who needs to retaliate if no other means is available, with eventually help from ally countries if they want to make an example.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> China breaking the rules is a issue with the “victim” country who needs to retaliate if no other means is available, with eventually help from ally countries if they want to make an example That’s what is happening. China repeatedly broke rules and ignored international arbitration orders (see: UNCLOS tribunal brought forth by the Philippines). They were given the benefit of doubt (a) under Obama and (b) before they became a dictatorship.