The article argues that direct payment and market price support (MSP) measures are fundamentally distinct types of product-specific support which makes the interchangeability of Blue and Amber Boxes seemingly difficult.
Authors
James J. Nedumpara, Centre for Trade and Investment Law, New Delhi, India; Professor, Jindal Global Law School, O. P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India.
Sparsha Janardhan, Centre for Trade and Investment Law, New Delhi, India.
Aparna Bhattacharya, Centre for Trade and Investment Law, New Delhi, India.
Summary:
Domestic support disciplines under the Agreement on Agriculture are controversial, to say the least. The aggregate measurement of support (AMS) restricts Members’ policy space to provide product-specific support. The structural flaws in the determination of AMS further compel Members to explore alternatives. In contrast to the Amber Box, the Blue Box offers certain flexibilities for Members to exempt product-specific support from AMS calculation.
The Blue Box reflects several elements which are seemingly typical to the Amber Box, except that it has certain production-limiting features. This article explores the legal bounds of the Blue Box measures, and its similarities and dissimilarities with the Amber Box. Towards this end, the article builds on a fresh legal understanding of the Blue Box based on its negotiating history and interpretative bounds, and also offers a fuller appreciation of market price support (MPS) and non-exempt direct payments under the Amber Box.
While the calculation methodology for non-exempt direct payments bears a close resemblance to the calculation of MPS, the article argues that direct payment and MPS measures are fundamentally distinct types of product-specific support which makes the interchangeability of Blue and Amber Boxes seemingly difficult.
Published in: World Trade Review
To read the full article, please click here
