The Most Favored Nation (MFN) obligation stands as a cornerstone in the realm of global trade. Embodying the fundamental principles of non-discrimination and equitable commerce, the MFN promotes global economic growth through equalizing opportunities of trade. Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 establishes a four-tier test of consistency which requires 'any advantage, favour, privilege, or immunity granted by any member to any product originating in or destined for any other country shall be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the like product originating in or destined for the territories of all other members.' This article shall comprehensively examine the consistency test by critically analyzing each of its elements and their significant impact on global trade.
The first element of the consistency test requires that the measure in question is 'covered' under Article I:1. The scope of these measures include both border related and internal measures concerning any product originated in or destined for another country. Although the range of measures covered under Article The first element of the consistency test requires that the measure in question is 'covered' under Article I:1. The scope of these measures include both border related and internal measures concerning any product originated in or destined for another country. Although the range of measures covered under Article I:1 has been widely construed, this scope is not unlimited. In EC-Commercial Vessels (DS301) the panel clarified measures 'covered' were contingent upon the substantive legal content of relative provisions, excluding measures which fell outside certain obligations. Some concerns have emerged regarding the applicability of Article I:1 to safeguard measures, anti-dumping duties, and countervailing duties. Article II of the SG Agreement establishes that the MFN obligation generally covers safeguard measures, however, discriminatory use under specific conditions can be granted as seen in India-Iron and Steel Products (DS518). In the case of anti-dumping duties, Article VI permits their imposition, even if inconsistent with Article I:1, with the requirement for non-discriminatory collection. Similar provisions under the SCM Agreement permit certain countervailing duties. The wide array of measures covered under Art In the case of anti-dumping duties, Article VI permits their imposition, even if inconsistent with Article I:1, with the requirement for non-discriminatory collection. Similar provisions under the SCM Agreement permit certain countervailing duties. The wide array of measures covered under Art I:1 and limited exceptions are a critical element in maintaining the integrity of the MFN obligation and preventing discriminatory practices.
The second requirement of the consistency test considers if the measure in question has allowed an 'advantage'. Article I:1 defines an advantage as 'any advantage, favour, privilege, or immunity granted by any member to any product.' Consequently, the scope of what may justify an advantage has been widely construed in WTO jurisprudence with focus being placed on measures which enhance competitive opportunities or impact the commercial dynamics between products originating from different sources. Such a requirement plays a vital role in ensuring equality of trade opportunities amongst WTO members. In EC-Bananas III (DS27) the panel defined an advantage as a measure which created more 'favourable competitive opportunities' or influenced the 'commercial relationship amongst products of diverse origins.' The Appellate Body in Canada-Autos (DS139/DS142) added to the scope of an advantage by referring to it as a measure granting any advantage, by any member, for any like products, originating in or destined for any other country. This widened the scope of applicability to not only de jure but also de facto discrimination. Although certain doubts have emerged regarding a member's ability to compensate advantages in, the panel in US-MFN Footwear (DS18) confirmed that the consistency test does not allow 'balancing' less advantageous treatment with more advantageous treatment. Notably, any advantage granted to any country must also be granted to all other members, however the MFN obligation does not require the same advantage to be granted to non member nations. Although this may have been significant in the past, considering that the WTO is currently comprised of 164 members and conducts 98% of global trade it no longer holds as much importance. The significance of an advantage within the context of the consistency test can be seen in Colombia-Ports of Entry (DS366) where the panel concluded that Colombian custom regulations were inconsistent with the MFN obligation as they provided all members with an advantage over Panama. Consequently, Columbia was required amend their custom regulations to equally affect all members. This depicts the importance of the consistency test in preventing discriminatory measures whilst ensuring an equal trade opportunity for all members. More recently, in Brazil-Taxation (DS472) the panel found Brazil to be in breach of their MFN obligation due to their tax reductions on vehicles imported from MERCOSUR nations. Such reductions granted an unfair advantage to vehicles imported from MERCUSOR nations over other WTO members, thus were inconsistent with the second element of the consistency test. The aforementioned disputes depict the instrumental role of the consistency test in upholding the WTO's core principles and preventing discriminatory advantageous treatment. Such principles play a vital role in promoting equitable opportunities of trade fostering global economic growth.
The third tier of the consistency test only permits the MFN obligation to be applicable amongst 'like products.' The requirement of 'like products' is not only utilized by the consistency test in Article I:1 but also numerous other Articles of the GATT. In Japan Alcoholic beverages II (DS8) the appellate body indicated that the accordion of likeliness stretches and squeezes dependent upon the specific provision and circumstance in which it is encountered. Consequently, what may be considered a like product under a certain GATT provision may not be considered a like product under another. Although like products are not directly defined in the GATT, numerous precedents have indicated what may constitute as a 'like product.' In Spain-Unroasted Coffee (L/51315-28S/102) the panel examined the physical characteristics, end use, and tariff regimes of other members as a criterion to determine whether different blends of coffee to constituted like products under Article I:1. In a present dispute the panel would also consider any other relevant factors such as consumer habits. Due to a lack of recent precedents defining like products within the context of Article the panel examined the physical characteristics, end use, and tariff regimes of other members as a criterion to determine whether different blends of coffee to constituted like products under Article I:1. In a present dispute the panel would also consider any other relevant factors such as consumer habits. Due to a lack of recent precedents defining like products within the context of Article I:1 it is useful to consider the numerous authorities under Article III. In EC-Seal Products (DS401) the appellate body regarded both Article I:1 and Article III as non-discriminatory measures enforcing equal competitive opportunities. Accordingly, the application of likeliness would be similar in both provisions. In Japan Alcoholic beverages II (DS8) the panel suggested that 'like products' must be considered narrowly, but the category of the directly competitive or substitutable products is slightly broader. This meant that all like products were also directly competitive or substitutable whereas all directly competitive or substitutable products were not necessarily like products. This was confirmed by the panel in Canada-Periodicals (DS31) which held that like products must be narrowly construed as 'directly competitive or substitutable'. The narrowly construed definition of like products within the consistency test signifies the protection of non discrimination ensuring equal competitive opportunities.
The final stage of the consistency test necessitates that any advantage granted by a measure shall be accorded 'immediately and unconditionally' to all other like products, irrespective of origin or destination. While the condition of immediacy has a clear temporal connotation, the requirement of unconditional granting has undergone nuanced interpretation. In EC-Seal Products (DS401) the appellate body clarified the concept of unconditionally by suggesting that this requirement does not necessarily prevent nations from implementing any conditions to a measure, however, it expressly prohibits those conditions which incur detrimental consequences on the equal opportunities of like products from any member. Similarly in US Tuna (DS381) the appellate body referred to it observations in EC-Seal Products (DS401), emphasizing upon the need to access whether a measure modifies competitive conditions which ultimately harm like products originating from any other members. The emphasis on equal competitive opportunities, without necessitating a demonstration of actual trade effects, solidifies the preventive nature of the MFN obligation.
In conclusion, the four-tier consistency test of the MFN obligation under GATT is instrumental in safeguarding non-discrimination and equal trade opportunities among WTO members. The dynamic interpretation of terms like 'advantage' and 'like products' demonstrates the adaptability of the consistency test to evolving trade dynamics. The fundamental objectives of the consistency test and its effect in application underscore the significance of adhering to the core principles of equal treatment in international trade. Despite certain debates and interpretational nuances, the test remains a robust mechanism for upholding the core principles of the WTO and fostering equitable growth of global trade.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.