WTO rules for Hong Kong in its trade dispute with US

[jhungary]

‘The World Trade Organization ruled that the US government’s requirement that Hong Kong-made goods be labeled “Made in China” is unwarranted and violates international regulations.’

The WTO ruling on the dispute is based on existing regulations, and the WTO did say it "violates international regulations." A clear statement that you are denying. But no, I already stated that no one can enforce any ruling against the US, not the WTO, the ICJ or any other international body.

As to ridiculous argument on law and regulations, remember the statement was on the so-called rule-based order, not law-based order. You are not only one bringing law into the discussion.

Again, CAN YOU TELL ME HOW WTO ARE ABLE TO ENFORCE THIS JUDGEMENT?

If not, then as I said, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE??

WTO | Understanding the WTO - Whose WTO is it anyway?

The WTO is run by its member governments. All major decisions are made by the membership as a whole, either by ministers (who meet at least once every two years) or by their ambassadors or delegates (who meet regularly in Geneva). Decisions are normally taken by consensus.

www.wto.org

n this respect, the WTO is different from some other international organizations such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. In the WTO, power is not delegated to a board of directors or the organization’s head.

When WTO rules impose disciplines on countries’ policies, that is the outcome of negotiations among WTO members. The rules are enforced by the members themselves under agreed procedures that they negotiated, including the possibility of trade sanctions. But those sanctions are imposed by member countries, and authorized by the membership as a whole. This is quite different from other agencies whose bureaucracies can, for example, influence a country’s policy by threatening to withhold credit.

That is why I said there are no law or any other LEGAL PREMISE for WTO to enforce such ruling.

As for the difference between Law and Regulation, they are different, and you don't need to be 0L to know that the fact that you still ask show how ignorant of you on that topic. And no, I did not bring up the term law in the discussion, I said there are NO LAW (Which is a fact) on WTO end to enforce anything on any country.

There is no law in place on WTO level on how a country dictate their trading rules, that's up to individual country to make.

Guess it's you still don't get it

You are the one that confused between the REGULATION and LAW and think they are the same. Which then you make a complete U Turn and said this is a "Rule" base order, not "Law" base order

 

[Zsari]

Again, CAN YOU TELL ME HOW WTO ARE ABLE TO ENFORCE THIS JUDGEMENT?

If not, then as I said, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE??

WTO | Understanding the WTO - Whose WTO is it anyway?

The WTO is run by its member governments. All major decisions are made by the membership as a whole, either by ministers (who meet at least once every two years) or by their ambassadors or delegates (who meet regularly in Geneva). Decisions are normally taken by consensus.

www.wto.org

That is why I said there are no law or any other LEGAL PREMISE for WTO to enforce such ruling.

As for the difference between Law and Regulation, they are different, and you don't need to be 0L to know that the fact that you still ask show how ignorant of you on that topic. And no, I did not bring up the term law in the discussion, I said there are NO LAW (Which is a fact) on WTO end to enforce anything on any country.



You are the one that confused between the REGULATION and LAW and think they are the same. Which then you make a complete U Turn and said this is a "Rule" base order, not "Law" base order

Yet again completely miss the point of the contradiction in US action and its so called rule based order. All international agreements are based on enforcement by member states themselves as there is no global enforcement mechanism for anything. If a minor state refuse to adhere to WTO ruling or other international agreements, it could very well face sanctions by the rest of the world, while few countries if any dare to sanction the U.S. It’s certainly not due to the lack of rule but willingness to abide by the rule in a so call rule based order that the US is operating on.

 

[jhungary]

Yet again completely miss the point of the contradiction in US action and its so called rule based order. All international agreements are based on enforcement by member states themselves as there is no global enforcement mechanism for anything. If a minor state refuse to adhere to WTO ruling or other international agreements, it could very well face sanctions by the rest of the world, while few countries if any dare to sanction the U.S. It’s certainly not due to the lack of rule but willingness to abide by the rule in a so call rule based order that the US is operating on.

Let me put this CLEAR in plain english to you.

THERE ARE NO RULE BASE ORDER. WTO Rule are NON-BINDING, and there are NO ENFORCEMENT. BECAUSE THE MEMBER STATE CAN CHOOSE NOT TO ENFORCE THE RULING.

For example, if WTO ruled against someone, it does not force the party that win the argument or the party that lose that argument to do something. as quoted, it was up to both party to settle the dispute. This is different than the enforcement result in no result.

All international agreements are based on enforcement by member states themselves as there is no global enforcement mechanism for anything

is WRONG.

UN Charter are Biding, and the judgement will be executed by the United Nation, a resolution will hand down and a UN Force will be sent compromising the UN member to execute that Resolution. International Court Judgement are Binding, and are executed by ICC, a warrant will be issue to an individual, a friend of mine is on the Team that execute an ICC warrant to arrest Milosevic.

Dude, your understanding of international law is funny.

 

[Zsari]

Let me put this CLEAR in plain english to you.

THERE ARE NO RULE BASE ORDER. WTO Rule are NON-BINDING, and there are NO ENFORCEMENT. BECAUSE THE MEMBER STATE CAN CHOOSE NOT TO ENFORCE THE RULING.

Lol. Hey, how many time did the US administration use the term RULE BASE ORDER when it describe WTO trade regime? Here is an excerpt from the US executive office of the president.

"The United States is an original member of the WTO and a steadfast supporter of the rules-based multilateral trading system that it governs."

The United States and the World Trade Organization

This week, Ambassador Ron Kirk and other senior staff from the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) will participate in the eighth World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference in Geneva, Switzerland. The Ministerial Conference, which is the chief decision-making body...

ustr.gov

The denial is getting crazier by the days.

 

[jhungary]

Lol. Hey, how many time did the US administration use the term RULE BASE ORDER when it describe WTO trade regime? Here is an excerpt from the US executive office of the president.

"The United States is an original member of the WTO and a steadfast supporter of the rules-based multilateral trading system that it governs."

The United States and the World Trade Organization

This week, Ambassador Ron Kirk and other senior staff from the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) will participate in the eighth World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference in Geneva, Switzerland. The Ministerial Conference, which is the chief decision-making body...

ustr.gov

The denial is getting crazier by the days.

Oh my god.

you still don't get it don't you. Rule base is one thing, EVDERY ORGANISATION was bounded by rule and regulation. How you would enforce them is another issue. Again, your problem is you see "Rules" and "Law" are the same thing, which it wasn't. On the other hand, even Law Based society cannot provide a fully covered resolution to regulate their society, for example, I would, and most people would describe UN as a pointless organisation even tho UN Charter is binding, because of the P5 veto power.

You can keep talking about semantic all you want. Just answer me these 2 questions I asked 3 posts ago.

1.) How WTO enforce their ruling?
2.) How WTO can change US Internal Trade Policy as defined by Department of Commerce?

If the answer is they can't, then whatever Ruling WTO hand out is POINTLESS. Not because they Might is Right, it's because they lack an enforcement structure to bind their ruling.

I cannot dumb it down further for you. If you still don't understand, then I will leave it as is. Because any further is as Pointless as WTO ruling.

 

[Zsari]

Oh my god.

you still don't get it don't you. Rule base is one thing, EVDERY ORGANISATION was bounded by rule and regulation. How you would enforce them is another issue.

Why is enforcement even in the discussion? This has nothing to do with enforcement. It's about rules that every country in the WTO agreed upon that the US refused to honor while lecturing others to abide by these same rules. Enforcement or the lack of is completely beside the point. Now the below statement is more appropriately reflect the US position.

"The United States is an original member of the WTO and a steadfast supporter of the rules-based multilateral trading system that it governs," in which the US will not be obligated to.

 

[jhungary]

Why is enforcement even in the discussion? This has nothing to do with enforcement. It's about rules that every country in the WTO agreed upon that the US refused to honor while lecturing others to abide by these same rules. Enforcement or the lack of is completely beside the point. Now the below statement is more appropriately reflect the US position.

"The United States is an original member of the WTO and a steadfast supporter of the rules-based multilateral trading system that it governs," in which the US will not be obligated to.

That's because my very first point is.

It wouldn't matter if that is US or Uganda, you can't enforce the ruling means your "Law" is pointless.

Again, this is not what or which country obligation, this is not about which country have the power, this is about a rule that if they cannot be enforced, is POINTLESS. Hence my 2 questions you are still dodging since Post 4. It's the same whether it about trade or about J-Walking.

 

[Zsari]

That's because my very first point is.

It wouldn't matter if that is US or Uganda, you can't enforce the ruling means your "Law" is pointless.

Again, this is not what or which country obligation, this is not about which country have the power, this is about a rule that if they cannot be enforced, is POINTLESS. Hence my 2 questions you are still dodging since Post 4. It's the same whether it about trade or about J-Walking.

Far from pointless, the behavior of "do as I say, not as I do" is for all to see. That's the entire point of filing the case as HK does not at all expect the US to abide by the ruling.

 

[jhungary]

Far from pointless, the behavior of "do as I say, not as I do" is for all to see. That's the entire point of filing the case as HK does not at all expect the US to abide by the ruling.

Dude, no one expect anyone to abide by WTO ruling, that is the god damn point.

AND THAT'S WHAT MAKE WTO OR ANY INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION POINTLESS.

And a big lol and kind of rich on "Do as I say, not as I do" coming form the Chinese. How's that PCA ruling coming on South China Sea? Remind me if China obliged to that ruling??? It's very funny to see someone complaint how international Politics works and then cry unfair when they are doing the exact same thing.

 

[Zsari]

Dude, no one expect anyone to abide by WTO ruling, that is the god damn point.

AND THAT'S WHAT MAKE WTO OR ANY INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION POINTLESS.

And a big lol and kind of rich on "Do as I say, not as I do" coming form the Chinese. How's that PCA ruling coming on South China Sea? Remind me if China obliged to that ruling??? It's very funny to see someone complaint how international Politics works and then cry unfair when they are doing the exact same thing.

Dude, no one expect anyone to abide by WTO ruling, that is the god damn point.

AND THAT'S WHAT MAKE WTO OR ANY INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION POINTLESS.

And a big lol and kind of rich on "Do as I say, not as I do" coming form the Chinese. How's that PCA ruling coming on South China Sea? Remind me if China obliged to that ruling??? It's very funny to see someone complaint how international Politics works and then cry unfair when they are doing the exact same thing.

Again far from pointless, many countries have abided by the WTO ruling and complied with WTO recommendations. I suggest you go and check the WTO cases resolutions.

And no, China does not lecture any country on the so call rule based order, so the condition of “do as I say” simply doesn’t exist.

 

[jhungary]

Again far from pointless, many countries have abided by the WTO ruling and complied with WTO recommendations. I suggest you go and check the WTO cases resolutions.

And no, China does not lecture any country on the so call rule based order, so the condition of “do as I say” simply doesn’t exist.

again, you can talk about semantic all you want. I know how WTO resolve issue, my wife is an INTERNATIONAL LAWYER in case you are wondering.

I have no problem with you think what the hell you think, that's you. I have my opinion and I had express it.

And lol, China does not lecture any country on so called "Rule based order"?? How many times China asked for international to respect to International Organisation Decision (WHO, UNHCR and even ICC) when they simply ignore any judgement that goes against their way from COVID to South China Seas issue?? Don't need to answer that, because I am done here.

 

[Zsari]

again, you can talk about semantic all you want. I know how WTO resolve issue, my wife is an INTERNATIONAL LAWYER in case you are wondering.

I have no problem with you think what the hell you think, that's you. I have my opinion and I had express it.

And lol, China does not lecture any country on so called "Rule based order"?? How many times China asked for international to respect to International Organisation Decision (WHO, UNHCR and even ICC) when they simply ignore any judgement that goes against their way from COVID to South China Seas issue?? Don't need to answer that, because I am done here.

You are the one arguing over semantics. If you know how WTO resolve issue, then you know there are plenty of countries who have complied with WTO ruling to call it pointless. And if your wife is an international lawyer, you would have kept quiet about the PCA ruling, as it is full of holes.

 

[jhungary]

You are the one arguing over semantics. If you know how WTO resolve issue, then you know there are plenty of countries who have complied with WTO ruling to call it pointless. And if your wife is an international lawyer, you would have kept quiet about the PCA ruling, as it is full of holes.

What a stupid argument, sure, if it rules against you, then PCA is full of hole. That's what loser used to say

Also, just because many people complied with WTO ruling does not really mean it have a point. if I told my neighbor the entire street are mine and I let him walks the street because I don't want to challenge him, does that mean I have a point?? In fact, do you even know what is semantics to begin with??

 

[Zsari]

What a stupid argument, sure, if it rules against you, then PCA is full of hole. That's what loser used to say

Also, just because many people complied with WTO ruling does not really mean it have a point. if I told my neighbor the entire street are mine and I let him walks the street because I don't want to challenge him, does that mean I have a point?? In fact, do you even know what is semantics to begin with??

I'm sure people complies with the ruling means it's pointless. Now, that's a stupid argument. And you forgot your argument is that the WTO ruling is pointless because countries do not abide by it.

PCA arbitration is full of holes as it is an actual arbitration that lacks jurisdiction based on the UNCLOS article. That's why it has to misrepresent China's claim as that of historic right instead of historic title, making the ruling completely irrelevant as that has nothing to do with what's claimed. Maybe your wife can tell you how that works.

 

[Song Hong]

The biggest problem of WTO is -- US has almost make up her mind not to abide with her rules to the point even considering of de facto quiting WTO. The main preserver of WTO today is China.