Mentor’s Comment: UPSC mains have always focused on the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) is transforming itself into a trade bloc  (2020) and WTO has to survive in the present context of ‘Trade War’ (2018).

During Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s U.S. visit on February 13, 2025, India and the U.S. agreed to begin talks on a multi-sector Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) by fall 2025. As both countries are WTO members, the agreement must follow WTO rules. While details remain unclear, the agreement’s content matters more than its label.

Today’s editorial discusses how the ongoing Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) negotiations may affect both countries. This information is useful for GS Paper 3 in the UPSC Mains exam.

_

Let’s learn!

Why in the News?

Since both the U.S. and India are members of the World Trade Organization, their trade agreements must follow WTO rules.

What are the key legal challenges India and the U.S. may face while negotiating a Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) under WTO law?

• Violation of the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) Principle: WTO law mandates that any trade advantage granted to one member must be extended to all members (Article I of GATT). A BTA providing preferential tariffs only to India or the U.S. may violate this principle.
  • Example: If the U.S. lowers tariffs on Indian textiles under the BTA without extending the same benefit to other WTO members like China, it breaches the MFN principle.
• Meeting the “Substantially All Trade” Requirement: Article XXIV.8(b) of GATT requires that Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) must cover “substantially all trade.” A limited-scope BTA focusing only on select sectors (e.g., pharmaceuticals or agriculture) may not satisfy this condition.
  • Example: If the India-U.S. BTA only includes technology and defense products while excluding key areas like agriculture, it may not qualify as a valid FTA under WTO law.
• Notification and Transparency Obligations: WTO members must notify the organization of any new regional trade agreements (RTAs) or BTAs and demonstrate compliance with Article XXIV of GATT. Failure to provide transparent schedules may lead to legal disputes.
  • Example: If India and the U.S. do not submit a clear implementation timeline for tariff reductions under an interim BTA, other WTO members could challenge the agreement.
• Bound Tariff Commitments: Both countries have pre-committed to maximum tariff limits (bound tariffs) under WTO rules. Any preferential treatment exceeding these limits may violate their commitments.
  • Example: If India agrees to reduce tariffs on American agricultural imports below its bound tariff rates, it could be accused of breaching its WTO commitments.
• Misuse of the “Interim Agreement” Clause: Article XXIV.5 allows “interim agreements” only if they lead to a full FTA within a reasonable period (usually 10 years). Using an interim BTA to delay full liberalization may face legal scrutiny.
  • Example: If the India-U.S. BTA remains a partial agreement for an extended period without progressing toward an FTA, it could be deemed a violation of WTO norms.

Why is the “most favoured nation” (MFN) principle significant in evaluating the legality of the proposed India-U.S. BTA?

• Prevents Discrimination Between Trading Partners: The MFN principle under Article I of GATT ensures that any trade advantage (e.g., lower tariffs) given to one WTO member must be extended to all members. A BTA offering exclusive benefits violates this core principle.
  • Example: If the U.S. reduces tariffs on Indian pharmaceuticals but does not extend the same reduction to other countries like Vietnam, it breaches the MFN rule.
• Limits Preferential Bilateral Deals: WTO law only allows exceptions to the MFN rule through comprehensive trade agreements covering “substantially all trade” under Article XXIV of GATT. A narrowly focused BTA risks legal challenges.
  • Example: If India and the U.S. sign a BTA that only includes high-tech products while excluding major sectors like agriculture, it may not qualify for an MFN exemption.
• Ensures Transparency and Fair Competition: The MFN principle promotes a transparent, rule-based trading system where no country receives hidden advantages, ensuring fair market access for all WTO members.
  • Example: If India provides exclusive tariff cuts on American dairy products without offering similar terms to New Zealand, it would violate WTO transparency obligations.
• Prevents Trade Fragmentation: Upholding the MFN principle avoids trade fragmentation by ensuring consistent rules for all members. Bilateral deals that bypass MFN could undermine the multilateral trade system.
  • Example: If the U.S. grants Indian textiles preferential access through a BTA but not to countries like Bangladesh, it could distort global supply chains.
• Requires WTO Notification and Review: Any departure from the MFN principle through a BTA must be notified to the WTO and subjected to legal scrutiny under Article XXIV to confirm its compliance.
  • Example: If the India-U.S. BTA is not notified to the WTO or lacks a clear transition plan toward an FTA, it may be legally contested by other members like China or the EU.

How can the proposed BTA be structured as an “interim agreement” under Article XXIV of the GATT without violating WTO norms?

• Commitment to Full Free Trade Area (FTA) or Customs Union: The BTA must outline a clear plan to eventually form a Free Trade Area (FTA) or Customs Union within a reasonable time frame (generally within 10 years).
  • Example: The India-Mauritius Comprehensive Economic Cooperation and Partnership Agreement (CECPA) started as an interim agreement with the goal of expanding into a broader trade framework.

• Transparency and Notification to WTO: The parties must notify the WTO of the interim agreement and submit detailed information on trade coverage, timelines, and implementation steps for review by the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA).
  • Example: The European Union (EU)-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement was notified to the WTO during the Brexit transition, ensuring compliance with Article XXIV.

• Non-Discriminatory Transition: The interim agreement must not create unjustifiable discrimination against other WTO members, and the removal of trade barriers should cover substantially all trade between the parties.
  • Example: The US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) complies with this by covering a broad range of goods and services, ensuring that trade barriers are progressively reduced.

Way forward: 

• Ensure Comprehensive Coverage and Timely Transition: Design the BTA to cover substantially all trade sectors with a clear roadmap toward a full Free Trade Area (FTA) within the 10-year WTO guideline to comply with Article XXIV.
• Enhance Transparency and Legal Compliance: Notify the WTO promptly, providing detailed schedules on tariff reductions and implementation timelines, ensuring non-discrimination and regular compliance reviews by the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA).

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now