@article{WeinhardtSchoefer, author = {Weinhardt, Clara and Sch{\"o}fer, Till}, title = {Differential treatment for developing countries in the WTO: the unmaking of the North-South distinction in a multipolar world}, series = {Third World Quarterly}, journal = {Third World Quarterly}, doi = {10.1080/01436597.2021.1992271}, abstract = {This article examines the implications of the rise of new powers in the Global South for a central principle of global order: the distinction between the 'North' and the 'South', or 'developed' and 'developing countries', that emerged in the second half of the twentieth century. In doing so, we assess whether, and if so, how, the increasing tension between the binary 'North-South' distinction and growing heterogeneity within the Global South - as evidenced by the rise of emerging economies - has been reflected in the rules of multilateral trade policymaking. In the case of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the 'North-South' categorisation forms the basis of the legal principle of Special and Differential Treatment (SDT) that grants special rights to developing countries. To trace the evolution of SDT, we analyse legal developments and processes of contestation based on our conceptualisation of possible options for adaptation: graduation, individualisation and fragmentation. Drawing on a dataset of WTO decisions and agreements from 1995 to 2019, we find that the group of developing countries increasingly competes with other groups of disadvantaged countries for equity-based differential treatment. The resulting fragmentation contributes to the unmaking of the North-South distinction as a central ordering principle in global trade politics.}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{Schoefer, author = {Sch{\"o}fer, Till}, title = {Trading Places. Rethinking Trade Governance and the Status of Emerging Powers}, doi = {10.48462/opus4-4504}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-45041}, school = {Hertie School}, pages = {264}, abstract = {This dissertation examines recent contestation surrounding the status of emerging economies in international trade politics. In particular, it looks at the ways in which the rise of Brazil, India and China - the BICs - has shaped special rights for developing countries at the World Trade Organization (WTO). The primary focus of the thesis is the WTO's principle of Special and Differential Treatment (SDT), which provides developing countries with exemptions from certain liberalization commitments, implementation flexibilities, and pledges of technical assistance. At the WTO, access to such special rights is based on individual members' selfdeclaration as developing countries. However, as the BICs have risen, the 'North'- 'South' binary that underpins SDT has become less clear. The continued use of a legal norm based on the strict bifurcation of WTO members into sets of developed and developing countries has thus been called into question, most notably by the United States. At the outset, the dissertation develops a conceptual framework for delineating the different ideal typical pathways along which special and differential treatment can develop. An overall process of fragmentation is then outlined, characterized by the unmaking of special rights for developing countries, in parallel to the resilience of differential treatment for the smaller sub-group of Least Developed Countries (LDCs). The thesis continues by examining the contestation at the heart of these processes more closely. In doing so, it sets up a novel theoretical framework to analyse the potential adaptation strategies that emerging economies can adopt in response to contestation of their special rights. Significant strategic variation amongst the BICs comes to the fore in a series of case studies, as well as two chapters on China's strong defence of its developing country status and Brazil's recalibration of its (previously held) Southern leadership role. The thesis closes with an in-depth case study of negotiations on intellectual property rights. While the divergence of emerging economy positions and the fragmentation of SDT have marked the WTO era, the final chapter shows that in areas where BICs unity is still possible - such as on LDC rights - normative erosion is slowed.}, language = {en} } @article{SchoeferWeinhardt, author = {Sch{\"o}fer, Till and Weinhardt, Clara}, title = {Developing-country status at the WTO: the divergent strategies of Brazil, India and China}, series = {International Affairs}, volume = {98}, journal = {International Affairs}, number = {6}, doi = {10.1093/ia/iiac227}, pages = {1937 -- 1957}, abstract = {The global power shift towards Brazil, India, China and other non-western powers has led to pressures to adjust international institutions to new economic realities. Most power shift theories assume that established powers defend their institutional privileges, while emerging powers challenge them. Conversely, in this article we reverse this assumption by shedding light on 'privileges' of the weak: many international institutions have established special rights for disadvantaged regime members. We ask what strategies emerging powers adopt as they come under pressure to give up these rights commonly reserved for regime members with developing country status. We present a novel conceptualization of four ideal-typical strategies that combine elements of resistance and accommodation. Empirically, we examine the strategies that Brazil, India and China (BICs) have adopted in the World Trade Organization. We find that no uniform approach exists across the BICs: while India fiercely resists giving up its status as a developing country and the flexibilities it comes with, Brazil adopts a pragmatic approach that largely accommodates established powers' demands to give up special rights reserved for developing countries. China pursues a mixed strategy of selective accommodation and resistance. These findings contribute to recent debates on global power shifts by illustrating how material incentives and status considerations shape the adaptation of international institutions as privileges for the weak are re-negotiated.}, language = {en} } @article{Schoefer, author = {Sch{\"o}fer, Till}, title = {From Developing Country Leader to Flexible Negotiator: New Directions in Brazilian Trade Strategy}, series = {World Trade Review}, journal = {World Trade Review}, doi = {10.1017/S1474745623000319}, pages = {1 -- 28}, abstract = {Brazil has changed its negotiation strategy in World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations. In the first half of the WTO era (1995-), Brazil adopted a strong developing country leadership role as coordinator and spokesperson of the G20 group of developing countries. More recently, however, this group has disappeared from the negotiation scene. This article examines how Brazil has departed from a 2000 status quo and arrived at a more flexible approach, less reliant on the industrialized-developing divide as a structuring principle of its diplomacy. Using WTO negotiation documents, trade delegate interviews, dispute settlement case law, and secondary literature, I outline the contours of new directions in Brazilian trade policy. These include joint legislative initiatives with the EU, a move towards the plurilateral level on non-traditional issues, a greater heterogeneity of dispute settlement targets, and a newly flexible handling of its rights under the WTO's special and differential treatment status. The article contributes to ongoing debates on Brazil's status in international affairs, its reliance on large coalitions, and the maintenance of followership as key directives of its foreign policy, and scholarship that sees Brazil as stuck in a 'graduation dilemma'.}, language = {en} }