The Uruguay Round bargain of 1995 promised Special and Differential Treatment to developing countries in exchange for accepting stricter trade rules. Has this bargain remained fair? Critically evaluate.

Question

PocketIAS · Accepted Answer

The Uruguay Round Bargain: Has It Remained Fair?

The 1994 Uruguay Round promised Special and Differential Treatment (SDT) to developing nations in exchange for accepting TRIPS, GATS, and agricultural disciplines — a bargain now visibly skewed.

Where it held

India used TRIPS flexibilities via Section 3(d) — Novartis v. UOI (2013)
MFN principle opened developed-country markets previously governed by discretionary deals

Where it broke down

TRIPS imposed 20-year product patents, transferring rents to Northern MNCs
AoA uses 1986–88 reference prices — distorting India's food procurement calculus
Bali 2013: permanent public stockholding solution replaced by a temporary Peace Clause
Of ~150 SDT provisions, fewer than 30 are operationally binding

SDT: Promised vs. Reality

SDT Area	Promised	Reality
Agriculture	Policy flexibility	1986–88 price distortion
TRIPS	Health exemptions	Doha 2001 needed to clarify
Dispute settlement	Equal access	Appellate Body defunct since 2019

Way forward

Binding SDT with review mechanisms
Permanent stockholding solution for food security
Restored Appellate Body for functional dispute settlement
India must lead through G33 and BRICS coalitions

The Uruguay promise was real. Its delivery was not.

✍️ Practice Mode

Write. Evaluate. Improve. Repeat.

The model answer is ready.

Comments (0)