Cuba, the United States, and the World Trade Organization

Relic of the Cold War in a New Age of Trade

By Peter M. Stecker
Peter Stecker, a third-year law student at Albany Law School, did his undergraduate work at Fordham University where majored in History and spent a summer studying at Heythrop College in London. While in law school, he worked for a year as an intern in the Low-Income Taxpayer Clinic,  and he has held several positions with state and local governmental entities, including his current clerkship with Judge Rachel Kretser of the City of Albany Criminal Court. This past winter, he competed in the Jessup International Moot Court Competition in New York City.
This paper, prepared for Professor Harrington’s Fall 2012 International Organizations class, was a journey of self-discovery for Peter. He is half-Cuban, and a descendant of the Menendez family who founded the world-renowned Montecristo cigar brand.

The following is a story of revolution, retribution, and rum.

The World Trade Organization’s (“WTO”) General Council meeting on July 25, 2012 was relatively unremarkable.  Like so many other WTO meetings the topics of discussion were activities of States that required WTO action, progress reports on organizational initiatives, and other assorted proposed internal policy changes.

After the planned portion of the WTO’s July 25th gathering, however, the unremarkable turned fascinating in the “other business” phase of the meeting.  At this point, a representative from the Cuban government addressed the General Council and reiterated that the United States (“U.S.”) was still not in compliance with a Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) order from 2002 to change a 1998 U.S. law designed to prevent trademark protection for items seized by the Cuban government after the Communist Revolution of the late 1950s.

After shortly recapping this situation, the Cuban representative posed a complex question to the General Council: “what guarantee of industrial property rights does the [U.S.] offer in their territory to the Members of this Organization and, in particular, to Cuba?”

This paper focuses on the history of the Cuba-U.S. trademark dispute, how it has been handled by the WTO, and its current status.  Also, this paper addresses the issue of the WTO’s lack of power, the questionable validity of Cold War legislation, and the nebulous treatment of international intellectual property protection.

Finally, this paper examines the impact that this dispute will have on the most potent of all Cold War relics, the U.S.-Cuba trade embargo.

_____________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Import Sanctions in Reaction to Currency Manipulation

Are They Necessary and Legal to Cure Resulting Trade Imbalances

By Scott Smith
Scott Smith is an advocate for free market economics, both nationally and globally. He studied Economics at Hillsdale College, and studying the legal framework that inspires economic growth was a passion of his while studying at Albany Law from where he graduated in the Spring of 2012. In his graduating year, Scott received the barrister award for trial and appellate advocacy.

China’s trade policy is hurting the United States and the world. Trading with China costs the U.S. three times more than the benefit, including 2.8 million American jobs.

China’s devalued currency serves to protect its domestic production, while simultaneously granting an unfair advantage to its exported goods in the global marketplace. Other Asiatic countries as well as Brazil, Russia and India have implemented similar currency policies to be competitive with Chinese exports. As a result, significant trade imbalances have fueled a global financial bubble. The international financial organizations, namely the WTO and IMF, which regulate unfair and damaging trade practices, have so far proven ineffective to cure the problem.

China’s actions have effectively created a global anti-stimulus. The anti-stimulus has come in the form of a liquidity gap. China’s currency policy injures the major global economy because the prominent countries are caught in a liquidity gap—they are depressed but unable to generate recovery because the relevant interest rates are already at zero. This liquidity gap has especially affected the Federal Reserve and policy makers as they scramble to boost the economy and cure the U.S. unemployment problem.

The U.S. government has taken a domestic multilateral approach to aiding U.S. economic recovery, including action by the Federal Reserve and proposed legislation known as the American Jobs Act. Among other things, proposed legislation H.R. 2378 would allow a tariff to be placed on imported goods from countries with an undervalued, manipulated currency.*
_____________________________
* Citations to references in this introduction are available in the paper.
To read the entire paper, open HERE.