WTO Again Sides With Antigua Over Online Gambling 429
TechDirt writes "For some time we've been following the ongoing conflict between the US and the island nation of Antigua surrounding internet gambling. Even before the passage of the most recent anti-gambling law, Antigua had gone to the WTO to complain that the US government's actions against online gambling were de facto protectionist measures, and thus violated international trade law. The WTO ended up siding with Antigua, although, quite predictably, the US did nothing to resolve the issue -- in fact, things have only gotten worse. Now the WTO is speaking out again, slamming the US government for its failure to abide by the decision against it. Once again, it seems likely that the US will ignore the decision, although that would give Antigua the right to retaliate. One possibility that's been thrown out there is that Antigua may turn itself into a haven for free music and software and set up some site like allofmp3.com. Of course, the US put pressure on Russia to crack down on that site, as part of the country's admittance into the WTO, but since Antigua is already part of the organization, the US would have no such leverage. Now, the WTO has spoken out again."
Re:slashdotit sucks (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hmm.... (Score:3, Informative)
The report also noted that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), which was passed after Antigua's initial complaint, has the same loopholes that exist in the laws that encouraged Antigua to file the complaint. These loopholes are the main reasons that the panel ruled the U.S. is violating trade laws. Because the U.S. allows certain types of online gambling transactions to take place within its borders, but actively tries to stop the same services from being offered by companies located outside the U.S., the U.S. is violating WTO agreements.
State lotteries and horse racing (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Same as our Softwood lumber (Score:4, Informative)
Googled for this out of interest.
Do you have a more recent story? Because this one from last year contradicts you.
Re:Same as our Softwood lumber (Score:5, Informative)
"6.2 We therefore consider that the United States has implemented the recommendations and
rulings of the DSB in US - Softwood Lumber V, to bring its measure into conformity with its
obligations under the AD Agreement.
6.3 Having found that the United States did not act inconsistently with its obligations under the
asserted WTO Agreements, we consider that no recommendation under Article 19.1 of the DSU is
necessary, and we make none."
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/tna-nac/dispute-en.a
Final settlement documented here:
http://w01.international.gc.ca/MinPub/Publication
Re:Shut up and take your medicine (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Shut up and take your medicine (Score:3, Informative)
The WTO cares because one of Antigua's chief exports is gambling. Since we're a member of the WTO we've agreed to not apply protectionist measures to other WTO countries. Banning over-seas gambling is a de facto protectionist measure.
The WTO is not particularly concerned with human rights violations, only the free flow of goods and services between its member countries.
Re:Shut up and take your medicine (Score:3, Informative)
Isn't that a Plutocracy?
Honestly, when your Congressmen are openly bought by lobby groups, you guys should have a really issue with that... Votes in Congress should not be bought by the highest bidder, and it's sad that Congressmen so open are okay with that.
And when your choice is Incumbant Congressional Whore A vs. Challenging Congressional Whore B there isn't a whole hell of a lot anyone can do about it...
And Senators are no better - equally as whorish as their Congressional counterparts.
Re:Shut up and take your medicine (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Shut up and take your medicine (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Same as our Softwood lumber (Score:1, Informative)
August 2006.
Despite the "Settlement" of April of 2006, the U.S. continues to ignore WTO rulings that are not in its favor, regardless of the industry in question.