Facts: Antigua is a small Caribbean nation. When it began hosting gambling websites, its economy
thrived, boosted by U.S. gamblers. But when the United States started criminally prosecuting Internet
gambling, Antigua’s profits plummeted. The United States had the right to take this step, but it had to do
so consistently—treating foreign and domestic sites the same. The problem was that it allowed Internet
betting on horseracing within its borders.
Antigua challenged U.S. gambling laws in the WTO, arguing that they discriminated against foreign
betting services. Both the United States and Antigua were members of GATS, under which each agree to
free trade (including nondiscrimination and national treatment) in online services.
A WTO panel ruled that the United States’ inconsistent gambling laws violated GATS and ordered that it
bring them into compliance. Two years passed and the U.S. government did not act.
Frustrated, Antigua requested permission from the WTO to suspend its obligations to the United States
under TRIPs. This suspension would mean that Antigua could freely use, reproduce, and distribute any
U.S.-copyrighted, trademarked, or patented works—a real blow to the U.S. entertainment,
pharmaceutical, and technology industries. The United States objected and submitted the matter to a panel
of WTO experts.
Issue: When one WTO Member refuses to comply with a WTO ruling, can the injured Member retaliate
by suspending its duties under another treaty?
Excerpts from the WTO Arbitrator’s Decision:
Antigua considers it unconscionable for the United States to have done nothing to come into compliance
in the time that it should have, and now requests to be authorized to suspend [its] obligations under the
TRIPS Agreement.
Antigua, a developing country, is by far the smallest WTO Member to have made a request for the
suspension of concessions and realizes the difficulty of providing effective countermeasures against the
world’s dominant economy.
When a complaining party wishes to seek suspension in another agreement than that in which a violation
was found, it must prove that (1) it is not effective for it to suspend the same agreement and (2) that the
circumstances are serious enough to suspend obligations under another agreement.
Antigua considers that suspension of obligations in [GATS] would most likely impair the already limited
options available to Antiguan citizens while having virtually no impact on the United States at all. The
trade disparity [between the countries] is so great that United States service providers would suffer little
harm at all, if any, while Antiguan consumers would be forced to scramble for replacement services at
uncertain cost. The volume of its imports from the United States in services is nowhere near sufficient to
absorb the level of suspension of concessions that it is entitled to.
In order to demonstrate the seriousness of the circumstances, Antigua first presents some basic figures
comparing the population, size, GDP, exports and imports of the United States and Antigua, which
illustrate a considerable disparity in all of these areas.
Antigua also highlights that it has extremely limited natural resources and very limited arable land, such
that it cannot produce sufficient agricultural products to satisfy domestic needs, let alone for export.
Antigua further notes that its economy has become highly dependent on tourism and associated services.
Third, Antigua highlights the need to diversify its economy, and that in order to do this it has tried to
develop trade in services, including trade in remote gambling.
In our view, the various considerations highlighted by Antigua are such as to exacerbate the difficulties in
finding a way to suspend obligations in an effective manner under the GATS.
Accordingly, we find that Antigua may seek to suspend obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.
Question: When a complaining party wishes to seek suspension in another agreement than that in which a
violation was found, what must it prove?
Answer: It must prove that (1) it is not effective for it to suspend the same agreement and (2) that the
Question: What is the smallest WTO member?