Extra-Territorial Offices of Exchange,the USO and International Trade
The authors make the following argument in this paper. Unless certain conditions are met, the bringing of foreign mail into a country under the Terminal Dues regime by Extra-Territorial Offices of Exchange (ETOEs) runs counter to the spirit of the Universal Postal Union (UPU) and the Universal Service Obligation (USO). In addition, such activity raises questions about the integrity of observation of the rules of international trade by the countries hosting ETOEs, as well as destination countries. Fundamentally, the authors’ position is that the member states of the UPU have assumed the USO; the member states of the World Trade Organization (WTO) have assumed certain trade disciplines under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS); and ETOEs have wreaked havoc upon these regimes, which had otherwise been serving the world well. Finally, the authors contend that the dis-equilibrium wrought by ETOEs could be reversed if ETOEs were to be brought within the disciplines of the USO and the GATS.
KeywordsMember State International Trade World Trade Organization Destination Country Postal Policy
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Campbell, James I. 2001. “Reforming the Universal Postal Union.” In Future Directions in Postal Reform, edited by Michael A. Crew and Paul R. Kleindorfer. Boston, MA Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
- Universal Postal Convention. 1999. Berne.Google Scholar
- Universal Postal Union. 2002. “Extra-Territorial Offices of Exchange Marketing Aspects,” CA EP GTU 2002.1 — Doc 4b.Google Scholar
- Universal Postal Union. 2002. “Extraterritorial Offices of Exchange (ETOEs),” CA EP GTU 2002.1 — Doc 4c.Google Scholar