Purpose

This paper aims to draw attention to an urgent need for reform of the regulatory framework of the broader export credit system to ensure a new and comprehensive “safe haven” for officially supported export credits. The purpose is to analyse the complex debate on disciplines of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), creating a point of reference for future analysis of and debates around the “carve-out clause” of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) and a “safe haven” in a broader sense.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper takes inspiration from legal, economic and political science literature on subsidies and officially supported export credits, as well as on legal documents related to the WTO and the OECD. It examines the WTO subsidy and the OECD export credits framework, focusing on main legal and economic governance aspects. Then, it gives a critical analysis how “safe” a “safe haven” in a broader sense might be, assessing frictions of and solutions for the fundamentally different set of disciplines, limitations, financial instruments not covered by OECD regulations, as well as new challenges related to climate finance.

Findings

After assessing the challenges regarding the “carve-out clause” of the WTO subsidy framework and two tracks aiming to create a new “safe haven”, requirements for comprehensive disciplines for officially supported export credits are pointed out. Furthermore, several misunderstandings and mistakes appearing in the debate are clarified.

Research limitations/implications

Desktop research rather than empirical field work.

Practical implications

This paper creates awareness for governments and exporters how to deal with a complex system of interrelated disciplines. The question, how “safe” a “safe haven” in a broader sense can be, has not been resolved yet. Some authors focus on the WTO disciplines not taking into account the need for an effective matching procedure of the Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits (the Arrangement). Furthermore, the introduction of several new pre-export financing programmes and the growing significance of climate finance-related instruments for export credit agencies creates both opportunities and challenges. This paper can serve as a reference point for the academic debate and further research. This paper also offers newcomers to the topic a comprehensive overview.

Originality/value

Although the “carve-out clause” and the Arrangement have been much discussed, there is limited literature review structuring both existing and new aspects of the debate, assessing (dis)advantages of arguments and interpretations. This paper both adds to the corpus of literature about the ASCM, as well as the Arrangement, and takes this corpus as the object of its analysis.

中文翻译：

---

WTO的“避风港”有多“安全”？需要使官方支持的出口信贷的纪律现代化

目的

本文旨在提请注意，迫切需要改革更广泛的出口信贷体系的监管框架，以确保为官方支持的出口信贷提供一个新的、全面的“安全港”。目的是分析世界贸易组织（WTO）和经济合作与发展组织（OECD）关于纪律的复杂辩论，为未来围绕“例外条款”的分析和辩论创造一个参考点”的补贴和反补贴措施协议 (ASCM) 以及广义上的“避风港”。

设计/方法/途径

本文的灵感来自关于补贴和官方支持的出口信贷的法律、经济和政治学文献，以及与 WTO 和 OECD 相关的法律文件。它审查了世贸组织的补贴和经合组织的出口信贷框架，重点关注主要的法律和经济治理方面。然后，它对更广泛意义上的“避风港”可能有多“安全”进行了批判性分析，评估了一系列根本不同的纪律、限制、经合组织法规未涵盖的金融工具以及新的金融工具的摩擦和解决方案。与气候融资相关的挑战。

发现

在评估了 WTO 补贴框架的“例外条款”和旨在创建新“避风港”的两条轨道的挑战之后，指出了对官方支持的出口信贷进行综合约束的要求。此外，对辩论中出现的几个误解和错误进行了澄清。

研究局限性/影响

桌面研究而不是实证实地工作。

实际影响

本文使政府和出口商了解如何处理相互关联的学科的复杂系统。广义上的“避风港”有多“安全”的问题尚未得到解决。一些作者专注于 WTO 纪律，而没有考虑到官方支持的出口信贷安排（“安排”）的有效匹配程序的必要性。此外，一些新的出口前融资计划的推出以及气候融资相关工具对出口信贷机构的重要性日益增加，既带来了机遇，也带来了挑战。本文可作为学术争论和进一步研究的参考依据。本文还为该主题的新手提供了全面的概述。

原创性/价值

尽管对“例外条款”和《安排》进行了大量讨论，但很少有文献回顾来构建辩论的现有和新方面，评估论点和解释的（不利）优势。本文既增加了有关ASCM的文献语料库，也增加了该安排，并以此语料库作为其分析的对象。