Is anyone aware of a resource that details which CUs and FTAs have been found to be compliant with Article XXIV of the GATT? The best I have thus far is footnote seven in “Agriculture, GATT, and Regional Trade Agreements” by Sharon Sheffield:
As of January 1995, only 6 RTA’s [sic] have been found to be compliant with Article XXIV by unanimous agreement of the working party. Of these 6, only 2 are presumed to still be in operation (Czech-Slovak CU and the Caribbean Community and
Common Market).
Trade Diversion 
Jonathan,
I’m not an expert on this, but my take, from looking at some web sites this evening, is this. I think you are asking how many CUs or FTAs have been vetted by the WTO committee with jurisdiction on this. My understanding, based on looking at the websites below, is none since 1995.
The WTO web site has a page on Article XXIV: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/region_e/regatt_e.htm”
Here is a WTO page on a 2003 seminar on Art. XXIV: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/region_e/sem_nov03_e/sem_nov03_prog_e.htm
This paper from the seminar has some interesting material: RTAs and the multilateral trading system: recent developments in the global and regional trade agendas by Clem Boonekamp, Director, Trade Policies Review Division, WTO
This paper includes this text:
“Existing WTO rules on RTAs have proved throughout the years to be ill-equipped to deal with the realities of RTAs. In practice, the task of verifying the WTO compliance of RTAs notified under GATT Article XXIV and GATS Article V is entrusted to the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA). This body, however, has enjoyed little success so far in assessing the consistency of the more than 180 RTAs notified to the WTO, due to various political and legal difficulties, most of which were inherited from the GATT years. One problem derives from the possible links between any CRTA consistency judgement and the dispute settlement process. Also, there are long-standing controversies about the interpretation of the WTO provisions against which RTAs are assessed, and institutional problems arising from either the absence of WTO rules ( e.g., on preferential rules of origin), or from troublesome discrepancies between existing WTO rules and those contained in some existing RTAs. The CRTA has also been unable to carry out effectively its functions of review and oversight of the implementation of RTAs.”
The committee’s web page is here: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/region_e/regcom_e.htm
If I read the following right, the committee hasn’t reported favorably on the consistency of any agreement with WTO rules since 1995:
“The examination of an agreement in the CRTA serves two purposes: it ensures the transparency of RTAs and allows Members to evaluate an agreement’s consistency with WTO rules. The examination is conducted on the basis of information provided by the parties to the RTA, through written replies to written questions posed by WTO Members or through oral replies to questions posed at CRTA meetings. Once the factual examination is concluded, the Secretariat drafts the examination report. Thereafter, consultations are conducted and once the report is agreed by the CRTA, it is submitted to the relevant superior body for adoption.
“However, no examination report has been finalized since 1995 because of lack of consensus. One problem derives from the possible links between CRTA-consistency judgement and the dispute settlement process. In addition, there are long-standing controversies about the interpretation of the WTO provisions against which RTAs are assessed, and institutional problems arising either from the absence of WTO rules (e.g. on preferential rules of origin), or from discrepancies between WTO rules and those contained in some RTAs.”
Let me know what else you learn. And send me your new email address.
Ben