Advertisement

Extraterritorial Offices of Exchange

Examining New Forms of Competition under the UPU Umbrella
  • Lea Emerson
  • Anthony Alverno
Chapter
Part of the Topics in Regulatory Economics and Policy Series book series (TREP, volume 44)

Abstract

One of the hotly debated issues being discussed among the membership of the Universal Postal Union (UPU) concerns the status of, and treatment extended to, commercial extraterritorial offices of exchange (ETOEs). ETOEs are facilities, whether real or virtual, established by postal operators outside their home territories in the territories of other countries. The surge in ETOE activity is not unique to industrialized country (IC) operators. Indeed, some operators are attempting to leverage their ability to access networks under developing country (DC) terminal dues rates in order to compete with universal service providers (USPs) for delivery of cross-border items. Thus, postal operators in both DCs and ICs are affected by ETOE competition, since the terminal dues system adopted at the 1999 UPU Beijing Congress provides that rates for access to postal networks vary depending upon the identities of the countries of origin and destination.

Keywords

European Union World Trade Organization Destination Country Postal Network Most Favored Nation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alverno, Anthony, and Mary Elcano. 2001. “Reform in the UPU and WTO.” In Future Directions in Postal Reform, edited by Michael A. Crew & Paul R. Kleindorfer. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Campbell, James I., Jr. 1999. “GATS and Physical Delivery Networks.” In Emerging Competition in Postal and Delivery Services, edited by Michael A. Crew & Paul R. Kleindorfer. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Ku, Ruth. 1999. “A GATT-Analogue Approach to Analyzing the Consistency of the FCC’s Foreign Participation Order with U.S. GATS MFN Commitments.” George Washington Journal of International Law & Economics 32: 111–142.Google Scholar
  4. Perrazzelli, Alessandra, and Paolo Vergano. 2000. “Essay: Terminal Dues under the UPU Convention and the GATS: An Overview of the Rules and of Their Compatibility.” Fordham International Law Journal 23 (March): 736.Google Scholar
  5. Simser, Jeffrey. 1996. “GATS and Financial Services: Redefining Borders.” Buffalo Journal of International Law 3 (Summer): 33, 49.Google Scholar
  6. Smit, Hilke. 2001. “GATS and the Postal Sector: The Next Round of Negotiations.” In Future Directions in Postal Reform, edited by Michael A. Crew & Paul R. Kleindorfer. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Trachtman, Joel. 1995. “Trade in Financial Services under GATS, NAFTA and the EC: A Regulatory Jurisdiction Analysis.” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 34: 37.Google Scholar
  8. UPU. 2001. Circular Letter on Questionnaire on Extraterritorial Offices of Exchange (ETOEs), Document No. 4415 (DER.PEP) 1535 and Annexes.Google Scholar
  9. UPU. 2001. Extraterritorial Offices of Ezxchange, Document No. CA 2001-Doc. 17c.Google Scholar
  10. UPU. 2002. Extraterritorial Offices of Exchange: Market Aspects, Document No. CA MWUPT 2002.1-Doc 4b.Google Scholar
  11. UPU. 2001. Impact on the Universal Postal Union and its Members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its General Agreement on Trade in Services, Document No. 3600(A/B) 1028, Annex 1.Google Scholar
  12. UPU. 2001. International Bureau Circular, Australia—Notice of Working Arrangements with Foreign Postal Administrations, Circular No. 356.Google Scholar
  13. UPU. 2001. International Bureau Circular, Canada — Policy and Procedures Regarding Items Dispatched by Extraterritorial Offices of Exchange (ETOEs), Circular No. 511.Google Scholar
  14. UPU. 2001. International Bureau Circular, Japan—Policies and Procedures Regarding Items Dispatched by Extraterritorial Offices of Exchange, Circular No. 501.Google Scholar
  15. UPU. 2001. International Bureau Circular, United States of America—Extraterritorial Offices of Exchange (ETOEs), Circular No. 370.Google Scholar
  16. UPU. 2001. Letter Post Regulations, Bern, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  17. UPU. 2002. Management of the Work of the Union Project Team, Extraterritorial Offices of Exchange, Paper by Brazil, UPU Document No. CA MWU PT 2002.1—Doc. 4c.Google Scholar
  18. UPU. 2001. Paper by Australia, Offices of Exchange Abroad, UPU Document No. CEP 2001-Doc. 25.Google Scholar
  19. UPU. 2002. Terminal Dues Action Group, Extraterritorial Offices of Exchange, Report by the International Bureau, Document No. POC TDAG 2002.1-Doc. 12.Google Scholar
  20. UPU. 1999. Terminal Dues Roundtable, UPU Document CEP TR 1999.1-Doc. 2.Google Scholar
  21. UPU. 1999. Universal Postal Convention Final Protocol, Bern, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  22. WTO. 2001. Communication from New Zealand, Negotiating Proposal for Postal and Courier Services, WTO Document No. S/CSS/W/115.Google Scholar
  23. WTO. 1994. General Agreement on Trade in Services.Google Scholar
  24. WTO. 2000. Report of the Appellate Body in Canada--Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry, WTO Doc. WT/DS139/AB/R; WT/DS/142/AB/R ¶171.Google Scholar
  25. WTO. 1997. Report of the Appellate Body in European Communities--Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/AB/R; AB-1997–3 ¶¶ 233–34.Google Scholar
  26. WTO. 1999. Report of the Panel in European Communities—Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas—Recourse to Article 21.5 by Ecuador, WT/DS/RW/ECU (99–1443) ¶¶ 6,119, 6.150.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lea Emerson
    • 1
  • Anthony Alverno
    • 1
  1. 1.United States Postal ServicesUSA

Personalised recommendations