ON DEFINING THE STATUS AND COMPETENCE OF THE INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF UKRAINE

Abstract

The article focuses on the issues of the status and competence of the Interdepartmental Commission on International Trade (hereinafter the Commission). The author analyses the Ukrainian legislation on trade defence and concludes that the legislation is outdated since it began forming in the 90s of the last century and remains in force today. The author analyses the main laws in the field of trade defence, both general and special, and focuses on the provisions governing the activities of the authorities conducting trade investigations and making decisions based on their results. The author concludes that the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of the National Producers against Dumped Imports” does not define the status of the Commission, and the Commission is not a legal entity, which in practice causes a number of difficulties in the procedure for judicial appeal of the Commission's decisions. The author describes why the government needs to approve the status of the body as a central executive body with a special status. The author concludes that the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of the National Producer against Dumped Imports” does not define the status of the Commission, and the Commission is not a legal entity, which in practice causes numerous difficulties in the procedure for judicial appeals of the Commission's decisions. The author describes why the government needs to approve the status of the body as a central executive body with a special status. The author pays special attention to analyzing the provisions on the Commission's powers. They analyze that the Commission has discretionary powers, and a broad statement of powers in a special law leads to a broad interpretation of its rights and obligations by the said body. The author suggests adopting a separate legal act on the Commission, which would define in more detail the rules important for conducting trade investigations and making decisions based on their results, systematize the provisions on the body, and regulate its powers more clearly. The article also addresses the issue of the lack of liability of the Commission members for failing to attend meetings without valid reasons and for obvious illegality in voting. The author proposes including relevant provisions in a separate legal act, as well as increasing the quorum for the Commission's competence to 2/3.