The U.S. Trade Representation (USTR) questioned how the World Trade Organization (WTO) grants special and differential treatment designation to a broad group of its members.

“Many of these designations are wholly unreasonable and contrary to almost any objective criteria,” USTR said in its Trade Policy Agenda 2025 and Annual Report 2024.

Special and Differential Treatment

From the USTR’s perspective, despite developing progress since the WTO’s creation, the organization maintains a binary structure. So, in its view, this classification between developed and developing countries no longer reflects the realities of 2025.

In addition, the USTR argued that this system has generated unfair advantages for certain members. As an example, it said that in the negotiations, some seek to perpetuate an unequal model. While developed countries must comply with all the rules, only some apply to the majority, including the more advanced and wealthier members.

WTO agreements include special and differential treatment provisions to benefit developing countries. These measures give them more rights and allow for more favorable treatment by other members.

Among the main benefits are longer terms for implementing agreements, strategies for expanding trade opportunities and the obligation to protect their interests. In addition, support is provided to develop infrastructure and comply with technical standards.

In the Doha Declaration, the ministers agreed to review these provisions to make them more precise, effective and operational.

China

Today, about three-quarters of WTO Members claim developing country status, arguing that they are entitled to special and differential treatment as a matter of law. 

The USTR criticized this, citing as an example that advanced economies such as China, Israel, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Turkey continue to insist that they are automatically entitled to S&D treatment. 

Similar claims are made by some of the world’s wealthiest nations, such as Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. 

Thus, the USTR argued that allowing self-declaration of development status to determine eligibility for SDT undermines the negotiating arm of the WTO.