ABSTRACT
Thank you very much Prof. Hauser. We are a group of economists and lawyers and therefore my question is: What can lawyers contribute to solving the "constitutional problem" you have so well described? As lawyers, we recall from the constitutional history of federal States like the United States and Switzerland that one of the major motives for the elaboration of the US Federal Constitution of 1789 and of the Swiss Federal Constitutional of 1874 was to constrain the trade policy powers of the states (cantons) to tax and restrict trade within the Federation by means of long-term constitutional rules and guarantees of free trade. But, as lawyers, we are likewise aware that there are only very few states whose national constitutions, like Articles 29 and 31 of the Swiss Constitution, explicitly protect freedom of trade also in the transnational relations of their citizens. And, as international lawyers, we are even more concerned at the "intergovernmental collusion" among governments in circumventing their self-imposed international GATT obligations by means of "grey area trade restrictions" which tax domestic citizens and restrict their freedoms in a non-transparent, discriminatory and mutually impoverishing manner. Does it, for example, make sense to pursue the strengthening of the international GATT dispute settlement procedures as a priority objective of the "Uruguay Round" if past GATT practice shows that governments prefer not to use this international dispute settlement mechanism for controlling and limiting "grey area trade restrictions"?
