India raises questions at WTO over interim arrangement to implement e-commerce pact
India raised concerns at the World Trade Organization (WTO) over a "Declaration of Interim Arrangements" adopted by a coalition of 66 WTO member countries to implement the Agreement on Electronic Commerce
India's objection centres on the fact that the arrangement was adopted by a subset of the WTO's roughly 164 members rather than through the organisation's consensus-based multilateral process
India sought clarity on the institutional and legal basis under which such interim arrangements are being implemented outside the WTO's formal treaty architecture
The matter is set to be taken up at the next meeting of the WTO General Council
WTO Decision-Making — Consensus and the Plurilateral Route (Annex 4)
The WTO's founding Marrakesh Agreement (1995) is built on consensus-based multilateral decision-making — an agreement generally must be accepted by all members to become part of the binding WTO rulebook. However, Annex 4 of the Marrakesh Agreement provides for Plurilateral Trade Agreements, which bind only the subset of members that choose to sign them (e.g., the Agreement on Government Procurement, the now-lapsed Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft). Incorporating a new agreement into Annex 4 itself still requires consensus of the full WTO membership.
Key Details
- The WTO has 164 members (as of recent accessions); decisions on the core "single undertaking" agreements require consensus of all
- Annex 4 plurilaterals bind only signatories but their addition to Annex 4 needs full-membership consensus
- India, along with countries such as Indonesia, Pakistan, Brazil, Bangladesh, South Africa and Turkiye, opposed a proposal at the WTO General Council (December 2025) to incorporate the e-commerce agreement into Annex 4, arguing it lacked the required multilateral consensus
Unable to secure Annex 4 incorporation, a group of 66 members proceeded via a stand-alone "Declaration of Interim Arrangements" to bring the e-commerce agreement into force among themselves — precisely the kind of plurilateral short-circuiting of consensus that India argues undermines the WTO's institutional structure.
The Joint Statement Initiative (JSI) on E-Commerce and the Agreement on Electronic Commerce
The JSI on E-Commerce was launched at the WTO's 11th Ministerial Conference (Buenos Aires, 2017) by a group of members, co-convened by Australia, Japan and Singapore, to negotiate rules on digital trade issues such as electronic signatures, e-contracts, spam, and consumer protection online. After multiple rounds, participants announced a "stabilised text" — the Agreement on Electronic Commerce — on 26 July 2024, with 91 participating members representing over 90% of global trade. India and South Africa have not participated in the JSI negotiations since their inception, on the ground that plurilateral rule-making outside the single undertaking dilutes the WTO's multilateral character.
Key Details
- JSI launched: December 2017 (MC11, Buenos Aires); text stabilised: 26 July 2024 (91 members)
- Co-convenors: Australia, Japan, Singapore
- Because full-membership consensus for Annex 4 incorporation was not reached, 66 of the participating members adopted a "Declaration of Interim Arrangements for the Agreement on Electronic Commerce" (2026), creating a pathway — including a dedicated committee to administer the agreement among signatories — to bring it into force outside the formal WTO legal framework while incorporation is still pursued
This 66-member Declaration is the specific "interim arrangement" India has questioned, since it operationalises a plurilateral deal without the multilateral consensus India insists is institutionally required.
The Separate WTO Moratorium on Customs Duties on Electronic Transmissions
Distinct from the JSI/Agreement on Electronic Commerce, the WTO also maintains a long-standing moratorium on imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions, first agreed at the Second Ministerial Conference in 1998 alongside a Work Programme on Electronic Commerce. This moratorium has been renewed at every subsequent Ministerial Conference, most recently at MC13 (Abu Dhabi, 2024) until MC14 or 31 March 2026, whichever was earlier. India has historically pushed back on indefinite extension, citing potential revenue loss for developing countries from foregone customs duties on digital trade, and has sought review of its scope and definition.
Key Details
- Moratorium origin: 1998 (Second WTO Ministerial Conference, Geneva)
- Renewed at every Ministerial Conference since; last extension (MC13, 2024) ran until 31 March 2026
- At MC14 (2026), members failed to reach consensus on further extension; the moratorium and Work Programme lapsed on 30 March 2026 with a draft proposal for extension to 31 December 2030 left unadopted
While the moratorium and the Agreement on Electronic Commerce are legally distinct tracks, both illustrate the same underlying tension India has repeatedly flagged — attempts to lock in binding digital-trade rules or preferences without full multilateral consensus among all 164 WTO members.
- WTO membership: 164 countries
- Agreement on Electronic Commerce (JSI outcome): stabilised text announced 26 July 2024; 91 participating members (~90% of global trade)
- Declaration of Interim Arrangements for the Agreement on Electronic Commerce: adopted by 66 WTO members in 2026
- Countries opposing Annex 4 incorporation of the e-commerce agreement (Dec 2025 General Council): India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Brazil, Bangladesh, South Africa, Turkiye
- E-commerce customs duty moratorium: originated 1998; last extended at MC13 (2024) until 31 March 2026; lapsed without renewed consensus at MC14 (2026)
- Matter to be discussed at the next WTO General Council meeting