Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 1
  • Print publication year: 2006
  • Online publication date: July 2010

7 - United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products (WT/DS259; WT/DS252; WT/DS248; WT/DS249; WT/DS251; WT/DS258; WT/DS254; WT/DS253: DSR 2003:VII, 3117)

Summary

Introduction

Since the inception of the WTO, safeguard measures have regularly been the subject of dispute settlement proceedings. The latest in this chain of disputes concerns the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the United States on a wide range of steel products in 2002.

The safeguards investigation of steel imports was initiated under the US law by the US International Trade Commission (USITC) at the request of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in June, 2001. The request covered four broad categories of steel products, which were divided into 33 categories by the USITC for purposes of data collection. Ultimately, the USITC defined 27 separate “industries” producing steel products within the scope of the investigation. For each of these industries, the USITC proceeded to determine whether imports had increased, and if so, whether increased imports were a substantial cause of serious injury or threat of injury. This analysis resulted in negative determinations for 15 industries, affirmative determinations for eight industries, and “divided” determinations (a 3–3 vote) for four industries.

Under the US law, a negative determination by the USITC precludes any action by the President to impose a safeguard measure. Affirmative determinations and divided determinations are forwarded to the President for consideration of possible relief, along with remedial recommendations that the President is not bound to follow. As to some products, the USITC has recommended that imports from nations with which the United States has preferential trading arrangements – including Canada, Mexico, Israel, and Jordan – be exempted from any safeguard measures.

References
Bagwell, K. and Staiger, R. W. (1990). A Theory of Managed Trade, American Economic Review, 80: 779–795.
Bagwell, K. and Staiger, R. W. (2002). The Economics of the World Trading System (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press).
Grossman, G. M. (1986). Imports as a Cause of Injury: The Case of the US Steel Industry, Journal of International Economics, 20: 201–222
Grossman, G. M. and Mavroidis, P. C. (2005). United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea. In H. Horn and P. C. Mavroidis (eds.), The WTO Case Law of 2002. American Law Institute Reporters Series (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press).
Horn, H. and Mavroidis, P. C. (2003). United States – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia: What Should be Required of a Safeguard Investigation?. In Horn, H. and Mavroidis, P. C. (eds.), The WTO Case Law of 2001. American Law Institute Reporters Series (Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press).
Kelly, K. (1988). The Analysis of Causality in Escape Clause Cases, Journal of Industrial Economics, 37: 187–207.
Irwin, D. (2003). Causing Problems? The WTO Review of Causation and Injury Attribution in US Section 201 Cases, World Trade Review, 2: 297–325.
McGovern, E. (1986). International Trade Regulation, 2nd edn. (London: Gobefield).
Pauwelyn, J. (2004). The Puzzle of WTO Safeguards and Regional Trade Agreements, Journal of International Economic Law, 7: 109–142
Sykes, A. O. (1991). Protectionism as a ‘Safeguard’: A Positive Analysis of the GATT ‘Escape Clause’ with Normative Speculations, University of Chicago Law Review, 58: 255–305.
Sykes, A. O. (2003). The Safeguards Mess: A Critique of Appellate Body Jurisprudence, World Trade Review, 2: 261–295.
Sykes, A. O. (2004). The Persistent Puzzles of Safeguards: Lessons from the Steel Dispute, Journal of International Economic Law, 7: 523–564.