In 2007, the United States reversed its long-standing policy prohibiting the simultaneous imposition of anti-dumping duties (ADDs) and countervailing duties (CVDs) against nonmarket economies. Subsequently, the United States has imposed concurrent ADDs and CVDs in numerous cases against China. China challenged a number of aspects of the US practice, most notably the double-remedies issue, which occurs when a domestic subsidy is offset by both an ADD and CVD. The Appellate Body (AB) correctly ruled that double remedies are inconsistent with the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and that the burden was on the investigating authorities to ensure that double remedies were not being imposed; however, the AB largely limited its discussion to measurement concerns, an approach that may have inadvertently opened the door to future double-remedies disputes involving other methods for computing normal value. Two other issues that are likely to have significant long-term ramifications are (i) the scope of the term ‘public body’ and (ii) the appropriate use of out-of-country benchmarks. On both issues, we believe the AB's conclusions and analysis were correct.

This paper surveys a wide body of economic literature on the relationship between exchange rates and trade. Specifically, two main issues are investigated: the impact of exchange rate volatility and of currency misalignments on international trade flows. On average, exchange rate volatility has a negative (even if not large) impact on trade. The extent of this effect depends on a number of factors, including the existence of hedging instruments, the structure of production (e.g. the prevalence of small firms), and the degree of economic integration across countries. The second issue involves exchange rate misalignments, which are predicted to have short-run effects in models with price rigidities. However, the exact impact depends on a number of features, such as the pricing strategy of firms engaging in international trade and the importance of global production networks. Trade effects of currency misalignments are predicted to disappear in the long-run, unless an economy is characterized by other relevant distortions. Empirical results broadly confirm these theoretical predictions.

The WTO's Appellate Body (AB) dealt with a number of issues for the first time in this Report. Importantly, it discussed the consistency of the European Union (EU) regulation with the multilateral rules on the conditions for deviating from the obligation to calculate individual dumping margins. Although China formally won the argument, the AB may have opened the door to treat China as a nonmarket economy (NME) even beyond 2016 when China's NME status was thought to expire under the terms of China's 2001 WTO Accession Protocol. The AB further dealt with numerous other issues ranging from statistical sampling to the treatment of confidential information. In handling its investigation, the EU authorities made a number of questionable decisions regarding the collection of information, and this aspect of the process was central to China's legal challenges.

In 2009, the United States imposed additional tariffs for a three-year period on imports of automotive tires from China under a special-safeguard provision included in China's Protocol of Accession to the WTO. China challenged the measure in the WTO. The case marked the first WTO dispute in which a challenged safeguard was upheld by the Appellate Body; the first in which an accession protocol was used successfully as a defense; and the first that China lost as a complaining party. It also was noteworthy in that the safeguard was sought by a labor union, not the domestic industry. This paper reviews the WTO Appellate Body's findings and discusses a number of the legal and policy implications regarding China's Accession Protocol, the Safeguards Agreement, and WTO accession law, as well as economic aspects of the case.

This paper provides a legal–economic analysis of the Appellate Body decision in Philippines – Taxes on Distilled Spirits (Philippines–Spirits). In Philippines–Spirits, the Panel and the Appellate Body had an opportunity to consider again the scope of ‘like products’ and of ‘directly competitive or substitutable products’ under Article III:2 of GATT. The Panel and Appellate Body followed the Border Tax Adjustments factors in order to determine whether the products were sufficiently similar. The Appellate Body explicitly extended its jurisprudence from other areas of Article III to a like-products determination under the first sentence of Article III:2: this analysis is to be focused on the degree of competition between the imported and domestic products. We observe that the effect of different taxation on domestic products is affected by the degree of substitution between products as well as competitive conditions, whereas the Appellate Body seems to focus on the former and ignore the latter. We also question some of the Panel and Appellate Body interpretations of the evidence regarding the degree of substitution between products. Overall, we find that even if there may be a segment in which foreign and domestic products compete, the reported evidence in this case would seem to be consistent with the view that for the bulk of the market, foreign and domestic items are distant substitutes.

Putting aside the jurisprudence, a methodologically sound finding regarding substitution (and competition) seems necessary, but not sufficient, for a finding of inefficient discrimination. In order to find inefficient discrimination, there must also be a finding that the nonprotectionist benefits that may arise from the national regulation are not sufficient to justify the discriminatory action, otherwise, rational regulation that is globally efficient might be invalidated, inappropriately restricting the national right to regulate. In the present case, the Philippines articulated no nonprotectionist rationale for its distinctions. Existing WTO jurisprudence in this area prior to the Appellate Body decision in US–Clove Cigarettes (in the context of Article 2.1 of the technical barriers to trade agreement) has only hinted at the additional focus on the justificatory role of nonprotectionist regulatory benefits, yet an explicit and appropriately contextualized reference to the nonprotectionist rationale, if any, of regulation seems to be a necessary part of decision-making.