Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T00:39:24.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - The United States' experience and practice in suspending WTO obligations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2010

Chad P. Bown
Affiliation:
Brandeis University, Massachusetts
Joost Pauwelyn
Affiliation:
Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Despite being one of the most active and successful complaining parties in the history of the WTO dispute settlement, the United States has suspended concessions in only two disputes – both against the European Communities (EC) in the Bananas and Hormones disputes. Set out below is a description of the legal and procedural framework used by the United States to suspend concessions in those two disputes. Various reasons that could explain the United States' limited resort to this implementation-forcing mechanism are also offered below.

US procedures for suspension of concessions

The United States Trade Representative (USTR) is granted the authority to suspend concessions following multilateral determinations of noncompliance with WTO rulings and recommendations under section 407 of the Trade and Development Act 2000 which amended the Trade Act 1974. As the suspension of concessions practice has developed since the mid-1990s, the first step is for the USTR to request public comment on a broad preliminary list of products. This generally occurs shortly after the expiration of the reasonable period of time if, in the USTR's view, the losing member has not fully implemented the rulings and recommendations. After analysing those comments and consulting internally within the US government, the USTR then requests public comment on a narrow final list of products. Products chosen for this smaller (final) retaliation list, pursuant to section 407 of the Trade and Development Act 2000, must include, where possible, at least some reciprocal goods of the industries affected by the failure of the foreign country or countries to implement the recommendation.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×