Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-09T06:10:58.894Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

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)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2010

Gene M. Grossman
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Alan O. Sykes
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Henrik Horn
Affiliation:
Stockholms Universitet
Petros C. Mavroidis
Affiliation:
Université de Neuchâtel, Switzerland
Get access

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.

Type
Chapter
Information
The WTO Case Law of 2003
The American Law Institute Reporters' Studies
, pp. 146 - 187
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

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.)

References

Bagwell, K. and Staiger, R. W. (1990). A Theory of Managed Trade, American Economic Review, 80: 779–795.Google Scholar
Bagwell, K. and Staiger, R. W. (2002). The Economics of the World Trading System (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press).Google Scholar
Grossman, G. M. (1986). Imports as a Cause of Injury: The Case of the US Steel Industry, Journal of International Economics, 20: 201–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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).Google Scholar
Kelly, K. (1988). The Analysis of Causality in Escape Clause Cases, Journal of Industrial Economics, 37: 187–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, D. (2003). Causing Problems? The WTO Review of Causation and Injury Attribution in US Section 201 Cases, World Trade Review, 2: 297–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGovern, E. (1986). International Trade Regulation, 2nd edn. (London: Gobefield).Google Scholar
Pauwelyn, J. (2004). The Puzzle of WTO Safeguards and Regional Trade Agreements, Journal of International Economic Law, 7: 109–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sykes, A. O. (2003). The Safeguards Mess: A Critique of Appellate Body Jurisprudence, World Trade Review, 2: 261–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sykes, A. O. (2004). The Persistent Puzzles of Safeguards: Lessons from the Steel Dispute, Journal of International Economic Law, 7: 523–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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
×