Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Browse subjects
  3. Economics
  4. Macroeconomics
  5. Content listing

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

11577 results in Macroeconomics

Page 252 of 579

  • VI - ARTICLE III:2, SECOND SENTENCE, OF THE GATT 1994

  • from PHILIPPINES - TAXES ON DISTILLED SPIRITS
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 4232-4260

  • Summary

    184. In this section, we address both the Philippines' appeal and the European Union's other appeal regarding Article III:2, second sentence, of the GATT 1994. We begin with the other appeal of the European Union.

    European Union's Other Appeal

    185. The European Union claims that the Panel erred in characterizing its claim under Article III:2, second sentence, of the GATT 1994 as made in the “alternative”290 to its claim under the first sentence of Article III:2. According to the European Union, by failing to address its claim under Article III:2, second sentence, the Panel acted inconsistently with Articles 7.1, 7.2, and 11 of the DSU. Moreover, to the extent that the Panel's failure to address the European Union's claim under Article III:2, second sentence, constituted application of the principle of judicial economy, the European Union submits that the Panel exercised “false” judicial economy in violation of Articles 3.7 and 21.1 of the DSU. The European Union requests the Appellate Body: to reverse the Panel's characterization of its claim under the second sentence of Article III:2 as “alternative” to its claim under the first sentence thereof; to complete the legal analysis; and to find that the Philippines has acted inconsistently with Article III:2, second sentence, of the GATT 1994.

    186. The Philippines does not contest the specific claim raised by the European Union in its other appeal.

  • V - ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES

  • from CHINA – MEASURES RELATED TO THE EXPORTATION OF VARIOUS RAW MATERIALS
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    03 January 2018
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 3571-3571

  • Summary

    5.1 Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Japan, Korea, Norway, Chinese Taipei, Turkey and Saudi Arabia reserved their third-party's rights to participate in the three disputes. The European Union (with respect to WT/DS394 and WT/DS398), Mexico (with respect to WT/DS394 and WT/DS395), and the United States (with respect to WT/DS395 and WT/DS398) reserved their third-party rights to participate in the indicated Panel proceedings.

    5.2 Chile, India and Ecuador did not present written submissions, and Argentina, and Turkey did not submit oral statements to the Panel. The arguments of Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Japan, Korea, and Saudi Arabia are set out in their written submissions and oral statements. Finally, Norway, Chinese Taipei, the European Union (with respect to WT/DS394 and WT/DS398), Mexico (with respect to WT/DS394 and WT/DS395), and the United States (with respect to WT/DS395 and WT/DS398), did not present either written submissions or oral statements to the Panel. The arguments of the third parties, as set out in their submissions, or executive summaries thereof, provided to the Panel, are attached to these Reports as an addendum.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
  • Volume 13, Pages 6773–7260
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014
  • The Dispute Settlement Reports of the World Trade Organization (WTO) include Panel and Appellate Body reports, as well as arbitration awards, in disputes concerning the rights and obligations of WTO members under the provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. These are the WTO authorized and paginated reports in English. An essential addition to the library of all practising and academic trade lawyers and needed by students worldwide taking courses in international economic or trade law. DSR 2012: XIII reports on Dominican Republic - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Polypropylene Bags and Tubular Fabric (WT/DS415, WT/DS416, WT/DS417, WT/DS418), United States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp and Diamond Sawblades from China (WT/DS422), and United States - Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements (WT/DS384/24, WT/DS386/23).

  • V - ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 2770-2770

  • Summary

    5.1 Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada (for WT/DS386), China, Colombia, the European Union, Guatemala, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico (for WT/DS384), New Zealand, Peru, and Chinese Taipei reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties.

    5.2 The arguments of those third parties that provided to the Panel submissions, executive summaries and oral statements are attached to these Reports as annexes (see List of Annexes, pages vi-viii). Argentina, India, Peru and Chinese Taipei did not present written submissions to the Panel. Argentina, India, and Chinese Taipei did not present oral statements at either substantive meeting of the Panel. Korea and China presented oral statements at the first and second substantive meetings respectively, but in closed session.

  • X - FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE APPELLATE BODY REPORT WT/DS395/AB/R

  • from CHINA – MEASURES RELATED TO THE EXPORTATION OF VARIOUS RAW MATERIALS
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    03 January 2018
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 3448-3449

  • Summary

    362. In the appeal of the Panel Report in China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials (complaint by the European Union, WT/DS395/R) (the “EU Panel Report”), for the reasons set out in this Report, the Appellate Body:

  • (a) finds that the Panel erred under Article 6.2 of the DSU in making findings regarding claims allegedly identified in Section III of the European Union's panel request; and therefore declares moot and of no legal effect the Panel findings in paragraph 8.11(a)-(e) in respect of claims concerning export quota administration and allocation; in paragraph 8.12(a)-(b) in respect of claims concerning export licensing requirements; and in paragraph 8.13(a)-(b) of the EU Panel Report in respect of claims concerning a minimum export price requirement;

  • (b) finds that the Panel did not err in recommending, in paragraph 8.15 of the EU Panel Report, that China bring its measures into conformity with its WTO obligations such that the “series of measures” do not operate to bring about a WTO-inconsistent result;

  • (c) finds that the Panel did not err, in paragraph 7.159 of the EU Panel Report, in finding that there is no basis in China's Accession Protocol to allow the application of Article XX of the GATT 1994 to China's obligations in Paragraph 11.3 of China's Accession Protocol; and therefore upholds the Panel's conclusion, in paragraph 8.9(b) of the EU Panel Report, that China may not seek to justify the application of export duties to certain forms of fluorspar pursuant to Article XX(g) of the GATT 1994 and the Panel's conclusion, in paragraph 8.9(c) of the EU Panel Report, that China may not seek to justify the application of export duties to certain forms of magnesium, manganese and zinc pursuant to Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994;

  • […]

  • IV - BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES AT ISSUE

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 2574-2588

  • Summary

    237. Before commencing our analysis of the issues of law and legal interpretations raised in this appeal, we provide an overview of the measures at issue and briefly outline certain pertinent facts and background information, as identified by the Panel. For additional details in this regard, recourse should be had to the Panel Reports.

    238. Before the Panel, Canada and Mexico challenged the following five measures: (i) the “COOL statute”; (ii) the “2009 Final Rule (AMS)”; (iii) the “Vilsack letter”; (iv) the “Interim Final Rule (AMS)”, and (v) the “Interim Final Rule (FSIS)”. The Panel assessed the first two of these instruments—the COOL statute and its implementing regulations, that is, the 2009 Final Rule (AMS)—together as the “COOL measure”. The Panel determined, however, “that the Vilsack letter should be considered as a separate measure distinguishable from the COOL statute and the 2009 Final Rule (AMS)”, and the complainants have not appealed such finding. The Panel decided not to make findings or recommendations on the Interim Final Rule (AMS) or the Interim Final Rule (FSIS), because they had expired prior to the establishment of the Panel. This is also not appealed. The principal measure at issue in this appeal is the COOL measure.

  • United States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp and Diamond Sawblades from China (WT/DS422): Report of the Panel

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 7109-7172

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 28 February and on 22 July 2011, China requested consultations with the United States concerning an alleged “zeroing” practice by the United States Department of Commerce (USDOC) in its anti-dumping measures on two products from China: (i) certain frozen warmwater shrimp (hereafter “Shrimp”), and (ii) diamond sawblades and parts thereof (hereafter “Diamond Sawblades”).

    On 13 October 2011, China requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU and Article 17.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

    At its 25 October 2011 meeting, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established this Panel pursuant to the request of China in document WT/DS422/3, in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU.

    The Panel's terms of reference are the following:

    To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by the parties to the dispute, the matter referred to the DSB by China in document WT/DS422/3 and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.

    Following the agreement of the parties, the Panel was composed on 21 December 2011 as follows:

    Chairman: Mr Alberto Juan Dumont

    Members: Mr Ernesto Fernández

    Ms Stephanie Sin Far Lee

    The European Union, Honduras, Japan, Korea, Thailand and Viet Nam reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties.

    After consulting with the parties and seeking the views of the third parties, and in view of a joint “Agreement on Procedures” submitted by the parties, the Panel decided not to hold any substantive meetings with the parties and/or third parties.

    The Panel submitted its Interim Report to the parties on 5 April 2012 and submitted its Final Report to the parties on 3 May 2012.

    FACTUAL ASPECTS

    USDOC Determinations in the Shrimp and Diamond Sawblades Investigation

    This dispute concerns the alleged use by the USDOC of zeroing in the calculation of margins of dumping in its original investigations in the Shrimp and Diamond Sawblades anti-dumping proceedings.

  • VII - NASA/USDOD ALLOCATION OF PATENT RIGHTS – SPECIFICITY

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 321-351

  • Summary

    Introduction

    724. We turn now to the European Union's claim concerning the Panel's finding that, on the assumption that the allocation of patent rights under the contracts and agreements between NASA/USDOD and Boeing constitutes a subsidy under Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement, it would not be specific within the meaning of Article 2.1 of that Agreement. We provide a summary of the Panel's findings in section B. Next, we discuss the Panel's arguendo approach in section C. The European Union's claims on appeal are assessed in sections D, E, and F.

    725. Before proceeding, we wish to clarify three aspects about the scope of the appeal that is before us. First, we note that, before the Panel, the European Communities challenged: (i) the allocation of patent rights under NASA/USDOD contracts and agreements; and (ii) the allocation of rights over the data produced under the relevant NASA/USDOD contracts and agreements. The Panel rejected both claims. The European Union's appeal is directed only at the Panel's finding concerning the patent rights and does not include the Panel's finding on the data rights. This was confirmed by the European Union during the oral hearing.

    726. Second, we observe that the European Communities challenged the patent rights allocation under NASA/USDOD contracts and agreements independently from its challenge to the payments and other support provided to Boeing under certain NASA/USDOD contracts and agreements.

  • ANNEX STATEMENT OF AVAILABLE EVIDENCE

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 1769-1792

  • Summary

    The evidence set out below is evidence available to the European Communities at this time regarding the existence and nature of the subsidies subject to this dispute, and the adverse effects caused by them to the interests of the European Communities. It is further supported by business confidential internal Airbus documents that are summarized below. The European Communities reserves the right to supplement or alter this list in the future, as required.

    (a) Existence and Nature of the Subsidization

    The evidence currently available to the European Communities includes the following documents. The European Communities' request for consultations describes in more detail the nature of these subsidies.

    H.B. 2294, 58th Leg., 2d Spec. Sess. (Wash. 2003)

    Final Bill Report, H.B. 2294

    Memorandum of Agreement for Project Olympus between the Boeing Company and the State of Washington, dated as of 19 December 2003, available at http://www.effwa.org/pdfs/boeing_olympus.pdf

    Project Olympus Master Site Development and Location Agreement between the Boeing Company and the State of Washington, dated as of 19 December 2003, available at http://www.effwa.org/pdfs/boeing_olympus.pdf

    First Amendment to Project Olympus Master Site Development and Location Agreement between the Boeing Company and the State of Washington, dated as of 19 December 2003, available at http://www.effwa.org/pdfs/boeing_amended.pdf

  • VIII - FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE APPELLATE BODY REPORT WT/DS403/AB/R

  • from PHILIPPINES - TAXES ON DISTILLED SPIRITS
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 4263-4264

  • Summary

    261. In the appeal of the Panel Report, Philippines – Taxes on Distilled Spirits (complaint by the United States, WT/DS403/R) (the “US Panel Report”), for the reasons set out in this Report, the Appellate Body:

    (a) with respect to Article III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994:

  • (i) upholds the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.85 of the US Panel Report, that each type of imported distilled spirit at issue in this dispute—gin, brandy, vodka, whisky, and tequila—made from non-designated raw materials is “like” the same type of domestic distilled spirit made from designated raw materials, within the meaning of Article III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994;

  • (ii) finds that the Panel did not act inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in its evaluations of the products' physical characteristics, of the Philippine market for distilled spirits, and of tariff classification;

  • (iii) upholds, as a consequence, the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.90 and 8.2(a) of the US Panel Report, that the Philippines has acted inconsistently with Article III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994 by imposing on each type of imported distilled spirit at issue in this dispute—gin, brandy, rum, vodka, whisky, and tequila—internal taxes in excess of those applied to “like” domestic distilled spirits of the same type made from designated raw materials; and

  • (iv) reverses the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.77 of the US Panel Report, to the extent that it stands for the proposition that all distilled spirits at issue in this dispute are “like products”, regardless of types, within the meaning of Article III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994;

Page 252 of 579