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 253 of 579

  • VI - INTERIM REVIEW

  • 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 4330-4340

  • Summary

    6.1 The Panel issued its interim reports to the parties on 4 May 2011. On 25 May, as foreshadowed in item (l) of the Timetable for the Panel Proceedings and in accordance to Article 15 of the DSU as well as paragraph 16 of the Working Procedures, the European Union, the United States and the Philippines requested the Panel to review precise aspects of the interim reports. On 8 June, as foreshadowed in item (m) of the Timetable for the Panel Proceedings, the parties submitted written comments on each other's comments and requests for interim review. Neither party requested an interim review meeting with the Panel.

    6.2 Where appropriate, the Panel has modified certain aspects of its interim reports, in the light of the parties' comments and requests, as explained below. The Panel has also made certain revisions and corrections for the purposes of clarity and accuracy. Section VI of these reports summarizes these changes. References to paragraph numbers and footnote numbers used in Section VI are to those in the interim reports, except as otherwise noted.

    Interim Review Changes to the Descriptive Sections

    6.3 The United States requests the inclusion of a new paragraph before paragraph 2.1 of the interim reports so as to clarify the relationship between the descriptive and findings sections of the reports and “how the Panel has based its legal conclusions on the facts before it.”

  • V - ARTICLE III:2, FIRST 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 4211-4232

  • Summary

    109. We begin with the Philippines' appeal of the Panel's findings that imported distilled spirits made from non-designated raw materials and domestic distilled spirits made from designated raw materials are “like products” within the meaning of Article III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994 and that, as a consequence, by subjecting imported distilled spirits made from non-designated raw materials to internal taxes in excess of those applied to “like” domestic distilled spirits made from designated raw materials, the Philippines acts in a manner inconsistent with Article III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994.

    110. Specifically, the Philippines challenges the Panel's findings that: (i) all distilled spirits at issue in this dispute are “like products”, whether imported or domestic, and irrespective of the raw materials from which they are made; and (ii) each type of imported distilled spirit at issue in this dispute made from non-designated raw materials is “like” the same type of domestic distilled spirit made from designated raw materials.

    111. We address first the Philippines' appeal of the Panel's finding that each type of imported distilled spirit at issue in this dispute made from non-designated raw materials is “like” the same type of domestic distilled spirit made from designated raw materials. In so doing, we review the Panel's findings on the specific factors it examined in its analysis of “likeness” under Article III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994.

  • X - FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 2001-2002

  • Summary

    407. For the reasons set out in this Report, the Appellate Body:

    (a) finds that the Panel did not err in characterizing the measure at issue as a “technical regulation” within the meaning of Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement;

    (b) finds that the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of the phrase “treatment no less favourable” in Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement; reverses the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.374 and 8.1(a) of the Panel Report, that the US “dolphin-safe” labelling provisions are not inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement; and finds instead that the US “dolphin-safe” labelling provisions are inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement;

    (c) finds that the Panel erred in concluding, in paragraphs 7.620 and 8.1(b) of the Panel Report, that it has been demonstrated that the measure at issue is more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil the United States' legitimate objectives, taking account of the risks non-fulfilment would create; and therefore reverses the Panel's finding that the measure at issue is inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement;

    (d) rejects Mexico's claim that the Panel erred in finding that the United States' objective of “contributing to the protection of dolphins, by ensuring that the US market is not used to encourage fishing fleets to catch tuna in a manner that adversely affects dolphins” is a legitimate objective within the meaning of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement;

    […]

  • United States - Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes (WT/DS406):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 5865-6224

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 7 April 2010, Indonesia requested consultations with the United States pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”), Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”), Article 11 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (“SPS Agreement”) and Article 14 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (“TBT Agreement”) with respect to “the measure applied by the Government of the United States regarding the ban of clove cigarettes”. Indonesia and the United States held consultations on 13 May 2010. However, no mutually agreed solution was found.

    On 9 June 2010, Indonesia requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU.

    At its meeting on 20 July 2010, the DSB established a panel pursuant to the request of Indonesia in document WT/DS406/2, 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 Indonesia in document WT/DS406/2 and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.”

    On 9 September 2010, the parties agreed to the following composition of the Panel:

    Chairman: Mr Ronald Saborío Soto

    Members: Mr Ichiro Araki

    Mr Hugo Cayrús

    Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, the European Union, Guatemala, Mexico, Norway and Turkey have reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties.

    proceedings as third parties. 1.7 The Panel held its first substantive meeting with the parties on 13 and 14 December 2010. The session with the third parties was held on 14 December 2010. The second substantive meeting was held on 15 February 2011.

    On 13 April 2011, the Panel issued the descriptive section of its draft report to the parties. The Panel issued its Interim Report to the parties on 27 May 2011. The Panel issued its Final Report on 24 June 2011.

  • ANNEX IV - PROCEDURAL RULING AND ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES REGARDING PUBLIC OBSERVATION OF THE ORAL HEARING

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 2715-2718

  • Summary

    United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements

    AB-2012-3

    Procedural Ruling

  • On 5 April 2012, we received a joint communication from the participants in the above appellate proceedings. In that letter, Canada and the United States request that we allow observation by the public of the oral hearing. Mexico indicates that it does not object to allowing such public observation of the hearing, but requests that we reflect in our report that its position in these proceedings is without prejudice to its systemic views on the matter.

  • Specifically, Canada and the United States jointly request that all WTO Members and the public be allowed to observe the statements and answers to questions of the participants and third participants that agree to make their statements and answers public. The participants observe that nothing in the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the "DSU") or the Working Procedures for Appellate Review (the "Working Procedures") precludes the Appellate Body from authorizing public observation of the oral hearing. The participants also rely on the rulings by the Appellate Body in eight previous proceedings authorizing public observation of the oral hearing

  • IV - ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 678-833

  • Summary

    4.1 The arguments of the parties are set out in their written and oral submissions to the Panel, in their answers to questions and in additional comments submitted pursuant to the Panel's request. The parties' arguments, as summarized by them are presented in this section. The full non-confidential text of certain of the European Communities' submissions can be downloaded from the European Communities' web site. The full non-confidential text of certain of the United States' submissions can be downloaded from the U.S. Government's web site.

    Preliminary Issues

    1. Arguments of the European Communities

    4.2 In its panel request, the European Communities explained that it had initiated DS353 proceeding due, in part, to the U.S. non-cooperation in the Annex V process that had been initiated under DS317 proceeding, i.e. the European Communities' initial challenge of prohibited and actionable subsidies provided to U.S. producers of large civil aircraft. Specifically, the European Communities stated that it was regrettable that the United States decided to use unfounded procedural objections to undermine the Annex V process initiated in DS317. The European Communities asserted that the United States had decided not to provide answers on measures that the United States unilaterally determined to be outside the scope of that dispute, and had repeatedly blocked European Communities' endeavours to have the Panel rule authoritatively on the scope of the dispute.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
  • Volume 6, Pages 2743–3292
  • 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: VI reports on United States - Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements (WT/DS384, WT/DS386).

  • IV - 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 201-221

  • Summary

    Introduction

    427. This dispute concerns a challenge brought by the European Communities against a broad array of subsidies allegedly provided by the United States to The Boeing Company in relation to the manufacture of large civil aircraft (“LCA”). In particular, the European Communities challenged subsidies allegedly provided by the US Federal Government; the States of Washington, Kansas, and Illinois; the counties of Snohomish (Washington) and Cook (Illinois); and the cities of Everett (Washington), Wichita (Kansas), and Chicago (Illinois).

    428. The European Communities claimed before the Panel that each challenged measure is a specific subsidy within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement, and that the United States, through the use of these subsidies, has caused adverse effects to the European Communities' interests within the meaning of Articles 5 and 6 of the SCM Agreement. In addition, the European Communities claimed that some of the Washington State tax incentives and the Foreign Sales Corporation (“FSC”)/extraterritorial income (“ETI”) tax exemptions are prohibited export subsidies within the meaning of Article 3 of the SCM Agreement.

    429. Because of the large number of claims made and measures challenged, and in order to provide some background to and context for our findings in this appeal, we consider it useful to provide an overview of the measures at issue in this appeal. For a more detailed account of the measures at issue, direct reference should be had to the Panel Report.

  • VII - FINDINGS

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 918-1224

  • Summary

    Introduction

    7.1 In this dispute, the European Communities claims that the United States has acted, and continues to act, inconsistently with the SCM Agreement by providing prohibited or actionable subsidies to The Boeing Company and the McDonnell Douglas Corporation prior to its merger with Boeing (which the European Communities terms the “US LCA industry”). The European Communities argues that these subsidies have been provided or are being provided by the States of Washington, Kansas and Illinois and municipalities in those States and by the U.S. Government.

    7.2 Regarding the State of Washington and municipalities therein, the European Communities challenges: (i) various tax rate reductions, tax credits and tax exemptions provided for in a law adopted by the State of Washington in June 2003 to retain and attract the aerospace industry to Washington State; (ii) tax rate reductions adopted by the City of Everett; and (iii) a series of tax- and non-tax incentives provided for in the Project Olympus Master Site Agreement, an agreement concluded between Boeing and the State of Washington and municipalities in December 2003.

    7.3 Regarding the State of Kansas and municipalities therein, the European Communities challenges: (i) property and sales tax breaks provided by the City of Wichita to large civil aircraft component production facilities through the issuance of industrial revenue bonds; and (ii) interest payments by the State of Kansas on Kansas State Development Bonds, which the European Communities alleges will be used to facilitate production of a portion of the fuselage of the Boeing 787.

Page 253 of 579