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 255 of 579

  • VI - INTERIM REVIEW

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 882-918

  • Summary

    Introduction

    6.1 On 15 September 2010, the Panel submitted its Interim Report to the parties. On 27 October 2010, both parties submitted written requests for review of precise aspects of the Interim Report. On 17 November 2010, the parties submitted comments on each other's requests for review. Neither party requested that the Panel hold an interim review meeting.

    6.2 Pursuant to Article 15.3 of the DSU, the findings of the final panel report must include a discussion of the arguments made by the parties at the interim review stage. This section of the Panel Report provides such a discussion. As Article 15.3 makes clear, this section forms part of the Panel's findings.

    6.3 The Panel explains below its response to issues of a substantive nature raised by the parties in their comments on the Interim Report. The Panel has also corrected a number of typographical and other non-substantive errors throughout the Report, including those identified by the parties, which are not referred to specifically below.

    6.4 Due to changes as a result of our review, the numbering of paragraphs and footnotes in the Final Report has changed from the Interim Report. The text below refers to the paragraph and footnote numbers in the Interim Report regarding which the parties requested review.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
  • Volume 4, Pages 1835–2446
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 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: IV reports on United States - Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products (WT/DS381).

Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
  • Volume 1, Pages 1–646
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 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: I to III report on United States - Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (Second Complaint) (WT/DS353).

  • V - THE PANEL'S RECOMMENDATIONS

  • 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 3398-3414

  • Summary

    236. We now turn to address China's appeal regarding the Panel's recommendations concerning export duties and export quotas.

    237. China seeks review of the Panel's recommendations “to the extent that they apply to annual replacement measures” adopted after the establishment of the Panel on 21 December 2009. China argues that the complainants had excluded such measures from the scope of the dispute and, hence, by making recommendations extending to such measures, the Panel acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 7.1 of the DSU; failed to make an objective assessment of the matter under Article 11 of the DSU; and made recommendations on measures that were not part of the matter, inconsistently with Article 19.1 of the DSU. In response, the United States, the European Union, and Mexico argue that the Panel's recommendations were correctly made in accordance with Articles 7.1, 11, and 19.1 of the DSU on the measures challenged by the complainants as they existed at the time of the Panel's establishment. The United States and Mexico posit that, without such recommendations, “trade measures imposed in part through annually recurring legal instruments could never be successfully challenged through WTO dispute settlement”. The European Union adds that “this is not the proper forum to determine the actions China should take in order to bring itself into compliance with its WTO obligations”; rather, China should follow the procedures provided for under Article 21 of the DSU in order to identify the scope of its compliance obligations.

  • VIII - RULINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 2421-2422

  • Summary

    8.1 In light of the above findings, the Panel finds that the US dolphin-safe provisions:

  • (a) are not inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement;

  • (b) are inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement because they are more trade-restrictive than necessary to achieve a legitimate objective, taking into account the risks that non-fulfilment would create;

  • (c) are not inconsistent with Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement.

    • 8.2 For the reasons explained in Section VII of this Report, the Panel exercises judicial economy with respect to Mexico's claims under Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994.

    8.3 Under Article 3.8 of the DSU, in cases where there is an infringement of the obligations assumed under a covered agreement, the action is considered prima facie to constitute a case of nullification or impairment of benefits under that agreement. Accordingly, we conclude that, to the extent that the United States has acted inconsistently with the provisions of the TBT Agreement, it has nullified or impaired benefits accruing to Mexico under that Agreement. We therefore recommend that the DSB request the United States to bring its measures into conformity with its obligations under the TBT Agreement.

  • Dominican Republic - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Polypropylene Bags and Tubular Fabric (WT/DS415, WT/DS416, WT/DS417, WT/DS418): Reports of the Panel

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 6775-7108

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Request for Consultations

    On 15 October 2010 Costa Rica and Guatemala, on 18 October Honduras and on 19 October El Salvador each separately requested consultations with the Dominican Republic 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) and Article 14 of the Agreement On Safeguards, concerning the provisional and final safeguard measures imposed by the Dominican Republic on imports of polypropylene bags and tubular fabric and the investigation that led to the imposition of those measures.

    On 22 October 2010, Panama requested, by separate communications, to be joined in the consultations requested by Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador with the Dominican Republic. On 25 October Guatemala, and on 26 October Costa Rica, Honduras and El Salvador, also each requested to be joined in the consultations requested by each of the other complainants with the Dominican Republic. The Dominican Republic accepted the requests to join consultations submitted by Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama.

    Consultations were held on 16 and 17 November 2010, but the parties failed to reach a mutually satisfactory solution. On 15 December Costa Rica and Guatemala and on 20 December Honduras and El Salvador (the complainants) in separate communications requested the Dispute Settlement Body (DSU) to establish a panel pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards.

    Establishment and Composition of the Panel

    At its meeting on 7 February 2011, the DSB established a single panel pursuant to the requests of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, 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 Costa Rica in document WT/DS415/7, by El Salvador in document WT/DS418/7, by Guatemala in document WT/DS416/7 and by Honduras in document WT/DS417/7, and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
  • Volume 8, Pages 3931–4582
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 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: VIII reports on China - Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials (WT/DS394, WT/DS395, WT/DS398) and Philippines - Taxes on Distilled Spirits (WT/DS396, WT/DS403).

  • VII - FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE APPELLATE BODY REPORT WT/DS396/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 4260-4262

  • Summary

    261. In the appeal of the Panel Report, Philippines — Taxes on Distilled Spirits (complaint by the European Union, WT/DS396/R) (the “EU 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 EU 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 of the EU 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 EU 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 255 of 579