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 257 of 579

  • VI - NASA PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS AND USDOD ASSISTANCE INSTRUMENTS

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 251-321

  • Summary

    Financial Contribution

    1. Introduction

    550. The issues raised in this part of the appeal concern both the Panel's interpretation and application of Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement. We note that, in its analysis of whether the NASA and USDOD measures challenged by the European Communities constitute financial contributions within the meaning of Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement, the Panel began by focusing on the interpretative issue of whether measures that are properly characterized as “purchases of services” are excluded from the scope of Article 1.1(a)(1)(i) of the SCM Agreement and, therefore, do not qualify as financial contributions by means of a “direct transfer of funds”.

    551. After determining that Article 1.1(a)(1)(i) does not include within its scope measures that are “properly characterized” as purchases of services, the Panel proceeded to consider whether the NASA and USDOD measures at issue qualify as such. For this purpose, the Panel developed and applied a test that it derived from Article 1.1(a)(1). According to the Panel, whether or not the NASA and USDOD measures could be properly characterized as purchases of services depends on the nature of the work that Boeing was required to perform pursuant to them and, more specifically, whether that research was “principally for {Boeing's} own benefit and use, or whether it was principally for the benefit and use of the U.S. Government (or unrelated third parties)”.

  • IV - THE PANEL'S TERMS OF REFERENCE

  • 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 3387-3398

  • Summary

    211. We begin by examining China's appeal of the Panel's finding that Section III of the complainants' panel requests, entitled “Additional Restraints Imposed on Exportation”, identifies the measures and claims at issue in a manner sufficient to present the problem clearly, as required under Article 6.2 of the DSU. China requests the Appellate Body to reverse this finding, and to find instead that Section III of the panel requests does not comply with Article 6.2 of the DSU, with the exception of the complainants' claims under Article X: 1 of the GATT 1994 regarding the non-publication of the total amount and procedure for the allocation of the zinc export quota.

    212. Before turning to assess China's claim of error under Article 6.2 of the DSU, we consider it useful to describe briefly how this issue arose before the Panel, as well as the Panel's approach to the issue.

    Proceedings before the Panel and the Panel's Findings

    213. On 4 November 2009, the United States, the European Communities, and Mexico filed the panel requests that form the basis of the present dispute. At the request of the complainants, the DSB established a single panel pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU at its 21 December 2009 meeting.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
  • Volume 3, Pages 1249–1834
  • 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: I to III report on United States - Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (Second Complaint) (WT/DS353).

  • I - INTRODUCTION

  • 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 4281-4284

  • Summary

    Request for Consultations

    1.1 On 29 July 2009, the European Union (then the European Communities), and on 14 January 2010, the United States, separately requested consultations with the Philippines pursuant to Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”) and Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”) with respect to the taxation of imported distilled spirits by the Philippines. The United States and the European Union each requested to be joined in the consultations requested by the other Member. The Philippines accepted the requests of both the United States and the European Union to join the consultations.

    1.2 Consultations were held between each complaining party and the Philippines. The European Union and the Philippines held their consultations on 8 October 2009 in Manila. The United States and the Philippines held their consultations on 23 February 2010 in Geneva. The United States and the European Union each attended the consultations requested by the other Member. These consultations did not lead to a mutually satisfactory resolution of the dispute.

    Establishment and Composition of the Panel

    1.3 On 10 December 2009, the European Union, and on 26 March 2010, the United States, requested the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) to establish a panel pursuant to Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU, with standard terms of reference as set out in Article 7.1 of the DSU.

  • IX - CITY OF WICHITA INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS (IRBS) – SPECIFICITY

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 374-387

  • Summary

    859. We next turn to the United States' appeal of the Panel's finding that the IRB subsidies provided by the City of Wichita are a specific subsidy within the meaning of Article 2.1(c) of the SCM Agreement. We begin, in section A, with a brief background on the IRBs issued to Boeing and Spirit, followed by a summary, in section B, of the Panel's findings in respect of this measure. In section C, we assess the United States' claim on appeal.

    Background

    860. As a general matter, IRBs are issued by the City of Wichita to the general public on behalf of a qualifying private entity, the proceeds of which are used to purchase, construct, or improve commercial or industrial property for that entity. The City of Wichita holds title to the property during the term of the IRB, and leases the property to the private entity in exchange for rent payments sufficient to cover the payment of principal and interest on the IRB to the public bondholders. During the term of the IRB, the private entity benefits from exemptions from certain interest rate, property, and sales taxes. At the conclusion of the IRB term, title to the property transfers to the private entity involved. The IRB scheme operated somewhat differently for Boeing, and subsequently Spirit (which acquired Boeing's Wichita division in June 2005), because the IRBs at issue, rather than being purchased by the public, were purchased by Boeing and Spirit themselves.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
  • Volume 7, Pages 3293–3930
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    03 January 2018
    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: VII and VIII report on China - Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials (WT/DS394, WT/DS395, WT/DS398).

  • XI - FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE APPELLATE BODY REPORT WT/DS398/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 3449-3450

  • Summary

    362. In the appeal of the Panel Report in China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials (complaint by Mexico, WT/DS398/R) (the “Mexico 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 Mexico's panel request; and therefore declares moot and of no legal effect the Panel findings in paragraph 8.18(a)-(d) in respect of claims concerning export quota administration and allocation; in paragraph 8.19(a)-(b) in respect of claims concerning export licensing requirements; in paragraph 8.20(a)-(b) in respect of claims concerning a minimum export price requirement; and in paragraph 8.18(e) of the Mexico Panel Report in respect of claims concerning fees and formalities in connection with exportation;

  • (b) finds that the Panel did not err in recommending, in paragraph 8.22 of the Mexico 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 Mexico 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 8.16(b) of the Mexico 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;

  • […]

  • VIII - ARTICLE XX(g) OF THE GATT 1994

  • 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 3441-3446

  • Summary

    345. China alleges that the Panel erred in interpreting the phrase “made effective in conjunction with” in Article XX(g) to mean that restrictions on domestic production or consumption must “be applied jointly with the challenged export restrictions”, and that “the purpose of those export restrictions must be to ensure the effectiveness of those domestic restrictions”.

    The Panel's Findings and Arguments on Appeal

    346. The Panel found that China's export quota on refractory-grade bauxite is inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994. China sought to justify this export quota pursuant to Article XX(g) of the GATT 1994, arguing that refractory-grade bauxite is an exhaustible natural resource that is scarce and requires protection.

    347. The Panel first addressed the question of whether China's export quota relates to the conservation of refractory-grade bauxite. Based on its review of the evidence and arguments before it, the Panel found this not to be the case. The Panel nevertheless continued its analysis in order to determine whether the export quota on refractory-grade bauxite was “made effective in conjunction with” restrictions on domestic production or consumption, as required under Article XX(g) of the GATT 1994.

    348. The Panel considered that, in order for a measure to be justified under Article XX(g), the measure must satisfy two conditions: (i) it must relate to the conservation of an exhaustible natural resource; and (ii) it must be made effective in conjunction with restrictions on domestic production or consumption.

  • VI - INTERIM REVIEW

  • 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 3571-3584

  • Summary

    6.1 On 18 February 2011, the Panel issued its Interim Reports to the parties. On 4 March 2011, the United States, the European Union, Mexico, and China submitted written requests for review of precise aspects of the Interim Reports pursuant to Article 15.2 of the DSU. On 18 March 2011, the United States, the European Union, Mexico, and China submitted written comments on each other's requests for interim review. No party requested an additional meeting with the Panel.

    6.2 The numbering of paragraphs and footnotes in the Final Reports has changed from the Interim Reports. The text below refers to the paragraph and footnote numbers in the Interim Reports regarding which the parties requested review. The parties submitted several editorial revisions as well as other linguistic changes, which were not contested by the other parties; the Panel also made minor editorial and non-substantive consequential changes as a result of other adjustments. Such editorial, minor and non-substantial changes were made to paragraphs 7.2, 7.4, 7.60, 7.63, 7.68, 7.79, 7.80, 7.82, 7.83, 7.85, 7.86, 7.88, 7.89, 7.90, 7.91, 7.96, 7.97, 7.102, 7.124, 7.151, 7.195, 7.221, 7.224, 7.227, 7.229, 7.231, 7.232, 7.233, 7.234, 7.246, 7.327 7.345, 7.352, 7.375, 7.376, 7.383, 7.389, 7.394, 7.404, 7.407, 7.415, 7.455, 7.456, 7.457, 7.459, 7.463, 7.464, 7.468, 7.469, 7.471, 7.495, 7.504, 7.505, 7.508, 7.512, 7.516, 7.518, 7.585, 7.588, 7.594, 7.599, 7.616, 7.623, 7.754, 7.781, 7.783, 7.860, 7.878, 7.879, 7.880, 7.965, and 7.1011; and footnotes 54, 524, 525, 526, 527, 546, 680, 1091, 1206, 1232, 1233 and 1234.

  • IV - BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURE AT ISSUE

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 1917-1920

  • Summary

    172. This dispute arises out of a challenge brought by Mexico against certain legal instruments of the United States establishing the conditions for the use of a “dolphin-safe” label on tuna products. In particular, Mexico identified the following legal instruments as the object of its challenge: the United States Code, Title 16, Section 1385 (the “Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act” or “DPCIA”); the United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Section 216.91 and Section 216.92 (the “implementing regulations”); and a ruling by a US federal appeals court in Earth Island Institute v. Hogarth (the “Hogarth ruling”). Taken together, the DPCIA, the implementing regulations, and the Hogarth ruling set out the requirements for when tuna products sold in the United States may be labelled as “dolphin-safe”. More specifically, they condition eligibility for a “dolphin-safe” label upon certain documentary evidence that varies depending on the area where the tuna contained in the tuna product is harvested and the type of vessel and fishing method by which it is harvested. In particular, tuna caught by “setting on” dolphins is currently not eligible for a “dolphin-safe” label in the United States, regardless of whether this fishing method is used inside or outside the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean (the “ETP”). The DPCIA and the implementing regulations also prohibit any reference to dolphins, porpoises, or marine mammals on the label of a tuna product if the tuna contained in the product does not comply with the labelling conditions spelled out in the DPCIA.

  • II - FACTUAL ASPECTS

  • 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 3552-3558

  • Summary

    Background

    2.1 This dispute concerns China's use of certain export restraints on the exportation of certain forms of bauxite, coke, fluorspar, magnesium, manganese, silicon carbide, silicon metal, yellow phosphorus and zinc (the “raw materials”). The complainants identify the following as four types of restraints that China imposes on the exportation of these raw materials: (1) export duties; (2) export quotas; (3) export licensing; and (4) minimum export price requirements. The complainants challenge the existence of these restraints as well as aspects of the allocation and administration of export quotas, export licences and minimum export prices, and the alleged non-publication of certain measures.

    Products at Issue

    2.2 The various forms of the nine raw materials at issue either occur naturally or have undergone initial processing. The following chart identifies the particular raw materials at issue in this dispute by category, product name, product name short form, 2009 Chinese HS Number, and 2009 Chinese Commodity Codes. This chart takes into account the parties' submissions, responses to questions and the Panel's preliminary ruling (discussed in paragraphs 1.10 to 1.13 above).

    Measures at Issue

    2.3 The United States, the European Union and Mexico collectively identified 40 specific measures in their Panel Requests15 in connection with their claims concerning export duties, export quotas, export licensing requirements and minimum export price requirements. These include measures concerning the imposition of these restraints, as well as aspects of the allocation, administration and the alleged non-publication of certain measures.

  • VI - ARTICLE 2.1 OF THE TBT AGREEMENT

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 1929-1966

  • Summary

    200. We turn next to address Mexico's appeal of the Panel's finding that Mexico failed to demonstrate that the US “dolphin-safe” labelling provisions are inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement.

    201. Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement provides that, with respect to their central government bodies:

    Members shall ensure that in respect of technical regulations, products imported from the territory of any Member shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin and to like products originating in any other country.

    202. Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement consists of three elements that must be demonstrated in order to establish an inconsistency with this provision, namely: (i) that the measure at issue constitutes a “technical regulation” within the meaning of Annex 1.1; (ii) that the imported products must be like the domestic product and the products of other origins; and (iii) that the treatment accorded to imported products must be less favourable than that accorded to like domestic products and like products from other countries. Mexico's appeal concerns only the Panel's finding in respect of the third element, namely, the “treatment no less favourable” standard in Article 2.1. We further note that the United States has not appealed the Panel's finding that Mexican tuna products are “like” tuna products of United States' origin and tuna products originating in any other country within the meaning of Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement.

Page 257 of 579