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 364 of 579

Dispute Settlement Reports 2005
  • Volume 19, Pages 9155–9718
  • World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 August 2007
  • 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 2005:XIX reports on European Communities – Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts and European Communities – Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts - Complaint by Brazil.

  • European Communities - Export Subsidies on Sugar (WT/DS265, WT/DS266, WT/DS283): Report of the Appellate Body

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2005
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 August 2007, pp 6365-6498

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The European Communities appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations contained in the Panel Reports, European Communities - Export Subsidies on Sugar (the “Panel Reports”). The Panel was established to consider complaints by Australia, Brazil, and Thailand (the “Complaining Parties”) regarding export subsidies for sugar and sugar-containing products accorded under Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 (“EC Regulation 1260/2001”) and related instruments (together, the “EC sugar regime”).

    EC Regulation 1260/2001 is valid for the marketing years 2001/2002 to 2005/2006 and establishes, inter alia: quotas for sugar production; an intervention price for raw and white sugar, respectively; a basic price and a minimum price for beet for quota sugar production; quota (that is, “A” and “B”) sugar as well as non-quota (that is, “C”) sugar ; import and export licensing requirements; producer levies; and preferential import arrangements. Furthermore, the EC sugar regime provides “export refunds” to its sugar exporters for certain quantities of sugar, other than C sugar. These “refunds”, which are direct export subsidies, cover the difference between the European Communities’ internal market price and the prevailing world market price for sugar. Non-quota sugar (that is, C sugar) must be exported, unless it is carried forward, but no “export refunds” are provided for such exports. The factual aspects of the EC sugar regime are set out in greater detail in the Panel Reports.

    The Complaining Parties claimed before the Panel that, under the EC sugar regime, the European Communities provided export subsidies for sugar in excess of its reduction commitment levels specified in Section II, Part IV of the European Communities’ Schedule, in violation of certain provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “SCM Agreement”) governing export subsidies. The Complaining Parties alleged that such subsidies in excess of the European Communities' reduction commitment levels were provided to exports of C sugar as well as to sugar equivalent in volume to sugar imported into the European Communities under preferential arrangements with certain African–Caribbean–Pacific countries (the “ACP Countries”) and India.

  • Mexico – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Beef and Rice - Complaint with Respect to Rice (WT/DS295): Report of the Appellate Body

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2005
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 August 2007, pp 10853-10986

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Mexico appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, Mexico – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Beef and Rice, Complaint with Respect to Rice (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by the United States concerning the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties by Mexico on imports of long-grain white rice from the United States, as well as certain provisions of Mexican law relating to anti-dumping and countervailing duty proceedings.

    The Mexican Rice Council filed an anti-dumping petition on 2 June 2000 with the Ministry of Commerce and Industrial Development (“SECOFI”), Mexico's investigating authority at that time. The investigation was initiated in December 2000 by the Ministry of Economy (“Economía”), which succeeded SECOFI as Mexico's investigating authority. The notice of initiation, a copy of the petition and attachments thereto, and the investigation questionnaire were sent to the Government of the United States and to the two exporters that were specifically identified in the petition as the “exporters”, Producers Rice Mill, Inc. (“Producers Rice”) and Riceland Foods, Inc. (“Riceland”). Two additional exporters, The Rice Company and Farmers Rice Milling Company (“Farmers Rice”), came forward following the initiation of the investigation and before the preliminary determination, and requested copies of the questionnaire.

    The period of investigation for the purpose of the dumping determination was 1 March to 31 August 1999. For the purpose of the injury determination, Economía collected data for the period March 1997 through August 1999, but based its analysis on the data for 1 March to 31 August for the years 1997, 1998, and 1999 and issued its final affirmative determination on 5 June 2002. Economía found that Farmers Rice and Riceland had not been dumping during the period of investigation and consequently imposed a zero per cent duty on these exporters. With respect to The Rice Company, Economía determined a dumping margin of 3.93 per cent and imposed a duty in that amount. Economía also imposed on the remaining United States exporters of the subject merchandise, including Producers Rice, a duty of 10.18 per cent, calculated on the basis of the facts available.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2005
  • Volume 3, Pages 765 to 1276
  • World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 August 2007
  • 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 2005:III reports on United States - Subsidies on Upland Cotton.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2005
  • Volume 12, Pages 5661 to 6362
  • World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 August 2007
  • 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 2005:XII reports on United States - Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2005
  • Volume 11, Pages 5119 to 5660
  • World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 August 2007
  • 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 2005:XI reports on European Communities - Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs: Complaint by Australia.

  • United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada - Recourse by Canada to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (WT/DS257): Report of the Panel

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2005
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 August 2007, pp 11401-11580

  • Summary

    PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

    On 17 February 2004, the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) adopted the recommendations and rulings in the reports of the original panel and the Appellate Body in US – Softwood Lumber IV.

    In respect of pass-through, the original panel concluded that:

    “the USDOC's failure to conduct a pass-through analysis in respect of upstream transactions for log and lumber inputs between unrelated entities was inconsistent with Article 10 SCM Agreement and Article VI:3 of GATT 1994.”

    More specifically, the original panel found that:

    “the USDOC's failure to conduct a pass-through analysis in respect of logs sold by tenure-holding timber harvesters (whether or not also lumber producers) to unrelated sawmills producing subject softwood lumber; and in respect of lumber sold by tenureholding harvester/sawmills to unrelated lumber re-manufacturers was inconsistent with Article 10 and thus Article 32.1 SCM Agreement, and with Article VI:3 of GATT 1994.”

    The original panel therefore upheld Canada's claim that the United States’ imposition of countervailing duties in respect of such transactions was inconsistent with Articles 10 and 32.1 SCM Agreement and Article VI:3 of GATT 1994.

    The United States appealed from the original panel's pass-through conclusion. The Appellate Body stated that the United States “contend[ed] that the [original panel] erred in finding that a pass-through analysis is required in respect of sales of logs from tenure-holding sawmills producing softwood lumber to unrelated sawmills, and for sales of lumber by tenure-holding sawmills to unrelated lumber remanufacturers.” According to the Appellate Body, the United States ”[did] not appeal the [original panel's] finding that, where a subsidy is received by an independent timber harvester, a pass-through analysis is required in respect of sales to unrelated sawmills or unrelated remanufacturers”.

    In respect of pass-through, the Appellate Body stated that it upheld the original panel's finding that:

    “USDOC's failure to conduct a pass-through analysis in respect of arm's length sales of logs by tenured harvesters/sawmills to unrelated sawmills is inconsistent with Articles 10 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement and Article VI:3 of the GATT 1994.”

  • United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton (WT/DS267) Report of the Appellate Body

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2005
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 August 2007, pp 3-282

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The United States and Brazil each appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established on 18 March 2003 to consider claims by Brazil regarding various United States measures that Brazil alleged constituted actionable subsidies within the meaning of Part III of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “SCM Agreement”), prohibited subsidies within the meaning of Part II of the SCM Agreement, export subsidies within the scope of the Agreement on Agriculture, and/or subsidies actionable under Article XVI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”). Brazil also alleged that certain of these measures were inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. The United States argued that some of the measures were domestic support measures that were exempt from certain actions by virtue of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Article 13 of the Agreement on Agriculture.

    The Panel Report was circulated to Members of the World Trade Organization (the “WTO”) on 8 September 2004. In paragraph 7.194 of its Report, the Panel made the following findings with respect to whether certain measures fell within its terms of reference:

    The Panel rules that the following measures, as addressed in document WT/DS267/7, are within its terms of reference:

  • (i) export credit guarantees to facilitate the export of United States upland cotton, and other eligible agricultural commodities;

  • (ii) production flexibility contract payments and market loss assistance payments[.]

    • The Panel also ruled, in paragraph 7.196 of its Report, that:

    … in its request for consultations in document WT/DS267/1, Brazil provided a statement of available evidence with respect to export credit guarantees under the GSM 102, GSM 103 and SCGP programmes relating to upland cotton and eligible agricultural commodities other than upland cotton, as required by Article 4.2 of the SCM Agreement.

    With respect to the substantive issues raised by the parties, the Panel set out the following conclusions in paragraph 8.1 of its Report:

  • (a) Article 13 of the Agreement on Agriculture is not in the nature of an affirmative defence;

  • (b) PFC payments, DP payments, and the legislative and regulatory provisions which establish and maintain the DP programme, do not satisfy the condition in paragraph (a) of Article 13 of the Agreement on Agriculture;

  • United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton (WT/DS267): Table of Annexes J to O

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2005
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 August 2007, pp 2295-2746

  • Summary

    Article 13 of the Agreement on Agriculture

    Australia has argued that Article 13 of the Agreement on Agriculture is an affirmative defence. How do you reconcile this with your view that the conditions in Article 13 are a “prerequisite” to the availability of a right or privilege? Australia Would other third parties have any comments on Australia's assertion? 3rd parties, in particular Argentina, Benin, China, Chinese Taipei

    Argentina agrees with Australia that Article 13 of the Agreement on Agriculture is an affirmative defence and that in these proceedings the United States therefore carries the burden of proof on the question of whether its subsidies conform with the terms of Article 13.

    According to the Appellate Body in US-Shirts and Blouses:

    ” … the burden of proof rests upon the party, whether complaining or defending, who asserts the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. If that party adduces evidence sufficient to raise a presumption that what is claimed is true, the burden then shifts to the other party, who will fail unless it adduces sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption”.

    As stated by Brazil in Paragraph 112 of its first written submission, in the case of claims of violation of the positive obligations of the WTO Agreement, it is the complaining party that has the burden of providing a prima facie case of violation. However, in the case of affirmative defences, such as Articles XX and XI:2(c)(i), the Appellate Body itself established that it is only reasonable that the burden of establishing such a defence should rest upon the party asserting it.

    According to the standards established by the Appellate Body, Article 13 of the Agreement on Agriculture is a provision in the nature of an affirmative defence. As such, it does not create new obligations for Members, but limits the scope of certain provisions of the SCM Agreement and the GATT 1994 subject to certain conditions. Nor does it alter the legal nature of Members’ measures, but simply permits Members to maintain those measures exempt from actions, if the measures meet the conditions specified in Article 13(a), (b) or (c).

  • United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) from Mexico (WT/DS282): Report of the Panel

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2005
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 August 2007, pp 10225-10618

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 18 February 2003, the Government of Mexico requested consultations with the Government of the United States of America (United States) pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), and Article 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the AD Agreement) regarding the final determinations of the United States Department of Commerce (USDOC) and the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) in the sunset and fourth administrative reviews of oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Mexico, as well as certain United States laws, regulations, procedures, administrative provisions and practice. Mexico and the United States held consultations on 4 April 2003, but they failed to settle the dispute.

    On 29 July 2003, Mexico requested the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) to establish a panel pursuant to Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, Article 6 of the DSU and Article 17 of the AD Agreement.

    At its meeting on 29 August 2003, the DSB established a Panel pursuant to the request by Mexico in document WT/DS282/2, in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU. At that meeting, the parties to the dispute also agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference. The terms of reference are, therefore, the following:

    To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Mexico in document WT/DS282/2, the matter referred to the DSB by Mexico in that document, 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 11 February 2004, the parties agreed to the following composition of the Panel:

    Chairman: Mr. Christer Manhusen

    Members: Mr. Alistair James Stewart

    Ms. Stephanie Sin Far Man

    Argentina, Canada, China, the European Communities, Japan, Chinese Taipei and Venezuela reserved their third-party rights.

    The Panel met with the parties on 25-26 May 2004 and on 17-18 August 2004. It met with the third parties on 26 May 2004.

Page 364 of 579