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 433 of 579

  • OPTIMAL LONG-RUN BUDGETARY POLICIES SUBJECT TO THE MAASTRICHT CRITERIA OR A STABILITY PACT

  • Maria Dworak, Franz Wirl, Alexia Prskawetz, Gustav Feichtinger
  • Journal:
    Macroeconomic Dynamics / Volume 6 / Issue 5 / November 2002
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    26 September 2002, pp. 665-686

  • We investigate the optimal path of the primary surplus that a government will choose to minimize costs that derive from exceeding the Maastricht criteria and generally of a “stability pact,” where we assume three components of costs that are related to (1) the debt-to-GDP ratio, (2) the overall deficit-to-GDP ratio, and (3) the acceptance level of savings in the economy. We show that various political-economic settings can result in completely different equilibrium strategies of the debt-to-GDP ratio and the primary deficit. The spectrum of possible optimal strategies ranges from no stationary solutions to multiple equilibrium and cyclical solutions and from positive to negative levels of the optimal debt-to-GDP ratio. Our results emphasize the importance of macroeconomic and behavioral (acceptance rate of a policy) variables in order to explain complex economic time series.

  • FURTHER INSPECTION OF THE STOCHASTIC GROWTH MODEL BY AN ANALYTICAL APPROACH

  • Sau-Him Paul Lau
  • Journal:
    Macroeconomic Dynamics / Volume 6 / Issue 5 / November 2002
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    26 September 2002, pp. 748-757

  • It has been argued that a clear understanding of the stochastic growth model can best be achieved by working out an approximate analytical solution. This paper follows that idea but streamlines the presentation of the loglinear approximate solution for the neoclassical model of capital accumulation. By focusing on the partial elasticity of capital stock with respect to its lag term, this paper is able to confirm analytically some conclusions based on numerical calculations in previous papers, and to clarify why a simpler solution arises in several special cases.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2000
  • Volume 2, Pages 573-1185
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    15 August 2002
  • 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. 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. The form of citation for this volume recommended by the WTO is DSR 2000: II.

  • Argentina - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear (WT/DS121/AB/R) Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2000
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    15 August 2002, pp 515-564

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Argentina and the European Communities appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the Panel Report, Argentina - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by the European Communities with respect to the application by Argentina of certain safeguard measures on imports of footwear.

    On 14 February 1997, Argentina initiated a safeguard investigation and adopted Resolution 226/97, which imposed provisional measures in the form of minimum specific duties on imports of certain footwear. On the same day, the Argentine Ministry of Economy and Public Works repealed the minimum specific duties on imports of footwear (“DIEMs”) that had been maintained by Argentina since 31 December 1993. The opening of the safeguard investigation and the implementation of a provisional safeguard measure were notified to the Committee on Safeguards by Argentina in a communication dated 21 February 1997 and, by further communication dated 5 March 1997, Argentina transmitted a copy of the provisional duty resolution to the Committee on Safeguards.

    On 25 July 1997, Argentina notified the Committee on Safeguards of the determination of serious injury made by its competent authorities, the Comisión Nacional de Comercio Exterior (“CNCE”). Attached to this notification was Act 338, the report of the CNCE on serious injury. Act 338 incorporates by reference the Technical Report, a summary by CNCE staff of the factual data gathered during the safeguard investigation. On 1 September 1997, Argentina notified the Committee on Safeguards of its intention to impose a definitive safeguard measure. On 12 September 1997, Argentina adopted Resolution 987/97, which imposed, effective 13 September 1997, a definitive safeguard measure in the form of minimum specific duties on certain imports of footwear. On 26 September 1997, Argentina transmitted a copy of this Resolution to the Committee on Safeguards, and Uruguay, as Pro Tempore President of the Mercado Común del Sur (“MERCOSUR”) notified the definitive safeguard measure imposed by that Resolution. On 28 April 1998, Argentina published Resolution 512/98 modifying Resolution 987/97. On 26 November 1998, Argentina published Resolution 1506/98, further modifying Resolution 987/97, and, on 7 December 1998, the Argentine Secretariat of Industry, Commerce and Mines published Resolution 837/98 implementing Resolution 1506/98. The relevant factual aspects of this dispute are set out in further detail at paragraphs 2.1-2.6 and 8.1-8.20 of the Panel Report.

  • Korea - Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products (WT/DS98/AB/R, WT/DS98/R): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2000
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    15 August 2002, pp 3-48

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Korea and the European Communities appeal from certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, Korea - Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products (“the Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by the European Communities relating to a definitive safeguard measure imposed by Korea on imports of certain dairy products.

    On 17 May 1996, the Korean Trade Commission initiated an investigation of injury to the domestic industry by imports of skimmed milk powder preparations. The results of this investigation were published by the Korean Trade Commission in the Investigation Report on Industrial Injury by the Office of Administration and Investigation (the “OAI Report”). On 7 March 1997, Korea published in its Government Gazette its decision to apply a definitive safeguard measure in the form of a quantitative restriction on imports of the dairy products at issue. Korea notified the initiation and results of its investigation, as well as its decision to apply a safeguard measure, to the Committee on Safeguards. On 12 August 1997, following consultations in the Committee on Safeguards, the European Communities requested consultations with Korea under the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”) regarding the consistency of Korea's safeguard measure with its WTO obligations. The European Communities subsequently requested the establishment of a panel to examine the consistency of Korea's safeguard measure with its obligations under Articles 2, 4, 5 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX of the GATT 1994. The United States participated as a third party in the proceedings before the Panel. The factual aspects of this dispute are set out in greater detail in the Panel Report.

    In its Report circulated to Members of the World Trade Organization (“the WTO”) on 21 June 1999, the Panel concluded that Korea's definitive safeguard measure was imposed inconsistently with its WTO obligations in that:

  • (a) Korea's serious injury determination is not consistent with the provisions of Article 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards;

  • (b) Korea's determination of the appropriate safeguard measure is not consistent with the provisions of Article 5 of the Agreement on Safeguards; and

  • (c) Korea's notifications to the Committee on Safeguards (G/SG/N/6/KOR/2, G/SG/N/8/KOR/1, G/SG/N/10/KOR/1, G/SG/N/10/KOR/1. Suppl) were not timely and therefore are not consistent with the provisions of Article 12.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards.

  • Chili - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages (WT/DS87/AB/R, WT/DS110/AB/R, WT/DS87/R, WT/DS110/R): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2000
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    15 August 2002, pp 281-302

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Chile appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretation developed in the Panel Report, Chile - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages. Following a request for consultations, a Panel was established on 25 March 1998 by the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) to consider a complaint by the European Communities against Chile regarding its Special Sales Tax on Spirits, as modified by the Additional Tax on Alcoholic Beverages (“Impuesto Adicional a las Bebidas Alcohólicas” or “ILA”).

    The ILA provides a transitional tax system (the “Transitional System”) for distilled spirits (“spirits”) which is applicable until 1 December 2000, and a revised tax system (the “New Chilean System”) which will be applied from 1 December 2000. The New Chilean System taxes all spirits on the basis of their alcohol content and price. Spirits with an alcohol content of 35° or less are taxed at a rate of 27 per cent ad valorem. From a rate of 27 per cent ad valorem, the tax rate increases in increments of 4 percentage points per additional degree of alcohol, until a maximum rate of 47 per cent ad valorem is reached for all spirits over 39°. The Panel found that roughly 75 per cent of the total volume of domestically produced spirits will be taxed at 27 per cent ad valorem, while over 95 per cent of the total volume of imported spirits will be taxed at 47 per cent ad valorem. A detailed description of the factual aspects of the dispute is provided at paragraphs 2.1 to 2.29 of the Panel Report.

    The Panel considered claims made by the European Communities that the measure at issue is inconsistent with Article III:2, second sentence, of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”) because it accords preferential tax treatment to pisco, a distilled alcoholic beverage produced in Chile, thereby affording “protection” to domestic production in relation to certain imported alcoholic beverages. The Panel Report was circulated to the Members of the World Trade Organization (the “WTO”) on 15 June 1999. The Panel reached the conclusion that “the domestic distilled alcoholic beverages produced in Chile, including pisco, and the imported products presently identified by HS classification 2208, are directly competitive or substitutable products.”

  • United States - Sections 301 - 310 of the Trade Act of 1974 (WT/DS152): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2000
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    15 August 2002, pp 815-1185

  • Summary

    PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

    This proceeding has been initiated by a complaining party, the European Communities.

    On 25 November 1998, the European Communities requested consultations with the United States under Article XXII:1 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 Dispute (“DSU”) with regard to Title III, chapter 1 (Sections 301-310) of the United States Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C., paragraphs 2411-2420)(WT/DS152/1). The United States agreed to the request. Dominica Republic, Panama, Guatemala, Mexico, Jamaica, Honduras, Japan, and Ecuador requested, in communications dated 7 December 1998 (WT/DS152/2), 4 December 1998 (WT/DS152/3), 9 December 1998 (WT/DS152/4, WT/DS152/5 and WT/DS152/6), 7 December 1998 (WT/DS152/7), and 10 December 1998 (WT/DS152/8 and WT/DS152/10) respectively, to be joined in those consultations, pursuant to Article 4.11 of the DSU. Consultations between the European Communities and the United States were held on 17 December 1998, but the parties were unable to settle the dispute.

    On 26 January 1999, the European Communities requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU (WT/DS152/11).

    In its panel request, the European Communities claims that:

    “By imposing specific, strict time limits within which unilateral determinations must be made and trade sanctions must be taken, Sections 306 and 305 of the Trade Act of 1974 do not allow the United States to comply with the rules of the DSU in situations where a prior multilateral ruling under the DSU on the conformity of implementing measures has not yet been adopted by the DSB. Where measures have been taken to implement DSB recommendations, the DSU rules require either agreement between the parties to the dispute or a multilateral finding on non-conformity under Article 21.5 DSU before any determination of non-conformity can be made, let alone any measures of retaliation can be announced or implemented. The DSU procedure resulting in a multilateral finding, even if initiated immediately at the end of the reasonable period of time for implementation, cannot be finalized, nor can the subsequent DSU procedure for seeking compensation or suspension of concessions be complied with, within the time limits of Sections 306 and 305.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2000
  • Volume 3, Pages 1187-1672
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    15 August 2002
  • 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. 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. The form of citation for this volume recommended by the WTO is DSR 2000: III.

  • United States - Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations” (WT/DS108): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2000
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    15 August 2002, pp 1619-1672

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The United States and the European Communities appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, United States - Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations” (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by the European Communities with respect to “Sections 921- 927 of the Internal Revenue Code and related measures establishing special tax treatment for ‘Foreign Sales Corporations’ ('FSCs’)”. Pertinent aspects of this “FSC measure” are described in Section II below.

    In the Panel Report, circulated on 8 October 1999, the Panel concluded that, through the FSC measure:

  • (a) the United States has, except as provided in the Agreement on Agriculture, acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement by granting or maintaining export subsidies prohibited by that provision;

  • (b) the United States has acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 3.3 of the Agreement on Agriculture (and consequently with its obligations under Article 8 of that Agreement):

  • - by providing export subsidies listed in Article 9.1(d) of the Agreement on Agriculture in ex-cess of the quantity commitment levels specified in the United States’ Schedule in respect of wheat;

  • - by providing export subsidies listed in Article 9.1(d) of the Agreement on Agriculture in respect of all unscheduled products.

    • With respect to its conclusion regarding the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “SCM Agreement”), the Panel recommended that the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) request the United States “to withdraw the FSC subsidies without delay”. With respect to its conclusions regarding the Agreement on Agriculture, the Panel recommended that the DSB request the United States to bring the FSC measure into conformity with its obligations in respect of export subsidies under that Agreement.

    On 28 October 1999, the United States notified the DSB of its intention to appeal certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), and filed a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review (the “Working Procedures”).

  • Mexico - Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States (WT/DS132): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2000
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    15 August 2002, pp 1345-1618

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 8 May 1998, the United States requested consultations with Mexico pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) 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 anti-dumping investigation of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) grades 42 and 55 from the United States conducted by the Secretariat of Commerce and Industrial Development (SECOFI) of the Government of Mexico, the 23 January 1998 notice of final determination of dumping and injury in that investigation and the consequent imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of HFCS grades 42 and 55 from the United States. The United States and Mexico held consultations on 12 June 1998, but failed to reach a mutually satisfactory solution.

    On 8 October 1998, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII:2 of GATT 1994 and Article 17 of the AD Agreement, the United States requested the establishment of a panel to examine the consistency of Mexico's final anti-dumping measure, including actions preceding this measure, with Mexico's obligations under the AD Agreement and Article VI of GATT 1994.

    At its meeting on 25 November 1998, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a panel pursuant to the above request. At that meeting, the parties to the dispute agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference. The terms of reference were:

    “To examine, in light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by the United States in document WT/DS132/2, the matter referred to the DSB by the United States 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”.

    Jamaica and Mauritius reserved their rights as third parties to the dispute.

    On 13 January 1999, the Panel was constituted as follows:

    Chairman: H.E. Mr. Christer Manhusen

    Members: Mr. Gerald Salembier

    Mr. Edwin Vermulst

    The Panel met with the parties on 14-15 April 1999 and 25-26 May 1999. It met with the third parties on 15 April 1999.

    The Panel submitted its interim report to the parties on 6 October 1999. On 20 October 1999, the United States and Mexico submitted written requests for the Panel to review precise aspects of the interim report.

  • Chili - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages (WT/DS87/AB/R, WT/DS110/AB/R, WT/DS87/R, WT/DS110/R): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2000
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    15 August 2002, pp 303-514

  • Summary

    PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

    This proceeding has been initiated by a complaining party, the European Communities.

    On 4 June 1997, the European Communities requested consultations with Chile under Article XXII:1 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 regard to the Special Sales Tax on Spirits of Chile (WT/DS87/1). Chile agreed to the request. Peru, the United States, and Mexico requested, in communications dated 19 June 1997 (WT/DS87/2), 23 June 1997 (WT/DS87/3) and 20 June 1997 (WT/DS87/4) respectively, to be joined in those consultations, pursuant to Article 4.11 of the DSU. Consultations between the European Communities and Chile were held on 3 July 1997, in which Peru, the United States and Mexico participated, but the parties were unable to settle the dispute.

    On 3 October 1997, the European Communities requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU (WT/DS87/5).

    In its panel request, the European Communities claims that:

    Chile, by according a preferential tax treatment, through the Special Sales Tax on Spirits, to pisco vis-à-vis certain alcoholic beverages falling within HS heading 2208, has acted inconsistently with Article III:2 of GATT 1994, therefore nullifying or impairing the benefits accruing to the European Communities under GATT 1994.

    The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) agreed to this request for a panel at its meeting of 18 November 1997, establishing a panel pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU with standard terms of reference.

    Canada, Mexico, Peru and the United States reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third-parties.

    On 15 December 1997, the European Communities further requested consultations with Chile under Article XXII:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 4 of the DSU with regard to the Additional Tax on Alcoholic Beverages (“Impuesto Adicional a las Bebidas Alcoholicas”), as modified by Law No. 19,534 (WT/DS110/1). The United States and Mexico requested, in communications dated 23 December 1997 (WT/DS110/2) and 27 December 1997 (WT/DS110/3) respectively, to be joined in those consultations, pursuant to Article 4.11 of the DSU. Also, on 16 December 1997, the United States requested consultations with Chile under Article XXII of GATT 1994 and Article 4 of the DSU (WT/DS109/1).

  • Australia - Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of Automotive Leather - Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States (WT/DS126): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2000
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    15 August 2002, pp 1189-1344

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

    On 16 June 1999, the Dispute Settlement Body (“the DSB”) adopted the report and recommendations of the Panel in the dispute Australia - Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of Automotive Leather (WT/DS126/R) (“Australia - Automotive Leather”). In that report, the Panel found that payments under a grant contract between the Government of Australia, and Howe and Company Proprietary Ltd. (“Howe”) and Howe's parent company Australia Leather Holdings, Ltd. (“ALH”) were subsidies within the meaning of Article 1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“the SCM Agreement”) contingent upon export perform ance within the meaning of Article 3.1(a) of that Agreement, The Panel accordingly recommended, pursuant to Article 4.7 of the SCM Agreement, that Australia withdraw those subsidies without delay, which the Panel specified to be within 90 days.

    On 6 July 1999 Australia submitted a communication to the Chairman of the DSB pursuant to Article 21.3 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”), regarding “surveillance of implementation of recommendations and rulings- time-period for implementation” (WT/DS126/6). In that communication, Australia stated that the United States had been informed at a bilateral meeting in Canberra on 25 June 1999 that Australia intended to implement the DSB recommendations, and that Australia intended to implement the DSB recommendations within the time-frame provided for in the panel report.

    On 17 September 1999, Australia submitted to the Chairman of the DSB a “status report by Australia” to inform the DSB of Australia's progress in implementing the recommendations and rulings in the dispute (WT/DS126/7). In that communication, Australia stated that on 14 September 1999, Howe had repaid the Australian Government $A8.065 million, an amount which covered any remaining inconsistent portion of the grants made under the grant contract. Australia further stated that the Australian Government had also terminated all subsisting obligations under the grant contract. Australia concluded that this implemented the recommendations and rulings in the dispute to withdraw the measures within 90 days.

    On 4 October 1999, the United States submitted a communication seeking recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU (WT/DS126/8). In that communication, the United States indicated its view that the measures taken by Australia to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB were not consistent with the SCM Agreement and the DSU.

  • Argentina - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear (WT/DS121): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2000
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    15 August 2002, pp 575-814

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 3 April 1998, the European Communities requested consultations with the Government of Argentina under Article XXII:1 of the GATT 1994 (“GATT”) and pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”) and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards with regard to provisional and definitive safeguard measures imposed by Argentina on imports of footwear.

    The European Communities and Argentina held consultations on 24 April 1998, but failed to reach a mutually satisfactory solution.

    On 10 June 1998, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, the European Communities requested the establishment of a panel with standard terms of reference.

    At its meeting on 23 July 1998, the DSB established a panel pursuant to the request by the European Communities (WT/DS121/3).

    At that DSB meeting, parties agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference. The terms of reference of the Panel are the following:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by the European Communities in document WT/DS121/3, the matter referred to the DSB by the European Communities 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 15 September 1998, the Panel was constituted as follows:

    Chairman: Mr. John McNab

    Members: Ms. Claudia Orozco

    Ms. Laurence Wiedmer

    Brazil, Indonesia, Paraguay, Uruguay and the United States reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties.

    The Panel met with the parties on 30 November – 1 December 1998 and 3 February 1999. It met with the third parties on 1 December 1998.

    The Panel submitted its interim report to the parties on 21 April 1999. On 10 May 1999, both parties submitted comments on the interim report, and Argentina requested that an interim review meeting be held. On 20 May 1999, the Panel held the interim review meeting with the parties. The Panel submitted its final report to the parties on 4 June 1999.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2000
  • Volume 1, Pages 1-572
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    15 August 2002
  • 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. 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. The form of citation for this volume recommended by the WTO is DSR 2000: I.

  • Korea - Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products (WT/DS98/AB/R, WT/DS98/R): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2000
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    15 August 2002, pp 49-280

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Background

    On 12 August 1997, the European Communities requested consultations with Korea regarding a definitive safeguard measure on imports of certain dairy products (WT/DS98/1). The European Communities made their request pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”), Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement.

    On 25 August 1997 Australia, requested to be joined in the consultations (WT/DS98/2). The request was accepted by Korea on 28 August 1997 (WT/DS98/3).

    Pursuant to this request, the European Communities consulted with Korea in Geneva on 10 September 1997 and 16 October 1997. Australia participated in these consultations as a third party. No mutually satisfactory solution was reached.

    On 9 January 1998, the European Communities requested the establishment of a panel with the standard terms of reference provided by Article 7 of the DSU (WT/DS98/4). The European Communities made this request pursuant to Article XXIII:2 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (“GATT”), Articles 4 and 6.1 of the DSU, and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards. At the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) meeting of 22 January 1998, the European Communities informed the DSB that they were for the time being not pursuing its Panel request.

    On 10 June 1998, the European Communities reiterated its request for the establishment of a Panel.

    Establishment and Composition of the Panel

    At its meeting on 22 July 1998, the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) established a panel pursuant to the EC's request (WT/DS98/5). The Panel's terms of reference are:

    To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by European Community in document WT/DS98/4 the matter referred to the DSB by the European Community 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.

    The United States reserved its rights as to participate in the Panel proceedings as third party.

    On 20 August 1998, the Panel was constituted with the following composition:

    Chairman: Mr. Ole Lundby

    Members: Ms. Leora Blumberg

    Ms. Luz Elena Reyes

    Panel Proceedings

    The Panel met with the Parties on 10/11 November 1998 and on 16/17 December 1998.

Page 433 of 579