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. Law
  4. International Trade Law
  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
×

12383 results in International Trade Law

Page 334 of 620

  • II - ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTICIPANTS AND THE THIRD PARTICIPANTS

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 2481-2572

  • Summary

    Claims of Error by the United States – Appellant

    1. Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement

    17. The United States requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's finding that the COOL measure is inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement with regard to muscle cuts of meat, in particular the finding that the measure accords less favourable treatment to imported livestock than domestic livestock. The United States argues that the Panel's finding was based on “a faulty and unprecedented legal test” for the assessment of less favourable treatment and on a failure to make an objective assessment of facts related to segregation, commingling, and the price differential in the US livestock market.

    (a) The Interpretation and Application of Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement

    18. The United States submits that, in order to determine whether a measure accords less favourable treatment to imported products under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, the Panel should have followed past Appellate Body and panel reports in Thailand – Cigarettes (Philippines), Korea – Various Measures on Beef, and Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes. According to the United States, these reports generally focused on: (i) “whether the measure itself treats imported products differently and less favorably than domestic like products on the basis of their origin”; and (ii) “to the extent that there are adverse effects on imported products, whether these effects are attributable to the measure itself or are based on external non-origin related factors, such as pre-existing market conditions and the independent actions of private market actors.”

  • VII - FINDINGS

  • 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 4340-4400

  • Summary

    Claims and Order of Analysis

    1. The complainants' claims

    7.1 The complainants present their respective claims under the two sentences of Article III:2 of GATT 1994 differently. The European Union generally starts its argumentation with the first sentence of Article III:2. It articulates its claim under the second sentence as an alternative, in the event that it does not succeed, either partially or totally, in its claim under the first sentence. Indeed, in its first submission, the European Union explains that:

    “[I]f this Panel were not persuaded that some or all of those spirits are ‘like’ within the meaning of GATT Article III:2, first sentence, subordinately, the EU submits that they are ‘directly competitive or substitutable’ pursuant to GATT Article and III:2, second sentence.” (emphasis added)

    7.2 In contrast, the United States presents its claims under each of the two sentences as independent claims; it specifically requests findings that would cover all distilled spirits under both the first and the second sentences of Article III:2.

    7.3 The Philippines generally responds to the complainants’ arguments under Article III:2 by starting with the first sentence. The Philippines submits that each of the two sentences of Article III:2 establishes independent and distinct obligations and, consequently, a separate and distinct analysis is required for each.

  • VI - ARTICLE III:2, SECOND 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 4232-4260

  • Summary

    184. In this section, we address both the Philippines' appeal and the European Union's other appeal regarding Article III:2, second sentence, of the GATT 1994. We begin with the other appeal of the European Union.

    European Union's Other Appeal

    185. The European Union claims that the Panel erred in characterizing its claim under Article III:2, second sentence, of the GATT 1994 as made in the “alternative”290 to its claim under the first sentence of Article III:2. According to the European Union, by failing to address its claim under Article III:2, second sentence, the Panel acted inconsistently with Articles 7.1, 7.2, and 11 of the DSU. Moreover, to the extent that the Panel's failure to address the European Union's claim under Article III:2, second sentence, constituted application of the principle of judicial economy, the European Union submits that the Panel exercised “false” judicial economy in violation of Articles 3.7 and 21.1 of the DSU. The European Union requests the Appellate Body: to reverse the Panel's characterization of its claim under the second sentence of Article III:2 as “alternative” to its claim under the first sentence thereof; to complete the legal analysis; and to find that the Philippines has acted inconsistently with Article III:2, second sentence, of the GATT 1994.

    186. The Philippines does not contest the specific claim raised by the European Union in its other appeal.

  • V - ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES

  • 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 3571-3571

  • Summary

    5.1 Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Japan, Korea, Norway, Chinese Taipei, Turkey and Saudi Arabia reserved their third-party's rights to participate in the three disputes. The European Union (with respect to WT/DS394 and WT/DS398), Mexico (with respect to WT/DS394 and WT/DS395), and the United States (with respect to WT/DS395 and WT/DS398) reserved their third-party rights to participate in the indicated Panel proceedings.

    5.2 Chile, India and Ecuador did not present written submissions, and Argentina, and Turkey did not submit oral statements to the Panel. The arguments of Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Japan, Korea, and Saudi Arabia are set out in their written submissions and oral statements. Finally, Norway, Chinese Taipei, the European Union (with respect to WT/DS394 and WT/DS398), Mexico (with respect to WT/DS394 and WT/DS395), and the United States (with respect to WT/DS395 and WT/DS398), did not present either written submissions or oral statements to the Panel. The arguments of the third parties, as set out in their submissions, or executive summaries thereof, provided to the Panel, are attached to these Reports as an addendum.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
  • Volume 13, Pages 6773–7260
  • 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: XIII reports on Dominican Republic - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Polypropylene Bags and Tubular Fabric (WT/DS415, WT/DS416, WT/DS417, WT/DS418), United States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp and Diamond Sawblades from China (WT/DS422), and United States - Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements (WT/DS384/24, WT/DS386/23).

  • V - ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 2770-2770

  • Summary

    5.1 Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada (for WT/DS386), China, Colombia, the European Union, Guatemala, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico (for WT/DS384), New Zealand, Peru, and Chinese Taipei reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties.

    5.2 The arguments of those third parties that provided to the Panel submissions, executive summaries and oral statements are attached to these Reports as annexes (see List of Annexes, pages vi-viii). Argentina, India, Peru and Chinese Taipei did not present written submissions to the Panel. Argentina, India, and Chinese Taipei did not present oral statements at either substantive meeting of the Panel. Korea and China presented oral statements at the first and second substantive meetings respectively, but in closed session.

  • X - FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE APPELLATE BODY REPORT WT/DS395/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 3448-3449

  • Summary

    362. In the appeal of the Panel Report in China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials (complaint by the European Union, WT/DS395/R) (the “EU 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 the European Union's panel request; and therefore declares moot and of no legal effect the Panel findings in paragraph 8.11(a)-(e) in respect of claims concerning export quota administration and allocation; in paragraph 8.12(a)-(b) in respect of claims concerning export licensing requirements; and in paragraph 8.13(a)-(b) of the EU Panel Report in respect of claims concerning a minimum export price requirement;

  • (b) finds that the Panel did not err in recommending, in paragraph 8.15 of the EU 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 EU 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 8.9(b) of the EU Panel Report, that China may not seek to justify the application of export duties to certain forms of fluorspar pursuant to Article XX(g) of the GATT 1994 and the Panel's conclusion, in paragraph 8.9(c) of the EU 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;

  • […]

Page 334 of 620