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 494 of 620

  • Conclusion

  • Douglas A. Irwin, Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, Petros C. Mavroidis, Columbia University, New York, Alan O. Sykes, Stanford University, California
  • Book:
    The Genesis of the GATT
    Published online:
    12 April 2011
    Print publication:
    16 June 2008, pp 201-202

  • Summary

    In light of the difficulties that recent multilateral trade negotiating rounds have encountered, trade officials, sometimes with nostalgia, reflect back on the easier trade negotiations of the past. Yet, although the 1940s was a golden age of international institution building, the negotiations that led to the GATT were never easy. The path from James Meade's draft plan for an “International Commercial Union” in 1942 to the Geneva conference in 1947 was fraught with pitfalls, delays, and obstacles. The ambitious plans for an International Trade Organization were eventually abandoned. In its place remained a smaller and shorter agreement on commercial policy that had many weaknesses. Yet the GATT survived the test of time.

    The delegates entrusted with the task of rebuilding the multilateral system of world trade and payments were a rare breed. It is unusual to see some of the greatest economic minds actively participate in national delegations, and work together with the political establishment towards the institutionalization of international cooperation and the constraint of economic unilateralism. It is to Henry Cabot Lodge that the phrase “the U.N. system is designed to avoid taking us to hell, but it cannot take us to heaven” is attributed. The Bretton Woods institutions and the GATT were designed as the first steps towards the other way.

    The negotiating record amply supports the view that the GATT is very much the end product of a transatlantic negotiation.

  • Annex A: Documents Relating to the Negotiations

  • Douglas A. Irwin, Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, Petros C. Mavroidis, Columbia University, New York, Alan O. Sykes, Stanford University, California
  • Book:
    The Genesis of the GATT
    Published online:
    12 April 2011
    Print publication:
    16 June 2008, pp 203-284

  • Summary

    1. General Provisions for Inclusion in Trade Agreements, as revised to December 13, 1941, National Archives II, Lot File 57D-284, Box 89.

    2. A Proposal for an International Commercial Union (James Meade), July 25, 1942, Public Records Office, T 230/14.

    3. Anglo-American Discussions under Article VII: Section on Commercial Policy, November 1943, Public Records Office, BT 11/2215.

    4. Proposed Multilateral Convention on Commercial Policy: Summary of Significant Provisions, U.S. State Department, October 1944, National Archives II, Lot File 57D-284, Box 24.

    5. Excerpts from “Proposals for Expansion of World Trade and Employment,” State Department Publication No. 2411, December 1945.

    6. Preparations for Preliminary International Meeting on Trade and Employment, February 6, 1946, FRUS (1946, I, 1280-1289).

    7. U.S. Delegation Report on First Preparatory Meeting for an International Conference on Trade and Employment (London), December 27, 1946, FRUS (1946, I, 1360-1366).

    8. Report on the Geneva GATT Negotiations, Memorandum from State Department to President Truman, October 17, 1947, FRUS 1947, I, 1015-1024.

    Annex A-1

    From National Archives II, Lot File 57D-284, Box 89

    General Provisions for Inclusion in Trade Agreeements

    As revised to December 19, 1941

    Preamble

    Provisions Relating to Treatment of Trade in General

    1. (1) Most-favored-nation clause

    2. (2) Internal taxes

    3. (3) Quotas in general

    4. (4) Exchange Control

    5. (5) Monopolies and government purchases

    6. (6) Customs administrative matters, advances in duties, and customs pen-alties

    Provisions Relating to Concessions

    1. (7) Duty concessions by foreign country

    2. (8) Duty concessions by the United States

    3. (9) Compensating taxes

    4. (10) Dutiable value and conversion of currencies

    5. (11) Quotas on scheduled products

    6. (12) Withdrawal or modification of concessions

    7. (13) General provision to safeguard concessions

The Genesis of the GATT
  • Douglas A. Irwin, Petros C. Mavroidis, Alan O. Sykes
  • Published online:
    12 April 2011
    Print publication:
    16 June 2008
  • This book is part of a wider project on the economic logic behind the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). This volume asks: What does the historical record indicate about the aims and objectives of the framers of the GATT? Where did the provisions of the GATT come from and how did they evolve through various international meetings and drafts? To what extent does the historical record provide support for one or more of the economic rationales for the GATT? This book examines the motivations and contributions of the two main framers of the GATT, the United States and the United Kingdom, as well as the smaller role of other countries. The framers desired a commercial agreement on trade practices as well as negotiated reductions in trade barriers. Both were sought as a way to expand international trade to promote world prosperity, restrict the use of discriminatory policies to reduce conflict over trade, and thereby establish economic foundations for maintaining world peace.

  • 3 - The Rationales for the GATT

  • Douglas A. Irwin, Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, Petros C. Mavroidis, Columbia University, New York, Alan O. Sykes, Stanford University, California
  • Book:
    The Genesis of the GATT
    Published online:
    12 April 2011
    Print publication:
    16 June 2008, pp 176-200

  • Summary

    The two previous chapters examined the origins and evolution of the GATT as a text. In this brief chapter, we turn to the broad question of how the historical evidence relates to existing academic theories of why countries seek to negotiate and join multilateral trade agreements. The classical theory of international trade and commercial policy examines the benefits of trade and the impact of trade-policy measures, but not, until recently, the value of international trade agreements. This has prompted economists and political scientists to search for the deeper economic and political rationales for trade agreements such as the GATT. These theories seek to answer questions such as: Why do we have the GATT? What is the underlying objective of the agreement, and what purpose does it serve?

    The preamble (chapeau) of the GATT sets out the major purposes of the agreement, at least in the eyes of the founders:

    Recognizing that their relations in the field of trade and economic endeavour should be conducted with a view to raising standards of living, ensuring full employment and a large and steadily growing volume of real income and effective demand, developing the full use of the resources of the world and expanding the production and exchange of goods,

    Being desirous of contributing to these objectives by entering into reciprocal and mutually advantageous arrangements directed to the substantial reduction of tariffs and other barriers to trade and to the elimination of discriminatory treatment in international commerce, .…

  • Preface

  • Douglas A. Irwin, Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, Petros C. Mavroidis, Columbia University, New York, Alan O. Sykes, Stanford University, California
  • Book:
    The Genesis of the GATT
    Published online:
    12 April 2011
    Print publication:
    16 June 2008, pp xi-xii

  • Summary

    This book is the first in a series sponsored by the American Law Institute (ALI) on the foundations of world trade law as found in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and other agreements dealing with trade in goods under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The project is entitled Principles of World Trade Law and aims at illustrating the basic principles guiding trade liberalization. The ALI appointed Henrik Horn, Petros C. Mavroidis, Kyle W. Bagwell, Gene M. Grossman, Robert W. Staiger, and Alan O. Sykes as reporters. Douglas A. Irwin has been invited to act as a coauthor in this first volume.

    This book sets the stage for the subsequent volumes by exploring the circumstances that gave rise to the GATT in 1947. It examines the origin and evolution of specific provisions that comprise the GATT, as well as present government documents and negotiate drafts relating to the creation of the GATT. In the course of our research, we have accumulated many intellectual debts that we wish to acknowledge. We are grateful to Lance Liebman and Elena A. Cappella of the ALI for their support of this project. We are indebted to Todd Feldman at ALI for expert editorial assistance. Judith M. Cole and Sandrine Forgeron at ALI helped to organize a meeting at the Columbia Law School on November 8, 2007, in which we were able to receive valuable feedback on our work.

  • Introduction

  • Douglas A. Irwin, Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, Petros C. Mavroidis, Columbia University, New York, Alan O. Sykes, Stanford University, California
  • Book:
    The Genesis of the GATT
    Published online:
    12 April 2011
    Print publication:
    16 June 2008, pp 1-4

  • Summary

    At a conference in the Palais des Nations, in Geneva, Switzerland, representatives of 23 countries met from April to October 1947 and established two key pillars of the postwar world trading system. First, they created a legal framework for commercial policy by finalizing the text of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Second, the Geneva participants negotiated numerous bilateral agreements to reduce import tariffs, the benefits of which were extended to other GATT parties through the unconditional most-favored nation (MFN) clause. As a result, this landmark meeting produced a framework for postwar commercial relations in which governments agreed to rules about the use of certain trade barriers and to negotiate tariff reductions with one another. This system of multilateral cooperation has proven to be an enduring regime under which international trade has flourished for over half a century.

    This book examines the origins of the GATT. There are many studies of the GATT from legal and economic perspectives, but relatively few that examine how the GATT emerged from the ashes of World War II. The goal of our study is to appreciate the original goals and intentions of its founders by reviewing the diplomatic history that gave rise to this remarkable agreement, and to understand why the GATT took the particular shape and form that it did, in terms of the various provisions included in or excluded from the text.

  • Annex B: Negotiating Committees and Subcommittees

  • Douglas A. Irwin, Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, Petros C. Mavroidis, Columbia University, New York, Alan O. Sykes, Stanford University, California
  • Book:
    The Genesis of the GATT
    Published online:
    12 April 2011
    Print publication:
    16 June 2008, pp 285-296

  • Summary

    London Conference

    The Preparatory Committee established the following working committees:

    1. (f) Committee I: Employment and Economic Activity;

    2. (g) Committee II: General Commercial Policy;

    3. (h) Committee III: Restrictive Business Practices;

    4. (i) Committee IV: Intergovernmental Commodity Arrangements;

    5. (j) Committee V: Administration and Organization;

    A sixth committee, the Joint Committee on Industrial Development, was established following a joint meeting of Committees I and II. During the First Session, Mr. Suetens (Belgium) was elected as Chairman of the Preparatory Committee, with Mr. Augenthaler (Czechoslovakia) as first, and Mr. Alvarez (Cuba) as second vice-chairman. The Chairman of Committee II was Coombs (Australia), with Speekenbrink (Netherlands) acting as vice-chairman. Committee II established a series of Sub-committees that were requested to report their findings to the main Committee (II): the single most important of all Sub-committees established is the Technical Sub-committee, which dealt with the following issues:

    1. a. national treatment on internal taxation and regulation;

    2. b. freedom of transit;

    3. c. antidumping and countervailing duties;

    4. d. tariff valuation;

    5. e. customs formalities;

    6. f. marks of origin;

    7. g. publication and administration of trade regulations – advance notice to restrictive regulations information, statistics, and trade terminology;

    8. h. boycotts;

    9. i. general exceptions.

    Participation to the Technical Sub-committee was open to delegates for all the countries represented on the Preparatory Committee. Mr. Videla (Chile) acted as Chairman, and delegates of six different nationalities acted as rapporteurs. The choice of six rapporteurs was justified by the wish to accelerate the process. The six rapporteurs were chosen from the Belgian (Luxembourg), Canadian, French, Dutch, UK, and U.S. delegations. The U.S. rapporteur was Mr.

  • 10 - The irrational lightness of trade marks: a legal perspective

    • By Catherine W. Ng, Research Associate Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre
  • Edited by Lionel Bently, University of Cambridge, Jennifer Davis, University of Cambridge, Jane C. Ginsburg, Columbia University, New York
  • Book:
    Trade Marks and Brands
    Published online:
    13 April 2010
    Print publication:
    12 June 2008, pp 223-238

  • Summary

    Professor Lury's thought-provoking chapter ‘Trade Mark Style as a Way of Fixing Things’ asserts that, in addition to their role as facilitators of transactions between manufacturers and consumers, trade marks have become a commercial asset in their own right. They have acquired an ability to exploit new forms of production and exchange, and a value as ‘an object or mode of capital accumulation’.

    A rear-view mirror perspective

    This commentary will complement her paper by offering a rear-view mirror perspective, in time and in the chain of commerce, to demonstrate how developments in UK trade mark laws have accommodated traders as they extend their personae through trade marks to organize production and exchange. In trade mark laws, trade marks are consistently attributed a source distinguishing function: to identify the traders responsible for putting the trade marked goods on the market, and to distinguish the traders' goods from those of other traders. Trade marks are defined by this source-distinguishing function. In the market, however, trade marks serve as identifiers of brands and play a role in organizing the consumer market thereby. In her chapter, ‘Trade Mark Style as a Way of Fixing Things’, Professor Lury has demonstrated that trade marks also play a role in organizing the producer market.

    This chapter supports her observations by showing that the consumer protection rationale in trade mark laws is not consistently reflected in the legal mechanisms. These mechanisms, however, facilitate the extension of commercial identities which organize the producer market.

  • United States – Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations”, Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes by the European Communities (WT/DS108): Report of the Appellate Body

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2006
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 June 2008, pp 4721-4760

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The United States appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, United States – Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations”, Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by the European Communities regarding the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (the “Jobs Act”) and the United States’ compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) adopted on the basis of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports in United States – Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations” (“US – FSC”) and United States – Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations”, Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities (“US – FSC (Article 21.5 – EC)”). Relevant aspects of the Jobs Act are described in paragraph 6 below, as well as in paragraphs 2.13 to 2.17 of the Panel Report.

    The panel in US – FSC (the “original panel”) concluded that the “FSC measure”, consisting of Sections 921 to 927 of the United States Internal Revenue Code (the “IRC”) and related measures establishing special tax treatment for foreign sales corporations (“FSC”), was inconsistent with the United States’ obligations under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “SCM Agreement”) and the Agreement on Agriculture. The Appellate Body upheld the original panel's finding that the FSC measure was inconsistent with the United States’ obligations under the SCM Agreement and modified the original panel's findings under the Agreement on Agriculture.

    On 20 March 2000, the DSB adopted the reports of the original panel and the Appellate Body. The DSB recommended that the United States bring the FSC measure into conformity with its obligations under the covered agreements and that the FSC subsidies found to be prohibited export subsidies within the meaning of the SCM Agreement be withdrawn without delay, pursuant to Article 4.7 of the SCM Agreement, namely, “at the latest with effect from 1 October 2000”.

  • 2 - The making of modern trade mark law: the UK, 1860–1914. A business history perspective

    • By David M. Higgins, Anniversary Reader in Business and Economic History University of York
  • Edited by Lionel Bently, University of Cambridge, Jennifer Davis, University of Cambridge, Jane C. Ginsburg, Columbia University, New York
  • Book:
    Trade Marks and Brands
    Published online:
    13 April 2010
    Print publication:
    12 June 2008, pp 42-62

  • Summary

    Professor Bently has shown that between 1870 and 1913 important changes were introduced to British trade mark law. The single most important piece of legislation during this period was the Trade Marks Registration Act (1875). The crucial provisions of this Act were that registration became prima facie evidence of the right of the registered proprietor to exclusive use of the trade mark and, from 1876, no person was allowed to institute proceedings to prevent infringement of a mark unless it was registered. These early developments, although of fundamental legal importance, did not occur in vacuo: in many respects they were the outcome of sustained pressure by commercial and industrial interests. This commentary complements Professor Bently's discussion in the following ways. First, it places the legal issues into a business history context in order to demonstrate that trade marks issues can enhance our understanding of the performance of British industry during this period. Second, I discuss the extent to which the Trade Marks Registration Act (1875) can be considered a success, by examining features of trade mark registration and litigation between 1875 and 1914. In the penultimate section of my commentary I discuss how pressure for protection of individual trade marks developed into a much broader campaign focussing on geographical indicia. Conclusions are presented in the final section.

  • European Communities - Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts - Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (WT/DS269/13, WT/DS286/15) Award of the Arbitrator

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2006
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 June 2008, pp 5441-5472

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 27 September 2005, the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Reports, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, in European Communities – Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts. At the meeting of the DSB held on 18 October 2005, the European Communities stated that it intended to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute, and that it would need a reasonable period of time in which to do so.

    On 22 November 2005, Brazil informed the DSB that consultations with the European Communities had not resulted in an agreement on the reasonable period of time for implementation. Brazil therefore requested that such period be determined through binding arbitration, pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”). Thailand similarly informed the DSB, on 9 December 2005, that it had been unable to reach agreement with the European Communities on the reasonable period of time for implementation, and requested arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.

    By joint letter of 9 December 2005, Brazil and the European Communities requested me to act as Arbitrator, pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, to determine the reasonable period of time for implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute. Thailand and the European Communities also requested, by joint letter of 13 December 2005, that I serve as Arbitrator. As the 90-day period following adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports was to expire on 26 December 2005, the parties, in their respective letters, “confirm[ed] that the award of the arbitrator within the time period to be agreed shall be deemed to be the award of the arbitrator for the purpose of Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.” I accepted the appointments on 14 December 2005 and proposed to conduct both proceedings simultaneously, undertaking to issue the Award no later than 20 February 2006. No party objected to the proposed date for circulation of the Award.

  • 4 - “See me, feel me, touch me, hea[r] me” (and maybe smell and taste me too): I am a trademark a – US perspective

    • By Jane C. Ginsburg, Professor of Literary and Artistic Property Law Columbia University School of Law
  • Edited by Lionel Bently, University of Cambridge, Jennifer Davis, University of Cambridge, Jane C. Ginsburg, Columbia University, New York
  • Book:
    Trade Marks and Brands
    Published online:
    13 April 2010
    Print publication:
    12 June 2008, pp 92-104

  • Summary

    The preceding chapter, “Between a sign and a brand,” addresses the current law in the UK and the EU regarding which signs can be a registered trademark, and the scope of protection a trademark receives. Jennifer Davis also considers the extent to which that scope does or should cover the more ineffable subject matter of “brand values.” This comment from the perspective of United States trademark law will follow a similar plan. It first will address what is (and is not) a trademark, focusing on the extensions of trademarks beyond traditional word marks and design marks (logos; trade dress [get-up]) to the more controversial categories of product shape, colors, sounds, smells, tastes and touch. It then will explore the scope of protection, particularly with reference to recent legislation concerning “dilution,” representing Congress’ latest attempt to provide greater legal security to the “commercial magnetism” of famous marks, while recognizing the free speech interests in the parodies, critiques and comparisons those marks also attract.

    In US trademark law, state common law and federal statutory regimes cohabitate: statutory protection under the Lanham Federal Trademarks Act adds to but does not fully supersede the underlying common law rules and rationale for trademark protection. Thus, for example, carrying forward the common law rule that “There is no such thing as a property in a trade-mark except as a right appurtenant to an established business” a mark will not be registered unless it has been “used in commerce.

  • European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products (WT/DS291, WT/DS292, WT/DS293): Table of Annexes G to I-2

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2006
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 June 2008, pp 2769-3184

  • Summary

    REPLIES BY AUSTRALIA TO QUESTIONS POSED BY THE PANEL AND THE PARTIES

    QUESTIONS POSED BY THE PANEL

    For all third parties:

    With reference to pp. 27-36 of the EC first written submission, could the third parties please indicate whether the European Communities’ description of their own regulatory systems is accurate?

    From Australia's perspective, the accuracy of the European Communities’ description of the Australian regulatory system does not appear to be of any relevance to the resolution of this dispute. Australia therefore does not wish to provide any response addressing the accuracy of this description.

    For all complaining parties

    With reference to Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement, do the complaining parties agree with the European Communities that:

  • (a) Article 5.7 excludes the applicability of Article 5.1 and is not an exception (affirmative defence) to Article 5.1 (EC first written submission, para. 575)? In answering this question, please address the relevance of the Appellate Body reports on Japan- Apples (footnote 316), EC – Hormones (para. 104) and ECSardines (para. 275) and Japan-Agricultural Products II (paras. 86 et seq)?

    • In Australia's view, Article 5.7 operates as a qualified exemption from the obligation under Article 5.1. Article 5.7 is not, however, an exception (affirmative defence) and the burden of proof in establishing a claim of inconsistency with Article 5.7 rests with the complaining party.

    Qualified exemption

    In Japan – Agricultural Products II, the Appellate Body explained that:

    Article 5.7 operates as a qualified exemption from the obligation under Article 2.2 not to maintain SPS measures without sufficient scientific evidence. An overly broad and flexible interpretation of that obligation would render Article 5.7 meaningless.

    In light of the nexus between Articles 2.2 and 5.1, Australia considers that the same reasoning can be applied to the relationship between Article 5.1 and Article 5.7: Article 5.7 operates as a qualified exemption from the obligation under Article 5.1 requiring Members to ensure their SPS measures are based on an assessment of risk.

Page 494 of 620