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 535 of 620

  • A legal principle of special and differential treatment for WTO disputes

  • ANDREW D. MITCHELL
  • Journal:
    World Trade Review / Volume 5 / Issue 3 / November 2006
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    19 October 2006, pp. 445-469
    Print publication:
    November 2006

  • Based on the notion that the needs of developing countries are substantially different from those of developed countries, the principle of special and differential treatment (S&D) in the World Trade Organization (WTO) allows a certain degree of discrimination in favour of developing countries. This article considers the potential of this principle in resolving disputes within the WTO. S&D developed in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) of 1947 and is today reflected in a series of provisions in various WTO agreements. The meaning of S&D as a broader principle could assist in interpreting such provisions. In addition, the principle of S&D could conceivably be used as part of the inherent jurisdiction of Panels and the Appellate Body in connection with procedural aspects of dispute settlement. However, the article concludes that, due to the incoherence of S&D, as well as the difficulties involved in distinguishing between developing countries and in advancing their interests as an amorphous group, S&D is presently of limited value as an independent principle in WTO dispute settlement.

  • The Internet, cross-border trade in services, and the GATS: lessons from US–Gambling

  • SACHA WUNSCH-VINCENT
  • Journal:
    World Trade Review / Volume 5 / Issue 3 / November 2006
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    19 October 2006, pp. 319-355
    Print publication:
    November 2006

  • The rapid development of the Internet has led to a growing electronic cross-border delivery of services. While the WTO negotiations have not caught up to the reality of such service trade, the first GATS case dealing with the Internet, namely ‘United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services’, has advanced matters. This paper distils the substantive conclusions of the case and remaining questions in relation to Internet-supplied services and certain core concepts of the GATS. Moreover, it sheds light on the case's implications for the services negotiations under the ongoing Doha Development Agenda. It concludes that the second ever GATS case has provided an encouraging set of answers to the unresolved questions of the WTO's Work Programme on E-Commerce, mainly confirming the applicability of GATS commitments to electronically supplied services and shaping the concept of technological neutrality. While more work or dispute settlement cases are necessary to clarify the remaining questions, the rulings have paved the way for the GATS to be a more effective discipline for cross-border (electronic) trade. The paper also explains that a ‘chilling effect’ of the rulings on the Doha services negotiations is not warranted.

  • United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (Original Complaint by the European Communities) - Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU (WT/DS217) Decision by the Arbitrator

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 October 2006, pp 4591-4674

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Initial Proceedings

    On 27 January 2003, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the report of the Panel in this dispute, as modified by the report of the Appellate Body.

    The findings adopted by the DSB were that the measure at issue in this case – the Continued Dumping and Subsidies Offset Act of 2000 (hereafter “CDSOA”):

  • (a) is a non-permissible specific action against dumping or a subsidy, contrary to Articles VI:2 and VI:3 of the GATT 1994, Article 18.1 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (hereafter the “Anti- Dumping Agreement”) and Article 32.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (hereafter the “SCM Agreement”);

  • (b) is inconsistent with certain provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and SCM Agreement, so that the United States has failed to comply with Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (hereafter the “WTO Agreement”);

  • (c) pursuant to Article 3.8 of the DSU, to the extent that it is inconsistent with provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement, nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to the complaining parties under those Agreements;

    • On 13 June 2003, an arbitrator established under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU ruled that the “reasonable period of time” for the United States to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this case was 11 months from the date of adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports by the DSB. The United States was consequently awarded until 27 December 2003 to bring the CDSOA into conformity with its obligations under GATT 1994, the Anti- Dumping Agreement, the SCM Agreement and the WTO Agreement.

    On 16 January 2004, the European Communities requested authorization from the DS0042, under Article 22.2 of the DSU, to suspend the application to the United States of tariff concessions and related obligations under GATT 1994 in an amount to be determined every year by reference to the amount of the offset payments made to affected domestic producers in the latest annual distribution under the CDSOA.

  • United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada - Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU (WT/DS264) Report of the Arbitrator

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 October 2006, pp 5011-5012

  • Summary

    On 31 August 2004, the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, in United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada. At the DSB meeting of 27 September 2004, the United States confirmed its intention to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute and stated that it would require a “reasonable period of time” in which to do so, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”).

    On 18 October 2004, Canada informed the DSB that consultations with the United States had not resulted in agreement on the reasonable period of time for implementation. Canada, therefore, requested that such period be determined by binding arbitration, in accordance with Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.

    Canada and the United States were unable to agree on an arbitrator within 10 days of the matter being referred to arbitration. On 29 October 2004, Canada requested the Director-General to appoint an arbitrator to determine a reasonable period of time for implementation, pursuant to footnote 12 to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. In a joint letter dated 1 November 2004, Canada and the United States indicated that in discussions that took place following Canada's request to the Director-General, they had “determined that [I] would be a mutually acceptable arbitrator.” Accordingly, Canada withdrew its request of 29 October 2004 and both parties requested the Director-General to convey to me their agreement that I act as arbitrator in this matter. I informed the parties of my acceptance of the appointment by letter dated 4 November 2004.

    Canada and the United States provided their written submissions on 19 November 2004.

    By a joint letter dated 6 December 2004, the parties informed me that they had reached agreement on the reasonable period of time for compliance in this matter. Under the circumstances, it will not be necessary for me to issue an award in this arbitration.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
  • Volume 9, Pages 4267-4687
  • World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 October 2006
  • 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 2004: IX reports on the United States anti-dumping act of 1916 (original complaint by the European communities), and contains a cumulative index of published disputes.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
  • Volume 8, Pages 3419-4266
  • World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 October 2006
  • 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 2004: VIII reports on sunset reviews of anti-dumping measures on oil country tubular goods from Argentina (US), and contains a cumulative index of published disputes.

  • European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries - Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU (WT/DS246) Award of the Arbitrator

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 October 2006, pp 4313-4340

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 20 April 2004, the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, in European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries (“EC – Tariff Preferences”). At the DSB meeting of 19 May 2004, the European Communities confirmed its intention to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute and stated that it would require a “reasonable period of time” in which to do so, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”).

    On 16 July 2004, India informed the DSB that consultations with the European Communities had not resulted in agreement on the reasonable period of time for implementation. India therefore requested that such period be determined by binding arbitration, in accordance with Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.

    The European Communities and India were unable to agree on an arbitrator within 10 days of the matter being referred to arbitration. Therefore, on 26 July 2004, India requested that the Director-General appoint an arbitrator pursuant to footnote 12 to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. The Director-General appointed me as arbitrator on 4 August 2004, after consulting the parties. I informed the parties of my acceptance of the appointment by letter dated 6 August 2004.

    The European Communities and India have agreed that this award will be deemed to be an arbitration award under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, notwithstanding the expiry of the 90-day period stipulated in Article 21.3(c). The parties have also agreed, pursuant to Article 21.4 of the DSU, that “exceptional circumstances” in this dispute justify the determination of the reasonable period of time more than 18 months after the establishment of the Panel.

    The European Communities and India provided their written submissions to me on 18 August 2004. I requested additional information from the European Communities by letter dated 24 August 2004, and the European Communities provided a written response on 1 September 2004. An oral hearing was held on 2 September 2004.

  • United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (Original Complaint by Chile) - Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU (WT/DS217) Decision by the Arbitrator

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 October 2006, pp 4511-4590

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Initial Proceedings

    On 27 January 2003, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the report of the Panel in this dispute, as modified by the report of the Appellate Body.

    The findings adopted by the DSB were that the measure at issue in this case – the Continued Dumping and Subsidies Offset Act of 2000 (hereafter “CDSOA”):

  • (a) is a non-permissible specific action against dumping or a subsidy, contrary to Articles VI:2 and VI:3 of the GATT 1994, Article 18.1 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (hereafter the “Anti- Dumping Agreement”) and Article 32.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (hereafter the “SCM Agreement”);

  • (b) is inconsistent with certain provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and SCM Agreement, so that the United States has failed to comply with Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (hereafter the “WTO Agreement”);

  • (c) pursuant to Article 3.8 of the DSU, to the extent that it is inconsistent with provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement, nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to the complaining parties under those Agreements;

    • On 13 June 2003, an arbitrator established under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU ruled that the “reasonable period of time” for the United States to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this case was 11 months from the date of adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports by the DSB. The United States was consequently awarded until 27 December 2003 to bring the CDSOA into conformity with its obligations under GATT 1994, the Anti- Dumping Agreement, the SCM Agreement and the WTO Agreement.

    On 16 January 2004, Chile requested authorization from the DSB, under Article 22.2 of the DSU, to suspend the application to the United States of concessions and other obligations under the covered agreements by an amount to be determined each year according to the offset payments made to affected United States producers, in the most-recent annual distribution of anti-dumping and countervailing duties collected and assessed on products from Chile under the CDSOA.

  • United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (Original Complaint by Korea) – Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU (WT/DS217) Decision by the Arbitrator

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 October 2006, pp 4851-4930

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Initial Proceedings

    On 27 January 2003, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the report of the Panel in this dispute, as modified by the report of the Appellate Body.

    The findings adopted by the DSB were that the measure at issue in this case – the Continued Dumping and Subsidies Offset Act of 2000 (hereafter “CDSOA”):

  • (a) is a non-permissible specific action against dumping or a subsidy, contrary to Articles VI:2 and VI:3 of the GATT 1994, Article 18.1 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (hereafter the “Anti-Dumping Agreement”) and Article 32.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (hereafter the “SCM Agreement”);

  • (b) is inconsistent with certain provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and SCM Agreement, so that the United States has failed to comply with Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (hereafter the “WTO Agreement”);

  • (c) pursuant to Article 3.8 of the DSU, to the extent that it is inconsistent with provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement, nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to the complaining parties under those Agreements;

    • On 13 June 2003, an arbitrator established under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU ruled that the “reasonable period of time” for the United States to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this case was 11 months from the date of adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports by the DSB. The United States was consequently awarded until 27 December 2003 to bring the CDSOA into conformity with its obligations under GATT 1994, the Anti- Dumping Agreement, the SCM Agreement and the WTO Agreement.

    On 16 January 2004, Korea requested authorization from the DSB, under Article 22.2 of the DSU, to suspend the application to the United States of concessions or other obligations for an amount that will be determined, every year, by the amount of the offset payments made to affected domestic producers in the latest annual distribution under the CDSOA.

    Korea intends to impose an additional import duty above bound customs duties on a final list of products originating in the United States.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
  • Volume 10, Pages 4689-5025
  • World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 October 2006
  • 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 2004: X reports on the United States continued dumping and subsidy offset act of 2000 (original complaint by India), and contains a cumulative index of published disputes.

  • United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (Original Complaint by Japan) - Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU (WT/DS217) Decision by the Arbitrator

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 October 2006, pp 4771-4850

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Initial Proceedings

    On 27 January 2003, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the report of the Panel in this dispute, as modified by the report of the Appellate Body.

    The findings adopted by the DSB were that the measure at issue in this case – the Continued Dumping and Subsidies Offset Act of 2000 (hereafter “CDSOA”):

  • (a) is a non-permissible specific action against dumping or a subsidy, contrary to Articles VI:2 and VI:3 of the GATT 1994, Article 18.1 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (hereafter the “Anti- Dumping Agreement”) and Article 32.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (hereafter the “SCM Agreement”);

  • is inconsistent with certain provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and SCM Agreement, so that the United States has failed to comply with Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (hereafter the “WTO Agreement”);

  • (c) pursuant to Article 3.8 of the DSU, to the extent that it is inconsistent with provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement, nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to the complaining parties under those Agreements;

    • On 13 June 2003, an arbitrator established under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU ruled that the “reasonable period of time” for the United States to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this case was 11 months from the date of adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports by the DSB. The United States was consequently awarded until 27 December 2003 to bring the CDSOA into conformity with its obligations under GATT 1994, the Anti- Dumping Agreement, the SCM Agreement and the WTO Agreement.

    On 16 January 2004, Japan requested authorization from the DSB, under Article 22.2 of the DSU, to suspend the application to the United States of tariff concessions under GATT 1994 in an amount that will be determined every year by the amount of the offset payments made to affected domestic producers in the latest annual distribution under the CDSOA.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
  • Volume 7, Pages 3255-3418
  • World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 October 2006
  • 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 2004: VII reports on sunset reviews of anti-dumping measures on oil country tubular goods from Argentina (US), and contains a cumulative index of published disputes.

  • United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina (WT/DS268) Report of the Appellate Body

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 October 2006, pp 3257-3404

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The United States and Argentina each appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by Argentina against the United States regarding the continuation of anti-dumping duties on oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”) from Argentina following the conduct of a five-year, or “sunset”, review of those duties.

    In June 1995, the United States Department of Commerce (the “USDOC”) imposed anti-dumping duties on OCTG from Argentina following an investigation that was initiated by the USDOC in 1994, before the entry into force of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (the “WTO Agreement ”). The anti-dumping duty order imposed an anti-dumping duty of 1.36 per cent on Siderca, the only exporter from Argentina that had participated in the investigation, and a residual duty at the same rate for all other exporters from Argentina. Following the imposition of the anti-dumping duties, Siderca ceased exporting OCTG to the United States. In the five years following the imposition of these anti-dumping duties, the USDOC initiated four reviews of the anti-dumping duties on Siderca, at the request of the domestic producers in the United States. In each of these reviews, the USDOC determined, on the basis of Siderca's statements, that Siderca “had not made any shipment for consumption in the United States”. As Siderca was the sole exporter from Argentina for whom an administrative review had been requested by the domestic producers, the USDOC “rescinded the administrative review” on OCTG from Argentina.

    In July 2000, the USDOC initiated, on its own initiative, a sunset review of anti-dumping duties on OCTG from Argentina. In its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping, the USDOC concluded that “dumping has continued over the life of the Argentine order and is likely to continue if the order were revoked”.

  • United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (Original Complaint by Canada) - Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU (WT/DS234) Decision by the Arbitrator

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 October 2006, pp 4425-4510

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Initial Proceedings

    On 27 January 2003, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the report of the Panel in this dispute, as modified by the report of the Appellate Body.

    The findings adopted by the DSB were that the measure at issue in this case – the Continued Dumping and Subsidies Offset Act of 2000 (hereafter “CDSOA”):

  • (a) is a non-permissible specific action against dumping or a subsidy, contrary to Articles VI:2 and VI:3 of the GATT 1994, Article 18.1 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (hereafter the “Anti- Dumping Agreement”) and Article 32.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (hereafter the “SCM Agreement”);

  • (b) is inconsistent with certain provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and SCM Agreement, so that the United States has failed to comply with Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (hereafter the “WTO Agreement”);

  • (c) pursuant to Article 3.8 of the DSU, to the extent that it is inconsistent with provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement, nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to the complaining parties under those Agreements;

    • On 13 June 2003, an arbitrator established under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU ruled that the “reasonable period of time” for the United States to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this case was 11 months from the date of adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports by the DSB. The United States was consequently awarded until 27 December 2003 to bring the CDSOA into conformity with its obligations under GATT 1994, the Anti- Dumping Agreement, the SCM Agreement and the WTO Agreement.

    On 16 January 2004, Canada requested authorization from the DSB, under Article 22.2 of the DSU, to suspend the application to the United States of its concessions or other obligations in an amount to be determined every year by reference to the amount of the offset payments made to affected domestic producers in the latest annual distribution under the CDSOA.

Page 535 of 620