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 541 of 620

The European Foundation
  • A New Legal Approach
  • General editor Klaus J. Hopt, W. Rainer Walz, Thomas von Hippel, Volker Then
  • Published online:
    04 August 2010
    Print publication:
    11 May 2006
  • The European Commission is already preparing the future framework of not-for-profit organizations which will be available to Europeans. The aim of the European Foundation Project is to develop the legislative draft for the legal form of a European Foundation. A team of experts in comparative law from across Europe, commissioned by the Bertelsmann Foundation, the Compagnia di San Paolo, and the ZEIT-Stiftung Ebelin and Gerd Bucerius, has undertaken feasibility research, and developed a proposal. The resulting draft legislation is clearly presented here in a way which makes it easy for the reader to locate information on specific legal issues. The draft is supported by comprehensive explanatory chapters, as well as comparative chapters on each issue which cover European countries, the USA and China. This book lays the groundwork for policy and advocacy initiatives in the European foundation and the not-for-profit sector.

  • United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan (WT/DS244): Report of the Panel

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004:1
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    04 May 2006, pp 85-558

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Complaint of Japan

    On 30 January 2002, Japan requested consultations with the United States pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”), and Article 17.2 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 (the Anti-dumping Agreement), regarding the affirmative final determinations of both the United States Department of Commerce (“DOC”) and the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) on the full sunset review of Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan issued on 2 August 2000 and 2 November 2000, respectively.

    Consultations were held on 14 March 2002, but parties failed to settle the dispute.

    On 4 April 2002, Japan requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU, as well as Article 17 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.

    Establishment and Composition of the Panel

    The Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) established a panel on 22 May 2002, with standard terms of reference. The terms of reference of the Panel are:

    To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Japan in document WT/DS244/4, the matter referred by Japan to the DSB 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 9 July 2002, Japan requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel, pursuant to paragraph 7 of Article 8 of the DSU. This paragraph provides:

    If there is no agreement on the panelists within 20 days after the date of the establishment of a panel, at the request of either party, the Director-General, in consultation with the Chairman of the DSB and the Chairman of the relevant Council or Committee, shall determine the composition of the panel by appointing the panelists whom the Director-General considers most appropriate in accordance with any relevant special or additional rules or procedures of the covered agreement or covered agreements which are at issue in the dispute, after consulting with the parties to the dispute.

  • United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan (WT/DS244): Report of the Appellate Body

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004:1
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    04 May 2006, pp 3-84

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Japan appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on Corrosion- Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by Japan against the United States regarding the continuation of anti-dumping duties on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Japan following the conduct of a five-year, or “sunset”, review of those duties.

    On 29 July 1992, USDOC initiated an anti-dumping investigation covering, inter alia, certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Japan. As a result of this investigation, USDOC issued an order on 19 August 1993, imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on those corrosion-resistant steel products at the rate of 36.41 percent ad valorem for KSC, NSC, and “all others”. On 1 September 1999, USDOC published a notice of initiation of a sunset review of the CRS order. In the final results of that review, USDOC determined that revo- cation of the CRS order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping”. USITC subsequently determined that revocation of the CRS order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.” Accordingly, the United States did not revoke the CRS order.

    Before the Panel, Japan argued that certain provisions of the Tariff Act, the SAA, the implementing regulations, and the Sunset Policy Bulletin were, both “as such” and as applied in the CRS sunset review, inconsistent with Articles VI and X of the GATT 1994, Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, and 18 of the Anti- Dumping Agreement, and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.

    In the Panel Report, circulated to Members of the WTO on 14 August 2003, the Panel found that the United States laws, regulations and policies challenged by Japan are not inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the GATT 1994, or the WTO Agreement, either as such or as applied in the CRS sunset review.

  • United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada (WT/DS264): Report of the Panel

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    04 May 2006, pp 1937-2470

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Complaint of Canada

    On 13 September 2002, Canada requested consultations with the Government of the United States pursuant to Article 4 of the DSU, Article XXII of the GATT 1994 and Article 17 of the AD Agreement, concerning the Final Determination of sales at less than fair value with respect to certain softwood lumber products from Canada published in the Federal Register on 2 April 2002, and amended on 22 May 2002, pursuant to section 735 of the Tariff Act.

    On 11 October 2002, Canada and the United States held the requested consultations, but failed to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the matter.

    On 6 December 2002, Canada requested the establishment of a panel to examine the matter.

    Establishment and Composition of the Panel

    At its meeting on 8 January 2003, the DSB established a Panel in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU and pursuant to the request made by Canada in document WT/DS264/2.

    At that meeting, the parties to the dispute also agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference. The terms of reference are, therefore, the following:

    “[t]o examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Canada in document WT/DS264/2, the matter referred by Canada to the DSB 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 25 February 2003, the parties agreed to the following composition of the Panel:

    Chairman: Mr. Harsha V. Singh

    Members: Mr. Gerhard Hannes Welge

    Mr. Adrián Makuc

    The Panel was formally composed on 4 March 2003.

    The European Communities, India and Japan reserved their third-party rights.

    Panel Proceedings

    The Panel met with the parties on 17-18 June 2003 and 11-12 August 2003. The Panel met with third parties on 18 June 2003.

    On 16 January 2004, the Panel provided its interim report to the parties. See Section VI, infra.

    FACTUAL ASPECTS

    On 2 April 2001, an anti-dumping application was filed with DOC and the ITC by the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports Executive Committee, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union, with the subject merchandise certain softwood lumber products imported from Canada.

  • European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries (WT/DS246): Report of the Appellate Body

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    04 May 2006, pp 925-1008

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The European Communities appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by India against the European Communities regarding the conditions under which the European Communities accords tariff preferences to developing countries pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No. 2501/2001 of 10 December 2001 “applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2004” (the “Regulation”).

    The Regulation provides for five preferential tariff “arrangements”, namely:

  • (a) general arrangements described in Article 7 of the Regulation (the “General Arrangements”);

  • (b) special incentive arrangements for the protection of labour rights;

  • (c) special incentive arrangements for the protection of the environment;

  • (d) special arrangements for least-developed countries; and

  • (e) special arrangements to combat drug production and trafficking (the “Drug Arrangements”).

    • All the countries listed in Annex I to the Regulation are eligible to receive tariff preferences under the General Arrangements, which provide, broadly, for suspension of Common Customs Tariff duties on products listed as “nonsensitive” and for reduction of Common Customs Tariff ad valorem duties on products listed as “sensitive”. The General Arrangements are described in further detail in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 of the Panel Report. The four other arrangements in the Regulation provide tariff preferences in addition to those granted under the General Arrangements. However, only some of the country beneficiaries of the General Arrangements are also beneficiaries of the other arrangements. Specifically, preferences under the special incentive arrangements for the protection of labour rights and the special incentive arrangements for the protection of the environment are restricted to those countries that “are determined by the European Communities to comply with certain labour [or] environmental policy standards”, respectively. Preferences under the special arrangements for least-developed countries are restricted to certain specified countries. Finally, preferences under the Drug Arrangements are provided only to 12 predetermined countries, namely Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela.

  • United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada (WT/DS257): Report of the Panel

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    04 May 2006, pp 641-910

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Complaint of Canada

    On 3 May 2002, Canada requested consultations with the United States pursuant to Article 4 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (“the DSU”), Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”), and Article 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“the SCM Agreement”), concerning the final affirmative countervailing duty determination by the US Department of Commerce (“USDOC”) (File No. C-122839) issued on 25 March 2002, with respect to certain softwood lumber from Canada.

    On 18 June 2002, Canada and the United States (“the US”) held the requested consultations, but failed to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the matter.

    On 18 July 2002, Canada requested the establishment of a panel to examine the matter. Canada subsequently withdrew that request, and on 19 August 2002 made a new request for establishment of a panel to examine the matter.

    Establishment and Composition of the Panel

    At its meeting of 1 October 2002, the DSB established a panel in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU and pursuant to the request made by Canada in document WT/DS257/3.

    At that meeting, the parties to the dispute also agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference. The terms of reference are, therefore, the following:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Canada in document WT/DS257/3, the matter referred by Canada to the DSB 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 4 November 2002, Canada requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel, pursuant to paragraph 7 of Article 8 of the DSU. This paragraph provides:

    #x201C;If there is no agreement on the panelists within 20 days after the date of the establishment of a Panel, at the request of either party, the Director-General, in consultation with the Chairman of the DSB and the Chairman of the relevant Council or Committee, shall determine the composition of the panel by appointing the panelists whom the Director-General considers most appropriate in accordance with any relevant special or additional rules or procedures of the covered agreement or covered agreements which are at issue in the dispute, after consulting with the parties to the dispute.

  • Canada – Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and Treatment of Imported Grain (WT/DS276): Report of the Appellate Body

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    04 May 2006, pp 2739-2816

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The United States and Canada each appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Reports, Canada – Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and Treatment of Imported Grain (the “Panel Report”).

    On 6 March 2003, the United States requested the establishment of a panel to consider a complaint against Canada with regard to two categories of measures: one concerning the export of wheat by the Canadian Wheat Board (the “CWB”); and the other involving the treatment accorded by Canada to imports of grain. Specifically, the United States asserted that: (i) the Canadian Wheat Board Export Regime (the “CWB Export Regime”) is inconsistent with Canada's obligations under Article XVII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”); and (ii) certain measures relating to Canada's bulk grain handling system and to the transportation of grain by rail in Canada are inconsistent with Canada's obligations under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 and Article 2 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (the “TRIMs Agreement ”). The Panel (the “March Panel”) was established by the DSB on 31 March 2003.

    On 13 May 2003, Canada filed a preliminary submission requesting the March Panel to rule that the United States’ claim against the CWB Export Regime under Article XVII:1 of the GATT 1994 was not properly before the Panel because the United States’ panel request did not meet the requirements of Article 6.2 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”). On 25 June 2003, the March Panel issued a preliminary ruling finding that the United States’ request for the establishment of a panel “did not meet the requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU because it did not adequately specify the Canadian laws and regulations addressed in the United States’ claim under Article XVII of the GATT 1994”.

    The United States filed a second panel request on 30 June 2003. The second Panel (the “July Panel”) was established by the DSB on 11 July 2003 and it was agreed that the July Panel would be composed of the same panelists as the March Panel. The proceedings of the March and July Panels were harmonized pursuant to Article 9.3 of the DSU.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
  • Volume 6, Pages 2483-3253
  • World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    04 May 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: VI reports on investigation of the International Trade Commission in softwood lumber from Canada (US), and on measures relating to exports of wheat and treatment of imported grain (Canada), and contains a cumulative index of published disputes.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
  • Volume 4, Pages 1535-1871
  • World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    04 May 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: IV reports on measures affecting telecommunications services (Mexico), and contains a cumulative index of published disputes.

Page 541 of 620