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 560 of 620

  • United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (WT/DS217, WT/DS234): Award of the Arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 July 2005, pp 1163-1186

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 27 January 2003, the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, in United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“US – Offset Act (Byrd Amendment)”). At the DSB meeting of 27 January 2003, the United States stated that it intended to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in a manner that respected the United States’ WTO obligations. The United States confirmed those intentions at the DSB meeting of 19 February 2003. At the DSB meeting of 26 February 2003, the United States stated that it would require a “reasonable period of time”, pursuant to the terms of Article 21.3 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute.

    On 14 March 2003, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, the European Communities, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand (the “Complaining Parties”) informed the DSB that consultations with the United States had not resulted in agreement on the reasonable period of time for implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. The Complaining Parties therefore requested that such period be determined by binding arbitration, in accordance with Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.

    The United States and the Complaining Parties were unable to agree on the appointment of an arbitrator within a period of ten days following referral of the matter to arbitration. Therefore, the Complaining Parties, on 24 March 2003, requested that the arbitrator be appointed by the Director-General, pursuant to footnote 12 to Article 21.3(c). Following consultations with the United States and the Complaining Parties, the Director-General appointed me as arbitrator on 2 April 2003. The parties to the arbitration were informed of my acceptance of the appointment on 3 April 2003.

  • Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milkand the Exportation of Dairy Products – Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States (WT/DS103, WT/DS113): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 July 2005, pp 255-374

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 23 December 1999, pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, Canada, New Zealand and the United States agreed (WT/DS103/10-WT/DS113/10) on the reasonable period of time for implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (the DSB) in the matter of “Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products”. According to the terms of the 23 December 1999 agreement, as amended on 11 December 2000 (WT/DS103/13-WT/DS113/13), the staged implementation process, including any new measures for the export of dairy products, was to be completed by 31 January 2001.

    On 19 January 2001, Canada circulated to all Members of the DSB (WT/DS103/12/Add.6-WT/DS/113/12/Add.6) its “final status report”, pursuant to Article 21.6 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the DSU). In that report Canada affirmed “that it will be in full compliance with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB by the conclusion of the implementation period” on 31 January 2001.

    New Zealand and the United States consider that Canada has failed to comply with the above-mentioned recommendations and rulings of the DSB by 31 January 2001.

    Without prejudice to their rights under the WTO, and in accordance with paragraph 1 of the 21 December 2000 “Agreed Procedures between Canada, New Zealand and the United States under Articles 21 and 22 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding in the follow-up to the dispute in Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products” (WT/DS113/14 and WT/DS103/14, respectively) (“Agreed Procedures”), New Zealand and the United States requested consultations with Canada on 2 February 2001. Consultations were held on 9 February 2001, but failed to resolve the dispute.

    On 16 February 2001, pursuant to Article 21.5, and as envisaged in the Agreed Procedures, New Zealand and the United States accordingly requested the establishment of a panel in this matter and requested that the DSB refer the matter to the original panel, if possible (WT/DS113/16 and WT/DS103/16, respectively.)

  • Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products (WT/DS207): Award of the Arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 July 2005, pp 1237-1256

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 23 October 2002, the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report, in Chile –Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products (“Chile – Price Band System”). At the DSB meeting of 11 November 2002, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), Chile informed the DSB of its ongoing consultations with Argentina to find a mutually agreeable solution and that it would require a “reasonable period of time”, pursuant to the terms of Article 21.3, to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute.

    On 6 December 2002, Chile notified the DSB that consultations with Argentina had not resulted in agreement on the reasonable period of time for implementation, and therefore, Chile requested that such period be determined by binding arbitration, in accordance with Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. By joint letter dated 16 December 2002, Chile and Argentina requested that I serve as arbitrator. They also indicated in that letter that they had agreed to extend the deadline for the completion of the arbitration until 90 days after the date of appointment of the Arbitrator. They agreed further that, notwithstanding this extension of the 90-day period of time stipulated in Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, the arbitration award would be deemed to be an award under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. My acceptance of the designation as Arbitrator was conveyed to the parties by letter dated 17 December 2002.

    Written submissions were received from Chile and Argentina on 27 January 2003, and an oral hearing was held on 17 February 2003. Chile and Argentina each submitted additional documentation during the oral hearing. Neither raised any objection to the submission of such documentation by the other party. The parties were permitted to file written comments on each other's submissions by Thursday, 20 February. Both parties submitted comments, but raised no objection to my consideration of the new documentation. That documentation has accordingly been included in the record of this arbitration.

  • Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milkand the Exportation of Dairy Products – Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States (WT/DS103, WT/DS113): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 July 2005, pp 213-254

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Canada appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products – Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by New Zealand and the United States that certain measures taken by Canada to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) in Canada – Dairy are not consistent with Canada's obligations under the Agreement on Agriculture and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “SCM Agreement ”).

    In Canada – Dairy, the original panel and the Appellate Body found, inter alia, that Canada provided, through Special Milk Classes 5(d) and 5(e), “export subsidies” within the meaning of Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture. The original panel and the Appellate Body also found that Canada provided these export subsidies in excess of the quantity commitment levels specified in its Schedule to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Schedule”) and that, therefore, Canada had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 3.3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture. On 27 October 1999, the DSB adopted the original panel and Appellate Body reports.

    On 23 December 1999, pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), Canada, New Zealand, and the United States agreed that the reasonable period of time for Canada to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB would expire on 31 December 2000. On 11 December 2000, the parties agreed to extend this period of time until 31 January 2001.

    Canada subsequently adopted certain measures with a view to implementing the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. These measures are described in Section II of this Report. Taking the view that certain of these measures were not consistent with Canada's obligations under the Agreement on Agriculture and the SCM Agreement, New Zealand and the United States requested, on 16 February 2001, that the matter be referred to a panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.

  • United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain Products from the European Communities (WT/DS212): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 July 2005, pp 73-212

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 10 November 2000, the European Communities requested consultations with the United States under Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”) and Article 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “SCM Agreement”). The European Communities’ request was related to the continued application by the US Department of Commerce of countervailing duties based on its “change in ownership” methodology which consisted of a presumption that non-recurring subsidies granted to a former producer of goods, prior to a change in ownership, “pass through” to the current producer of the goods following the change in ownership.

    Consultations took place in Geneva on 7-8 December 2000, but the parties failed to reach a mutually satisfactory solution. On 1 February 2001, the European Communities requested further consultations with the United States. Further consultations took place in Geneva on 3 April 2001, but the parties did not reach a mutually satisfactory solution.

    On 8 August 2001, the European Communities requested the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) to establish a panel, pursuant to Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU, Article 30 of the SCM Agreement and Article XXII of the GATT 1994 with respect to the practice by the United States of imposing countervailing duties on certain products exported from the European Communities “without establishing the existence of a financial contribution or a benefit to the producers under investigation and hence the existence of a countervailable subsidy as defined in the SCM Agreement.” These duties had been imposed or maintained notwithstanding privatizations or changes of ownership in reliance, inter alia, on Section 771(5)(F) of the Tariff Act 1930, as amended, (19 USC Section 1677(5)(F)) and according to the European Communities were not based on an analysis of the existence of a countervailable subsidy benefiting the producer concerned during the period of investigation or review.

  • Argentina – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Preserved Peaches (WT/DS238): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 July 2005, pp 1037-1162

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 14 September 2001, Chile requested consultations with Argentina pursuant to Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs of 1994 (the “GATT 1994”), Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”) and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards. This request was related to the definitive safeguard measure applied by Argentina on imports of peaches preserved in water containing added sweetening matter, including syrup, preserved in any other form or in water, imported under MERCOSUR Common Nomenclature (MCN) tariff codes 2008.70.10 and 2008.70.90.

    The consultations took place on 2 November 2001, but the parties failed to reach a mutually satisfactory solution. On 6 December 2001, Chile requested the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) to establish a panel, in accordance with Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU in order to examine the definitive safeguard measure applied by Argentina on imports of preserved peaches.

    At its meeting on 18 January 2002, the DSB established a Panel in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU. At that meeting, the parties agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference. The terms of reference of the Panel were, therefore, the following:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Chile in document WT/DS238/2, the matter referred to the DSB by Chile 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 16 April 2002, the parties agreed to the following composition of the Panel:

  • Chair: Ms. Elaine Feldman

  • Members: Mr. Jorge Castro Bernieri

  • Mr. Mateo Diego-Fernandez

    • The European Communities, Paraguay and the United States reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties.

    The Panel met with the parties on 10 and 11 July 2002 and on 11 September 2002. The Panel met with the third parties on 11 July 2002.

  • United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (WT/DS217, WT/DS234): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 July 2005, pp 489-952

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 21 December 2000, Australia, Brazil, Chile, the European Communities, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea and Thailand, made a joint request for consultations with the United States of America under Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), Article XXII:1 of the GATT, Articles 17.2 and 17.3 of the Anti- Dumping Agreement, and Articles 7.1 and 30 of the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement (the “SCM Agreement”) regarding the amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930 signed into law by the President on 28 October 2000 with the title of “Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000” (WT/DS217/1). On 6 February 2001, consultations were held in Geneva, but failed to resolve the dispute.

    On 21 May 2001, Canada and Mexico requested consultations with the United States pursuant to Article 4 of the DSU, Article XXII:1 of GATT 1994, Articles 7.1 and 30 of the SCM Agreement and Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement regarding the same matter (WT/DS234/1). Consultations were held on 29 June 2001 in Geneva, but the parties failed to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the dispute.

    On 12 July 2001, Australia, Brazil, Chile, the European Communities, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea and Thailand requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 30 of the SCM Agreement, in accordance with the standard terms of reference provided for in Article 7.1 of the DSU (WT/DS217/5). At its meeting of 23 August 2001, the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) established the Panel.

    On 10 August 2001, Canada and Mexico separately requested the establishment of a panel with respect to the same matter pursuant to Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII of GATT 1994, Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 30 of the SCM Agreement (WT/DS234/12 and WT/DS234/13). At its meeting of 10 September 2001, the DSB agreed to those requests and, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, referred the matter to the panel established on 23 August 2001 (WT/DS234/14).

  • European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by India (WT/DS141): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 July 2005, pp 965-1036

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    India appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton- Type Bed Linen from India – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by India (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by India with respect to the consistency with the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Anti- Dumping Agreement ”) and the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”) of the measures taken by the European Communities to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) in EC – Bed Linen.

    The original panel found that Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 of 28 November 1997, imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of cottontype bed linen from India, is inconsistent with Articles 2.4.2, 3.4, and 15 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. India and the European Communities appealed certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the original panel. The Appellate Body upheld the original panel's finding that “the practice of ‘zeroing’ when establishing ‘the existence of margins of dumping', as applied by the European Communities in the anti-dumping investigation at issue” is inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. In addition, the Appellate Body found that “the European Communities, in calculating amounts for administrative, selling and general costs and profits in the anti-dumping investigation at issue”, had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 2.2.2(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and, therefore, reversed the findings of the original panel to the contrary in paragraphs 6.75 and 6.87 of the original panel report.

    On 12 March 2001, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the original panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report. The parties to the dispute mutually agreed that the European Communities should have until 14 August 2001 to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.

  • Editorial Note

  • Journal:
    World Trade Review / Volume 4 / Issue 2 / July 2005
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    30 September 2005, p. 201
    Print publication:
    July 2005
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • The following four articles are revised versions of papers presented at the symposium ‘Why Have a WTO? Focusing on the Welfare Effects of WTO Law’, hosted jointly by the Institute for International Business, Economics, and Law at the University of Adelaide and the Sydney Centre for International and Global Law at the University of Sydney in February 2004. All of the articles went through the World Trade Review's standard refereeing process.

  • Editorial note

  • Journal:
    World Trade Review / Volume 4 / Issue 2 / July 2005
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    30 September 2005, pp. 129-130
    Print publication:
    July 2005
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • The following announcement may be of interest to World Trade Review readers.

  • The role of the WTO in achieving equity and efficiency in international markets for agricultural products

  • DONALD MACLAREN
  • Journal:
    World Trade Review / Volume 4 / Issue 2 / July 2005
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    30 September 2005, pp. 229-247
    Print publication:
    July 2005

  • The fundamental objective of the negotiations on agriculture that are taking place in the Doha Round is to establish a new set of rules, which will correct current distortions and prevent future distortions in international markets for agricultural products while taking into account non-trade concerns and special and differential treatment. A summary of the chronology of the very slow progress to date in the negotiations is provided. This rate of progress is explained through considering the weights the different groups of governments are giving to removing trade distortions, on the one hand, and to non-trade concerns and special and differential treatment, on the other. Some results from the economic theory of distortions and welfare are used to explain the conditions under which the twin pursuits of non-trade concerns domestically and fairness internationally are compatible. These results are contrasted with the realities of the current negotiations on the agriculture component of the ‘July 2004 package’.

  • Rien ne Va Plus? Distinguishing domestic regulation from market access in GATT and GATS

  • JOOST PAUWELYN
  • Journal:
    World Trade Review / Volume 4 / Issue 2 / July 2005
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    30 September 2005, pp. 131-170
    Print publication:
    July 2005

  • Depending on how one classifies market intervention, trade liberalization disciplines can be lenient or strict. Perhaps the most important distinction in this respect is that between government intervention labeled as a ‘market access restriction’ and that defined as ‘domestic regulation’. Both the GATT and the GATS declare market access restrictions (such as import quotas or limitations on the number of service suppliers) to be, in principle, prohibited. In contrast, domestic regulations (such as internal taxes, health standards, and safety requirements) are treated with much more deference. They are, in essence, only prohibited when discriminatory or more trade restrictive than necessary. Notwithstanding these major legal consequences, the distinction between market access and domestic regulation remains unclear. Based on a recent WTO dispute condemning the United States for banning online gambling, this article is an attempt to clarify the distinction. Starting from broad similarities, it finds crucial differences in this respect between GATT and GATS. For both, however, the paper's basic point is that a domestic regulation should not be regarded as a market access restriction simply because it has the effect of banning certain imports. To do otherwise risks seriously undermining the regulatory autonomy of WTO Members beyond anything imagined by the drafters of the WTO treaty.

  • When should new areas of rules be added to the WTO?

  • PETER LLOYD
  • Journal:
    World Trade Review / Volume 4 / Issue 2 / July 2005
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    30 September 2005, pp. 275-293
    Print publication:
    July 2005

  • When the WTO was created as an outcome of the Uruguay Round, one of the major differences from its predecessor, the GATT, was the addition of new areas of rules of trade. The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS), and to some extent also the Agreement on Trade-related Investment Measures (TRIMs) added sets of rules that were entirely new. By adding trade in services, the rules of the multilateral trade organization now encompass trade in all produced goods and services. The WTO rules, however, encompass neither the international movements of capital or labour, nor other non-trade policies, such as those relating to the environment, labour standards, and competition policy, with minor exceptions.

Page 560 of 620