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 605 of 620

  • Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products (WT/DS103) Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 1999
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    11 April 2002, pp 2057-2094

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Canada appeals from certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel in Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products (the “Panel Report”) Following their requests for consultations, the United States and New Zealand requested that the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) establish panels to examine certain alleged export subsidies that they contended Canada or its provinces had granted, through the Special Milk Classes Scheme, to support the export of dairy products and to examine a claim by the United States regarding imports into Canada of fluid milk and cream within the 64,500 tonnes tariff-rate quota committed in Canada's Schedule of Commitments under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (the “WTO Agreement”). On 25 March 1998, the DSB agreed to establish two panels in accordance with these requests and further agreed that the two panels would be consolidated into a single panel pur- suant to Article 9.1 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”) with standard terms of reference.

    The Panel considered claims made by the United States and New Zealand that Canada's measures are inconsistent with Articles II, X, XI and XIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”); Articles 3, 4, 8, 9, and 10 of the Agreement on Agriculture; Article 3 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “SCM Agreement”); and Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. The Panel Report was circulated to Members of the World Trade Organization (the “WTO”) on 17 May 1999. In paragraph 8.1 of its Report, the Panel concluded that Canada:

  • (a) through Special Milk Classes 5(d) and (e) - and this for all of the dairy products in dispute (butter, cheese and “other milk products”) and for both marketing years at issue (1995/1996 and 1996/1997) - has acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 3.3 and Article 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture by providing export subsidies as listed in Article 9.1(a) and Article 9.1(c) of that Agreement in excess of the quantity commitment levels specified in Canada's Schedule; and

  • Turkey - Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products (WT/DS34): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 1999
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    11 April 2002, pp 2363-2556

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 21 March 1996, India requested consultations with Turkey pursuant to Article 4.4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”) and Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT”) regarding the unilateral imposition of quantitative restrictions (“QRs”) by Turkey on imports of a broad range of textile and clothing products from India as from 1 January 1996 (WT/DS34/1).

    India and Turkey did not enter into consultations, due to disagreement on the appropriateness of participation of the European Communities in such consultations, and consequently the dispute could not be resolved at that stage. The Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) was informed accordingly on 24 April 1996.

    In a communication dated 2 February 1998, India requested the DSB to establish a panel to examine the matter in the light of GATT and the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (“ATC”), in accordance with Article 6.2 of the DSU (WT/DS34/2). In its communication, India claimed that the restrictions imposed by Turkey were inconsistent with Turkey's obligations under Articles XI and XIII of GATT and were not justified by Article XXIV of GATT, which did not authorize the imposition of discriminatory QRs, and that the restrictions were inconsistent with Turkey's obligations under Article 2 of the ATC. India also claimed that the restrictions appeared to nullify or impair benefits accruing to it directly or indirectly under GATT and the ATC.

    On 13 March 1998, the DSB established a panel pursuant to the request of India, with the following standard terms of reference (Article 7.1 of the DSU):

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by India in document WT/DS34/2, the matter referred to the DSB by India in that document and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.”

    On 11 June 1998, the parties to the dispute agreed on the following composition of the Panel (WT/DS34/3):

    Chairman: Ambassador Wade Armstrong

    Members: Dr. Luzius Wasescha

    Prof. Robert Hudec

Dispute Settlement Reports 1999
  • Volume 5, Pages 1797-2094
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    11 April 2002
  • 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. 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 1999: V reports on quantitative restrictions on imports of agricultural, textile and industrial products (India) and measures affecting the importation of milk and the exportation of dairy products (Canada).

  • Turkey - Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products (WT/DS34): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 1999
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    11 April 2002, pp 2345-2362

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Turkey appeals from certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, Turkey - Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by India regarding quantitative restrictions introduced by Turkey on imports of Indian textile and clothing products.

    On 6 March 1995, the Turkey-EC Association Council adopted Decision 1/95, which sets out the rules for implementing the final phase of the customs union between Turkey and the European Communities. Article 12(2) of this Decision states:

    In conformity with the requirements of Article XXIV of the GATT Turkey will apply as from the entry into force of this Decision, substantially the same commercial policy as the Community in the textile sector including the agreements or arrangements on trade in textile and clothing.

    In order to apply what it considered to be “substantially the same commercial policy” as the European Communities on trade in textiles and clothing, Turkey introduced, as of 1 January 1996, quantitative restrictions on imports from India on 19 categories of textile and clothing products.

    The Panel considered claims by India that the quantitative restrictions introduced by Turkey were inconsistent with Articles XI and XIII of the GATT 1994, and Article 2.4 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (the “ATC”). In the Panel Re-port, circulated on 31 May 1999, the Panel reached the conclusion that the quantitative restrictions were inconsistent with the provisions of Articles XI and XIII of the GATT 1994 and consequently with those of Article 2.4 of the ATC, and rejected Turkey's defence that the introduction of any such otherwise GATT/WTO incompatible import restrictions is permitted by Article XXIV of the GATT 1994.

    On 26 July 1999, Turkey notified the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) of its intention to appeal certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel, pursuant to Article 16.4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), and filed a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review (the “Working Procedures”). On 5 August 1999, Turkey filed its appellant's submission. On 20 August 1999, India filed an appellee's submission.

  • India - Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products (WT/DS90) Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 1999
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    11 April 2002, pp 1763-1796

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    India appeals from certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, India - Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by the United States relating to quantitative restrictions imposed by India on imports of agricultural, textile and industrial products.

    India maintains quantitative restrictions on the importation of agricultural, textile and industrial products falling in 2,714 tariff lines. India invoked balance of- payments justification in accordance with Article XVIII:B of the GATT 1994, and notified these quantitative restrictions to the Committee on Balance-of- Payments Restrictions (the “BOP Committee”). On 30 June 1997, following consultations in the BOP Committee, India proposed eliminating its quantitative restrictions over a seven-year period. Some of the Members of the BOP Committee, including the United States, were of the view that India's balance-of payments restrictions could be phased out over a shorter period than that proposed by India. As a result, consensus on India's proposal could not be reached. The relevant factual aspects of this dispute are set out in greater detail in paragraphs 2.1-2.28 as well as in paragraphs 3.345-3.417 of the Panel Report.

    On 15 July 1997, the United States requested consultations with India under the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”) on the consistency of the latter's quantitative restrictions with its WTO obligations. Japan participated as a third party in these consultations. Subsequently, Australia, Canada, the European Communities, New Zealand and Switzerland also requested consultations on claims similar to those of the United States. India reached mutually agreed solutions with all concerned parties except the United States.

    The United States requested the establishment of a panel to examine the consistency of India's balance-of-payments restrictions with its obligations under Article XI and Article XVIII:11 of the GATT 1994, Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture and the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.

    In its Report, circulated on 6 April 1999, the Panel concluded that:

  • (i) the measures at issue applied by India violate Articles XI:1 and XVIII:11 of GATT 1994 and are not justified by Article XVIII:B;

  • (ii) the measures at issue, to the extent they apply to products subject to the Agreement on Agriculture, violate Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and

  • India - Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products (WT/DS90) Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 1999
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    11 April 2002, pp 1799-2056

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 16 July 1997, the United States requested consultations with India, pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”), Article XXII:1 of the GATT, Article 19 of the Agreement on Agriculture (to the extent it incorporates by reference Article XXII of the GATT), and Article 6 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures (to the extent it incorporates by reference Article XXII of the GATT), concerning quantitative restrictions maintained by India on the importation of a number of agricultural, textile and industrial products (WT/DS90/1). The United States considered that the quantitative restrictions maintained by India, including, but not limited to, those tariff lines notified in Annex I, Part B of WT/BOP/N/24, appeared to be inconsistent with India's obligations under Article XI:1 and XVIII:11 of the GATT 1994, Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture and Article 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. At the same time, Australia, Canada, the European Communities, New Zealand and Switzerland requested consultations with India on these quantitative restrictions (WT/DS91/1; WT/DS92/1; WT/DS93/1; WT/DS94/1; WT/DS96/1) on the basis of similar claims to those set forth by the United States. Subsequently, Japan, the European Communities, Canada, Australia, Switzerland and New Zealand asked to join in the consultations requested by the United States (WT/DS90/2, WT/DS90/3, WT/DS90/4, WT/DS90/5, WT/DS/90/6, WT/DS/90/7). The United States and India formally consulted on these measures in Geneva on 17 September 1997, and Japan participated as an interested third party under Article 4.11 of the DSU.

    On 3 October 1997, the United States requested that the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) establish a panel to examine this dispute. In its request, the United States considered that quantitative restrictions maintained by India, including, but not limited to, the more than 2,700 agricultural and industrial product tariff lines notified to the WTO in Annex I, Part B of WT/BOP/N/24 dated 22 May 1997, appeared to be inconsistent with India's obligations under Articles XI:1 and XVIII:11 of GATT 1994 and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Furthermore, the import licensing procedures and practices of the Government of India are inconsistent with fundamental WTO requirements as provided in Article XIII of GATT 1994 and Article 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.

  • Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft (WT/DS70) Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 1999
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    11 April 2002, pp 1443-1762

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 10 March 1997, Brazil requested consultations with the Government of Canada pursuant to Article 4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“SCM Agreement”) regarding certain alleged subsidies granted by the Government of Canada or its provinces that support the export of civilian aircraft from Canada.

    Brazil and Canada held consultations on 30 April 1997, but failed to reach a mutually satisfactory solution.

    On 10 July 1998, pursuant to Article 4.4 of the SCM Agreement and Article 6 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”), Brazil requested the immediate establishment of a panel with standard terms of reference.

    At its meeting on 23 July 1998, the DSB established a panel pursuant to the request by Brazil (WT/DS70/2).

    At that DSB meeting, parties agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference. The terms of reference of the Panel are the following:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Brazil in document WT/DS70/2, the matter referred to the DSB by Brazil 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 October 1998, Brazil 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 panellists 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. The Chairman of the DSB shall inform the Members of the composition of the panel thus formed no later than 10 days after the date the Chairman receives such a request.”

Dispute Settlement Reports 1999
  • Volume 6, Pages 2095-2556
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    11 April 2002
  • 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. 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 1999: VI reports on quantitative restrictions on imports of agricultural, textile and industrial products (India) and measures affecting the importation of milk and the exportation of dairy products (Canada).

Dispute Settlement Reports 1999
  • Volume 4, Pages 1441-1796
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    11 April 2002
  • 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. 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 1999: IV reports continues to report on measures affecting the export of civilian aircraft (Canada) and restrictions on imports of agricultural, textile and industrial products (India).

  • Why are safeguards under the WTO so unpopular?

  • CHAD P. BOWN
  • Journal:
    World Trade Review / Volume 1 / Issue 1 / March 2002
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    12 April 2002, pp. 47-62
    Print publication:
    March 2002

  • In recent years, more countries have increasingly turned to explicit, codified trade policy instruments of the international trading system such as antidumping measures. Countries have also increasingly participated in the institutions established to facilitate trade in the international system, such as the WTO's Dispute Settlement Understanding. Given these phenomena, a natural question to consider is why haven't countries resorted to the WTO's safeguards provisions at a similar pace? This paper focuses on the economic incentives generated by reforms in the Uruguay Round, and argues that in order to address the relative unpopularity of the application of safeguards measures, further reforms must be made to WTO's Antidumping Agreement and the rules of the Dispute Settlement Understanding.

  • Perceptions about the WTO trade institutions

  • JOHN H. JACKSON
  • Journal:
    World Trade Review / Volume 1 / Issue 1 / March 2002
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    12 April 2002, pp. 101-114
    Print publication:
    March 2002

  • This article, based on a lecture given at the inauguration ceremony for the new Advisory Centre on WTO Law, describes the broader world trading landscape into which this new Centre emerges. Taking into account the possible implications of the events on September 11, this article provides a brief analysis of the current trade policy climate, asserting the necessity of institutions for the successful functioning of markets. After a short institutional history of the GATT/WTO, the author describes the importance of institutional rules, treaty text, and practice for the success of the WTO and presents the current debate over what the scope of this institution has been, is now, and could be in the future – the debate over which important issues should be taken under the WTO umbrella, and, further, which issues are appropriate to send to the Dispute Settlement System. Finally, this article illustrates the challenges facing this dispute settlement system, proposals for reform, and the vital role that the new Advisory Centre may be able to play in resolving some of these challenges.

  • Foreword by the Director-General of the WTO

  • Mike Moore
  • Journal:
    World Trade Review / Volume 1 / Issue 1 / March 2002
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    12 April 2002, p. 3
    Print publication:
    March 2002
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • Trade policy used to be a rather simple matter of defining conditions of access to markets at the border. Little more was needed than rules defining non-discriminatory tariff levels, circumscribing the use of quantitative trade restrictions, and protecting the conditions of market access through the principle of national treatment. But the very success of these simple rules in creating the conditions for successive bouts of market-opening negotiations bred the complex and multi-faceted institution that is the World Trade Organization of today. As tariffs tumbled, all manner of other policies became crucial for continuing market integration. The rules had to follow the reality. It is a brave person now who claims more than a passing familiarity with each and every aspect of the WTO Agreements.

    In this fascinating labyrinth of what passes for policy relating to trade, it is unconvincing to argue that there is ever enough research and analysis. There will always be more that needs to be explored and better understood. Every effort to illuminate, to clarify, and to explain the trading system must surely be welcome. But if we are to advance our understanding of what makes sense and what does not, and contribute effectively to international economic cooperation, the quality and integrity of analysis is vital. This has become more especially true in recent years as dozens of developing countries facing formidable development challenges seek progress through meaningful participation in the world trading system. One of the great strengths of the WTO is its commitment to universality. If we are to give meaning to this vision and foster confidence in the fairness of the system, we must ensure its proper design on solid conceptual foundations.

    I am proud to associate the WTO Secretariat with the birth of the World Trade Review. The journal is committed to promoting high-quality policy analysis and welcomes contributions from a wide range of disciplines and cross-section of contributors. This is not an in-house journal devoted to selling pre-conceived ideas. Its mission is to promote informed and honest debate and to deepen understanding. The journal's editorial independence is central to these objectives. I wish the Editor and the members of the Editorial Board of the World Trade Review well in this important endeavour.

  • Cross-agreement complaints before the Appellate Body: a case study of the EC–Asbestos dispute

  • JOOST PAUWELYN
  • Journal:
    World Trade Review / Volume 1 / Issue 1 / March 2002
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    12 April 2002, pp. 63-87
    Print publication:
    March 2002

  • WTO panels are often called upon to decide overlapping claims based on different WTO agreements. One such dispute was the EC–Asbestos case where claims were made under both GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). This paper examines whether the Appellate Body's refusal in that case to examine Canada's TBT claims was justified. The conclusion reached is no, based on the principle jura novit curia, the general prohibition on non liquet and the WTO case law on judicial economy. In addition, the paper examines when two WTO norms must be seen as ‘in conflict’. It argues in favour of broadening the current definition of conflict and clarifies the consequences of a norm being lex specialis.

  • Editor's Introduction to the inaugural issue

  • Richard Blackhurst
  • Journal:
    World Trade Review / Volume 1 / Issue 1 / March 2002
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    12 April 2002, pp. 5-6
    Print publication:
    March 2002
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • For much of the post-war period, interest in the multilateral trading system – as embodied in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) – was limited to national delegates posted to Geneva, a small number of technocrats in capitals, and a handful of academics, mostly legal scholars plus a few economists and an even smaller number of political scientists. Among politicians and the general public, the GATT was virtually unknown. During those years, a professional journal devoted exclusively to the multilateral trading system would have been hard pressed to fill its pages.

Page 605 of 620