‘The US won a $7.5 Billion award from the World Trade Organization against the European Union, who has for many years treated the USA very badly on Trade due to Tariffs, Trade Barriers, and more. This case going on for years, a nice victory’, tweeted President Trump on 3 October 2019. The United States (US) won not only the highest amount of retaliation ever adjudicated in the history of the WTO but also an ongoing right to retaliate on an annual basis until such time as the EU had complied by either removing the subsidies it granted Airbus or somehow neutralizing their adverse effects on Boeing. In light of the facts of the case, this ruling has two major shortcomings. First, in sharp contrast with the statutory language and practice until now, the Arbitrator effectively introduced a permanent liability rule into the WTO system through the backdoor. Second, given the way the decision and the associated award has been written, it is simply impossible for the EU to comply because (a) the contested subsidies are no longer in existence and (b) no guidance has been provided on how the EU might go about removing their adverse effects on Boeing if it sought to achieve compliance. Thus, in all likelihood, the EU is saddled with a ruling that obligates it to cough up an annual sum of $7.5 billion USD for an indefinite time period.

Trade in agricultural products raises sensitivities, particularly when imports originate from a trading partner experiencing an outbreak of some type of agricultural disease. In this article, we explain why despite the negative externalities associated with diseased imports, an importing country is generally not permitted to ban such imports outright under WTO law. Rather, it is allowed to do so only under specific circumstances. We also highlight how the recent India–Agricultural Products ruling contributes to the jurisprudence of two issues concerning the SPS Agreement: the interpretation of international standards, and the relationship between the risk assessment and scientific evidence requirements.

An agricultural price range system (PRS) aims to stabilize local prices in an open economy via the use of import duties that vary with international prices. The policy is inherently distortionary and welfare-reducing for a small open economy, at least according to the canonical economic model. We offer an explanation for why a government concerned with national welfare may nevertheless implement such a policy when faced with risk aversion and imperfect insurance markets. We also highlight open questions arising out of the Peru–Agricultural Products dispute for the WTO's Appellate Body to address in order to clarify how a PRS consistent with WTO rules could be designed. Finally, we discuss the possibility that a WTO member might resort to a free trade agreement (FTA) to preserve its flexibility to implement a PRS and how an FTA provision of this sort ought to be treated in WTO litigation.

In US–COOL, the Appellate Body (AB) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) found that the US measure imposing country of origin labelling (COOL) requirements on livestock of domestic, foreign, and mixed origin was in violation of the obligation to avoid discrimination embedded in Article 2.1 of the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). We argue that the AB could not and should not have reached this decision based on the information available to it. The AB adopted an erroneous methodology: under its view, the consistency of a measure coming under the purview of the TBT can be examined under Article 2.1 irrespective of its evaluation under Article 2.2 thereby making the two obligations distinct. The AB also failed to address the central question raised by this dispute: Does there exist an alternative to COOL that is less trade restrictive? We argue that the over-arching issue in this case should have been to determine what, if anything, the TBT Agreement did to alter or enhance the obligation of non-discrimination that was already embedded in the arsenal of the multilateral trading rules. Unless the AB asks this question in subsequent case law pertaining to the TBT, we risk seeing repetitions of similar mistakes in the future.

This paper analyzes Brazil's WTO challenge to the methods undertaken by the United States in calculating anti-dumping duties in administrative reviews and other investigations of Brazilian orange juice. The dispute resulted in a Panel ruling that conforms with earlier Appellate Body decisions outlawing the use of ‘weighted average to transaction’ zeroing in such reviews. However, we note that the Panel's stance was driven largely from a desire to preserve ‘stability and predictability’ within the system, suggesting a practical recognition of the shadow of past Appellate Body decisions on the same legal question. In addition, we argue that to understand fully the effects of zeroing, it is important to account for the underlying reasons behind observed price changes in the market. We show that zeroing is more likely to convert a negative dumping determination into a positive one when price changes are driven by variations in demand relative to when they are driven by variations in the cost of exporting. In the present case, Brazilian exporters of orange juice experienced an increase in (residual) demand for their product since, by reducing the local supply of round oranges, adverse weather conditions in the United States made it difficult for US orange-juice producers to meet local demand.

In China – Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, the Panel addressed three main issues:

1. 1. the relationship between China's censorship laws and its obligations to protect copyright under the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (‘TRIPS’);

2. 2. China's obligations under TRIPS to ensure that its customs authorities be empowered to dispose properly of confiscated goods that infringe intellectual property rights;

3. 3. whether China's volume and value of goods thresholds for application of criminal procedures and penalties with respect to trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy comply with TRIPS requirements for application of criminal procedures and penalties.