scholarly journals US – Lamb: United States – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia: What Should be Required of a Safeguard Investigation?

2003 ◽  
Vol 2 (S1) ◽  
pp. 72-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henrik Horn ◽  
Petros C. Mavroidis
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Safeguard Measures ◽  
Lamb Meat ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Us ◽  
Serious Injury ◽  
Gatt 1994

The United States (US) imposed, in July 1999, a safeguard on lamb meat, in the form of tariff rate import quotas, which were to be applied for a period of three years. The measure was based on findings by the US International Trade Commission that increased imports of lamb meat were a substantial cause of threat of serious injury to the US industry producing the like product. Following complaints by New Zealand and Australia that the measure was inconsistent with Articles I, II and XIX of GATT 1994, and several provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body established, in November 1999, a panel to review the consistency of the US measure with the mentioned WTO rules.

scholarly journals US – Lamb United States – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia: what should be required of a safeguard investigation?

2003 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 395-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
HENRIK HORN ◽  
PETROS C. MAVROIDIS
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Safeguard Measures ◽  
Lamb Meat ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Us ◽  
Serious Injury ◽  
Gatt 1994

The United States (US) imposed, in July 1999, a safeguard on lamb meat, in the form of tariff rate import quotas, which were to be applied for a period of three years. The measure was based on findings by the US International Trade Commission that increased imports of lamb meat were a substantial cause of threat of serious injury to the US industry producing the like product. Following complaints by New Zealand and Australia that the measure was inconsistent with Articles I, II and XIX of GATT 1994, and several provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body established, in November 1999, a panel to review the consistency of the US measure with the mentioned WTO rules.

scholarly journals United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products (WT/DS259; WT/DS252; WT/DS248; WT/DS249; WT/DS251; WT/DS258; WT/DS254; WT/DS253: DSR 2003:VII, 3117)

2006 ◽  
Vol 5 (S1) ◽  
pp. 146-187
Author(s):  
Gene M. Grossman ◽  
Alan O. Sykes
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Trade Commission ◽  
Safeguard Measures ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Serious Injury

Since the inception of the WTO, safeguard measures have regularly been the subject of dispute settlement proceedings. The latest in this chain of disputes concerns the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the United States on a wide range of steel products in 2002.The safeguards investigation of steel imports was initiated under the US law by the US International Trade Commission (USITC) at the request of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in June, 2001. The request covered four broad categories of steel products, which were divided into 33 categories by the USITC for purposes of data collection. Ultimately, the USITC defined 27 separate “industries” producing steel products within the scope of the investigation. For each of these industries, the USITC proceeded to determine whether imports had increased, and if so, whether increased imports were a substantial cause of serious injury or threat of injury. This analysis resulted in negative determinations for 15 industries, affirmative determinations for eight industries, and “divided” determinations (a 3–3 vote) for four industries.

Extraterritorial Shrimps, NGOs and the WTO Appellate Body

1999 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 199-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asif H. Qureshi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Market Access ◽  
The United States ◽  
Consultation Process ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Us ◽  
Wto Appellate Body ◽  
Dispute Settlement System

At the centre of the international trading order, under the framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO), lies a dispute-settlement system. This system offers a graduated conflict-resolution mechanism that begins with a consultation process; progresses to adjudication, through a panel system, and ends in an appellate process.1 Under this machinery, in October 1996 India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand (the complainants) requested joint consultations with the United States, regarding the US prohibition on the importation of certain shrimps and shrimp products caught with fishing technology considered by the United States adversely to affect the population of sea turtles—an endangered species under CITES.2 The US prohibition arose from section 609 of Public Law 101–1623 and associated regulations and judicial rulings (hereafter referred to as section 609). In a nutshell the complainants claimed denial of market access to their exports, and the United States justified this on grounds of conservation. However, as a consequence of the failure of the consultations, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body established a panel, around April 1997, to consider a joint complaint against the United States in relation to section 609. Australia, Ecuador, the European Communities, HongKong, China, Mexico and Nigeria joined the complainants as third parties. In May 1998 the panel's report was published, containing a decision in favour of the complainants. In July 1998 the United States appealed to the WTO Appellate Body, and in October 1998 the Appellate Body issued its report.4

The United States embargo on shrimp imports: legal and economic considerations

1998 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
TAIMOON STEWART
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Current Case ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Us ◽  
Shrimp Industry ◽  
Economic Considerations ◽  
Trade Measures

The use of trade measures for environmental purposes has given rise to a series of economic and legal issues. These are explored in the paper through an examination of the United States embargo on imports of shrimp from several countries for environmental reasons, currently being considered by a WTO dispute settlement panel. The paper examines the effect on competitiveness of compliance with the higher standard imposed by the US, the appropriateness of universalizing those standards, and whether the US action is consistent with WTO rules. The major findings are that, in the case of Trinidad, (a) the competitiveness of the affected fishermen was reduced, (b) the US regulation was inappropriate to the conditions which prevailed in the shrimp industry there, and (c) the US action was WTO inconsistent given current interpretation of WTO rules. The paper anticipates that the current case could lead to a review of WTO rules, in favour of the environment.

International trade—WTO—quantitative restrictions—environmental protection—endangered species—U.S. import ban on shrimp

1999 ◽  
Vol 93 (2) ◽  
pp. 507-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernard H. Oxman ◽  
Gregory Shaffer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Trade ◽  
Endangered Species ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Turtle Species ◽  
Wild Fauna ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
Gatt 1994

United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products.World Trade Organization, Appellate Body, October 12, 1998.In May 1996, the United States effectively prohibited imports of shrimp and shrimp products from all countries that do not require commercial shrimp trawlers to use turtle-excluder devices (TEDs) to permit endangered species of sea turtles to escape from trawling nets to avoid drowning. In January 1997, India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand requested that the WTO Dispute Settlement Body establish a panel to determine whether this import ban, among other things, violates the prohibition on quantitative restrictions in Article XI of GATT (1994). The United States maintained that its import ban was permitted under the exceptions set forth in paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT Article XX. Four turtle species that migrate in and out of waters subject to the complaining parties’ jurisdiction are listed as endangered under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and are covered by the relevant U.S. regulation.

scholarly journals China – Countervailing and Anti-dumping Duties on Grain Oriented Flat-rolled Electrical Steel from the United States: exporting US AD/CVD methodologies through WTO dispute settlement?

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
THOMAS J. PRUSA ◽  
EDWIN VERMULST
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Electrical Steel ◽  
The United States ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Us ◽  
Target Country ◽  
Injury Analysis

AbstractIn July 2009, Chinese steel producers of grain oriented electrical steel filed anti-dumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) cases against US and Russian producers. The US challenged the duties for a variety a reasons, many of which involved deficiencies in the producers' application to China's investigating authority, the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (MOFCOM). The US also challenged certain aspects of MOFCOM's injury analysis. The Panel and Appellate Body ruled in favor of the US on virtually every issue. Given the deficiencies in the application and China's handling of the case, the Panel and AB decisions were justified. In a larger sense, however, we believe China may well emerge as the ‘winner’ in this dispute as this case establishes important standards for allegations and evidence in applications, standards that other countries (including the US) likely have failed to meet when they have imposed AD and CVD orders on the largest target country, China.

Latest Procedural Developments Related to the WTO Dispute US – Clove Cigarettes

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 548-549
Author(s):  
Eugenia Costanza Laurenza
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Smoking Prevention ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
Menthol Cigarettes ◽  
Federal Food ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Government ◽  
Special Meeting

On 13 August 2013, the Government of Indonesia requested a special meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (hereinafter, DSB) in order to obtain authorisation to suspend concessions or other obligations (i.e., to ‘retaliate’) against the United States (hereinafter, the US). This request stems from the US alleged failure to comply with the rulings and recommendations of the WTO DSB in the dispute US – Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes (hereinafter, US – Clove Cigarettes). In that dispute, the WTO dispute settlement organs found that Section 907(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (hereinafter, the FFDCA), introduced by Section 101(b) of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act discriminated against Indonesian clove cigarettes in favour of ‘like’ domestic menthol cigarettes, in a manner which was inconsistent with, inter alia, Article 2.1 of the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (hereinafter, TBT Agreement). The DSB recommended that the US bring its legislation relating to the ban on flavoured cigarettes into conformity with its obligations under the WTO. On 22 August 2013, the US objected to the level of suspension of concessions proposed by Indonesia and requested that the matter be referred to arbitration. Following such request from the US, the DSB agreed that the matter be referred to arbitration and informed WTO Members that arbitration would be carried out by the original panel.

scholarly journals United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe From Korea Not for Attribution

2005 ◽  
Vol 4 (S1) ◽  
pp. 99-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gene M. Grossman ◽  
Petros C. Mavroidis
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Line Pipe ◽  
Carbon Quality ◽  
Safeguard Measures ◽  
Number Of Factors ◽  
Statutory Requirement ◽  
The Us ◽  
Pipe Line ◽  
Serious Injury

This dispute concerns the imposition of a definitive safeguard measure by the United States on imports of circular welded carbon quality line pipe (“line pipe”) from Korea (WTO DOC. WTO/DS 202/AB/R). The measure was imposed following an investigation conducted by the US International Trade Commission (USITC). The USITC determined in a safeguard investigation initiated on 29 July 1999 that “circular welded carbon quality line pipe . . . is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury or the threat of serious injury.” In its investigation, the USITC identified a number of factors apart from increased imports that might have caused serious injury or threat of serious injury to the domestic line pipe industry. The Commission concluded that increased imports were “a cause which is important and not less than any other cause” and that, therefore, the statutory requirement of “substantial cause” had been met.

scholarly journals United States – Continued Existence and Application of Zeroing Methodology: the end of Zeroing?

2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
THOMAS J. PRUSA ◽  
EDWIN VERMULST
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Appellate Body Report ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Continued Use ◽  
New Perspective

AbstractThis is the eighth Appellate Body Report in which some aspect of zeroing was adjudicated. As in the prior cases, the AB again found the US practice inconsistent with several aspects of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The novelty in this dispute was the EC attempt to broaden the concept of what constitutes an appealable measure. The EC challenged whether a WTO decision regarding zeroing could apply to subsequent proceedings that might modify duty levels and asked the AB to decide whether the United States' continued use of zeroing in the context of a given case was consistent with WTO obligations. The AB stated that in its attempt to bring an effective resolution to the zeroing issue, the EC is entitled to frame the subject of its challenge in such a way as to bring the ongoing use of the zeroing methodology in these cases, under the scrutiny of WTO dispute settlement. The AB then cautiously applied the new perspective to US zeroing practice.

Burden-sharing: the US, Australia and New Zealand alliances in the Pacific islands

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanne Wallis ◽  
Anna Powles
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Pacific Islands ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
The United States ◽  
Burden Sharing ◽  
Military Capability ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
Security Challenges ◽  
The Us

Abstract One of President Joseph Biden's foreign policy priorities is to ‘renew’ and ‘strengthen’ the United States' alliances, as they were perceived to have been ‘undermined’ during the Trump administration, which regularly expressed concern that allies were free-riding on the United States' military capability. Yet the broad range of threats states face in the contemporary context suggests that security assistance from allies no longer only—or even primarily—comes in the form of military capability. We consider whether there is a need to rethink understandings of how alliance relationships are managed, particularly how the goals—or strategic burdens—of alliances are understood, how allies contribute to those burdens, and how influence is exercised within alliances. We do this by analysing how the United States–Australia and Australia–New Zealand alliances operate in the Pacific islands. Our focus on the Pacific islands reflects the United States' perception that the region plays a ‘critical’ role in helping to ‘preserve a free and open Indo-Pacific region’. We conclude that these understandings need to be rethought, particularly in the Pacific islands, where meeting non-traditional security challenges such as economic, social and environmental issues, is important to advancing the United States, Australia and New Zealand's shared strategic goal of remaining the region's primary security partners and ensuring that no power hostile to their interests establishes a strategic foothold.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document