European Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by China (EC–Fasteners (China) (Article 21.5–China), DS397)

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 703-705 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Carlson
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Antidumping Duties

This compliance proceeding under Article 21.5 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) concerned measures taken by the European Union to implement the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in EC–Fasteners (China). In EC–Fasteners (China), the DSB found, inter alia, that a European Communities measure imposing definitive antidumping duties on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners from China was inconsistent with certain aspects of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA). The European Union's measures taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB consisted, inter alia, of an anti-dumping review investigation regarding fasteners from China (the Review Investigation) conducted by the Commission of the European Union (the Commission). The conduct of the Commission in the Review Investigation was the focus of this compliance proceeding.

EUROPEAN UNION IN WTO’S DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (XX) ◽  
pp. 33-49
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Czermińska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
World Trade Organisation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
Dispute Settlement System ◽  
Trade Conflicts ◽  
Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Descriptive Method

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) serves as a forum for co-operation, currently for as many as 164 countries, and in addition, it allows for the resolution, also amicably, of trade conflicts between parties, consequently, settling disputes between them. One of essential provisions of the Uruguay Round (UR) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) included the introduction of a new dispute settlement mechanism, that is to say, the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), which became effective on 1 January 1995. Member States of the European Union were not only actively involved in developing the rules of the international trade system, but they also influenced, to a large extent, the form of both such rules and of ongoing trade negotiations, as well as they assumed and still assume responsibility for the final arrangements. Hence, their role in the multilateral trade system is both active and passive. This paper aims to demonstrate the functioning of the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism and show the role which the European Union serves in this system. The Article employs an analytical and descriptive method. It draws on sources from the national and international literature and WTO’s databases.

From Washington with Love—Investor–State Arbitration and the Jurisdictional Monopoly of the Court of Justice of the European Union

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 425-453
Author(s):  
Philip Strik
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Forum Shopping ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
The Eu

AbstractWhile investor–State arbitration is to a large extent detached from the EU legal order, EU law has recently started to be invoked in investor-State arbitration proceedings. In the context of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties, the Commission has expressed the view that investor-State arbitration gives rise to a number of ‘arbitration risks’ for the EU legal order. Not only can it solicit investors to engage in forum-shopping, but it can also result in questions of EU law not being litigated in Member State or Union courts. This chapter explores the extent to which the compatibility of investor–State arbitration with the EU legal order is in issue. It examines the main features of investor-State arbitration as concerns its interplay with the EU legal order, as well as the Court of Justice’s case law on issues of compatibility between systems of international dispute settlement and the EU legal order. The chapter highlights that the way in which investor–State arbitral tribunals handle issues of EU law, as well as the involvement of interested parties, may foster the synergy between investor–State arbitration and the EU legal order.

scholarly journals Passive European Union Influence

2021 ◽  
pp. 134-157
Author(s):  
Tobias Lenz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Process Tracing ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Statistical Association ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Secondary Sources ◽  
Primary Documents ◽  
National Governments

This chapter traces the European Union’s passive influence in the establishment of the Mercosur Permanent Review Tribunal in 2004. This is an useful case to study passive EU influence because the Tribunal’s establishment constitutes an unlikely case from the perspective of existing explanations of dispute settlement design and it is representative of a statistical association presented in Chapter 4. Through a detailed process tracing exercise that reconstructs the institutional preferences and strategies of national governments and the process of international bargaining on the basis of primary documents, interviews with policy-makers and secondary sources, it shows how the European Union, through its passive influence on the institutional preferences of Uruguay, the bloc’s smallest member state, shaped the design of the Tribunal. In the absence of passive EU influence, the chapter concludes, the Tribunal would have been less institutionalized.

The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 2018

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Original Research ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Global Community ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
Global Law

The 2018 edition of The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence both updates readers on the important work of long-standing international tribunals and introduces readers to more novel topics in international law. The Yearbook continues to provide expert coverage of the Court of Justice of the European Union and diverse tribunals from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to criminal tribunals such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, to economically based tribunals such as ICSID and the WTO Dispute settlement procedures. The contents of this part have been enriched with the inclusion of a new section devoted to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), the oldest global institution for the settlement of international disputes. This edition contains original research articles on the development and analysis of the concept of global law and the views of the global law theorists such as: whether the Paris Declaration of 2017 and the Oslo Recommendation of 2018 deals with enhancing their institutions’ legitimacy; how to reconcile human rights, trade law, intellectual property, investment and health law with the WTO dispute settlement panel upholding Australia’s tobacco plain packaging measure; Israel’s acceptance of Palestinian statehood contingent upon prior Palestinian “demilitarization” is potentially contrary to pertinent international law; and a proposal to strengthen cooperation between the ECJ and National Courts in light of the failure of the dialogue between the ECJ and the Italian Constitutional Court on the interpretation of Article 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European union. The Yearbook provides students, scholars, and practitioners alike a valuable combination of expert discussion and direct quotes from the court opinions to which that discussion relates, as well as an annual overview of the process of cross-fertilization between international courts and tribunals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document