US–China trade war and the WTO dispute settlement mechanism

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 125-135
Author(s):  
Tolulope Anthony Adekola
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Economic Losses ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
Content Type ◽  
China Trade ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Trade War ◽  
Desk Review

Purpose The paper is prompted by the US–China trade war and its implications for the sustenance of the multilateral trading system. The two rivals resorted to “self-help” without recourse to the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement system, flouting the WTO as an adjudicator in trade disputes. This paper aims to analyze the drawbacks in the settlement system and examines the urgent need for a retroactive remedy. Design/methodology/approach This paper adopts desk-review and jurisprudential analysis of the relevant rulings of the WTO dispute settlement body. Using desk-review, primary sources such as the relevant domestic legislations invoked by the USA and China to trigger the trade war were discussed and critically analyzed. Findings This paper finds that the unilateral and protectionist actions that characterize the trade war can be linked to the loss of confidence in WTO remedies to redress members’ retroactive economic losses. This finding is useful in arguing for the incorporation of a retrospective monetary remedy to forestall the reoccurrence of a similar trade war and save the WTO from being dysfunctional. Originality/value Although, whether there should be retroactive remedies in the settlement system has been long debated, this paper makes a significant contribution by highlighting why the drawbacks in the settlement system have become so prominent in the context of this trade war. This paper strengthens the urgent need for WTO dispute settlement reform to prevent a reoccurrence of another global distortion of trade.

scholarly journals Discussion on the Impact of Sino-US Trade War on Taiwanese Manufacturing

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (7) ◽  
pp. 70
Author(s):  
Jui-Lung Chen
Keyword(s):  
Global Economy ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Deficit ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
Belt And Road ◽  
Trade Frictions ◽  
Trade War ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The U.S

When US President Donald Trump signed the Section 301 Investigation in March 2018, the Sino-US trade war intensified, exerting a great impact on the global economy. The Trump Administration recently has piled up the economic and trade pressure on China, while China seeks to resort to the WTO dispute settlement mechanism and break the siege imposed by the trade war through the "Belt and Road Initiative". US launched a trade war against China due mainly to the huge trade deficit with China, and the trade frictions between the U.S. and China have caused turbulence on the Asian and global industrial chains. Therefore, by analyzing the recent trade conflicts between the U.S. and China and the responses given by both respectively, this paper explores the possible impact on Taiwan's manufacturing and its potential response.

Enforcing WTO Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonello Tancredi
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Dispute Settlement System ◽  
Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Wto Agreements ◽  
The Eu

This chapter provides a brief analysis of the enforcement tools foreseen in the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. It focuses in particular on some of the peculiarities which differentiate them from the EU legal system. As the analysis shows, the relevance of reciprocity and post-litigation negotiations between States influences the legal nature of the WTO dispute settlement system, which today remains to a large extent a mixed or hybrid system. This contrasts one of the mantras diffused in the legal scholarship immediately after the entry into force of the Uruguay Round Agreements. It also represents a vehicle for the potential fragmentation of the multilateral legal framework governing international trade, which contributes to undermining the idea of uniformity of the obligations arising under the WTO Agreements for all Members.

scholarly journals A real driver of US–China trade conflict

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Min-hyung Kim
Keyword(s):  
Transition Theory ◽  
Power Transition Theory ◽  
Content Type ◽  
China Trade ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Us Hegemony ◽  
Trade War ◽  
Zero Sum ◽  
Hegemonic Stability

Purpose According to the conventional wisdom, trade is not a zero-sum game, but a positive-sum game. By allowing countries to focus on producing the goods that they can produce relatively efficiently, free trade is largely beneficial for everyone involved. Then, why are the world’s two largest economies (i.e. the USA and China) currently engaged in a trade war, which is likely to hurt their own economies? What is the driving force for the trade war between the two economic giants? The purpose of this paper is to offer an explanation of the underlying cause of the US–China trade war. Design/methodology/approach In an effort to make sense of the trade war between the USA and China, the paper draws the insights from the two international relations theories – i.e. hegemonic stability theory and power transition theory. Findings As China continues to threaten US hegemony in the world in general and East Asia in particular, the Sino–US competition for hegemony will intensify over time. As a result, the trade war between the two countries may persist longer than many anticipate. Further, even if the trade war between the two superpowers ends soon, a similar type of conflict is likely to occur later as long as the Sino–US hegemonic rivalry continues. Originality/value The central thesis of this paper is that “US fear” about its declining hegemony and China’s rapid rise as a challenger of US hegemony is driving a US-launched trade war with China. Since the underlying cause of the trade war between the world’s two largest economies is political (i.e. the Sino–US hegemonic rivalry) rather than economic (e.g. US attempts to improve the trade balance with China by imposing tariffs on Chinese goods), the paper contends that the full understanding of the trade war requires close attention to the importance of power competition between the two superpowers.

scholarly journals The burden and order of proof in WTO claims: evolving issues

2017 ◽  
Vol 59 (6) ◽  
pp. 1220-1235
Author(s):  
Zeina Ahmad ◽  
Bashar H. Malkawi
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Prima Facie Case ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
The World ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Evidence And Proof

Purpose The World Trade Organization (WTO) is one of the best dispute settlement mechanisms in the world. Under WTO rules, aggrieved parties must establish a “prima facie” case before the panel can call on the offending party to respond to the claims. The objective of the present study is to critically evaluate the application of the concept of burden of proof under WTO dispute settlement mechanism. Design/methodology/approach The paper examines the rule of “prima facie” in WTO jurisprudence. To do so, the first part will focus on the development of dispute settlement within WTO. The second part is divided into several subsections that will focus on the burden of proof concept, burden of proof in common law, burden of proof in civil law and the prima facie standard. Findings The DSU does not explicitly regulate how to allocate the burden of proof, but panels and the AB needed to address that issue early in their history. Despite this, all aggrieved parties to establish a prima facie case before the case can become the subject of a panel hearing. There is a need to adopt a burden of proof standard that assesses evidence on the basis of preponderance of the available evidence rather than on the basis of a party’s failure to adduce evidence to back up or dispute a claim. Originality/value The paper is an attempt to address an important issue on the presentation of evidence and proof in international litigation, i.e. WTO.

Raiders of the lost jewel (in the Crown)

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 106-111
Author(s):  
Petros C. Mavroidis
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Compliance Rate ◽  
Personal Perspective ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
Dispute Settlement System

Purpose – This paper aims to offer an overview of papers in the WTO @ 20 collection. Design/methodology/approach – An overview of the papers in the WTO @ 20 collection, complete with a personal perspective on the continuing relevance of the organization. Findings – This paper adds further support to the notion that the compliance rate with the WTO dispute settlement system and the “quality” of judgments handed down require greater study and less impressionistic reporting. Originality/value – This paper positions the papers in the WTO @ 20 collection in their appropriate context.

More combative US moves raise risk of a ‘trade war’

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Market Access ◽  
False Alarms ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Trade War ◽  
Intellectual Property Theft ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

Significance Sharp rhetoric from President Donald Trump and his officials is raising the prospect of a trade war. Following a year of false alarms and intra-administration conflict, signs point to escalation of the increasingly protectionist US agenda, particularly towards China. Impacts The seventh NAFTA round will begin on February 26 -- services market access and the dispute settlement mechanism are the trickiest topics. Even if there is a NAFTA deal, it could struggle to pass Congress. China is ready to retaliate, both against prospective steel and aluminium tariffs and any punishment for intellectual property theft.

Biden win would improve Mexico relations

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Pragmatic Approach ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
China Trade ◽  
The Us ◽  
Trade War ◽  
Us Senate

Significance Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) has strived to maintain cordial relations with incumbent US President Donald Trump, despite his aggressive rhetoric towards Mexico. A Biden win would improve bilateral relations significantly. Impacts Biden’s interest in Mexico may stretch beyond trade and the border to a wider range of issues, leading AMLO to see him as interventionist. A Republican-dominated US Senate would increase attention on issues of interest to businesses, such as investor-state dispute settlement. Any easing of the US-China trade war could weaken the perceived urgency of the need to re-shore supply chains, to the detriment of Mexico. Mexico’s economic dependence on the United States will ensure AMLO maintains a pragmatic approach towards any bilateral disputes.

Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages (Complainant: United States of America)

2019 ◽  
Vol 181 ◽  
pp. 436-487
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Relationship ◽  
Dispute Settlement System ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

Economics, trade and finance — World Trade Organization — General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade — Relationship with other international agreements — North American Free Trade Agreement — Measures allegedly taken contrary to GATT said to be countermeasures responding to violation of NAFTA — WTO dispute settlement mechanismInternational tribunals — Jurisdiction — Discretion not to exercise jurisdiction — Whether inherent power — WTO dispute settlement system — Whether Panel empowered to decline to exercise jurisdiction — Whether dispute between two States parties to NAFTA should be heard by arbitral tribunal under NAFTA rather than by panel under the WTO Dispute Settlement UnderstandingReprisals and countermeasures — Nature and scope — Relationship between countermeasures under international law and measures to secure compliance with laws and regulations within the WTO — Whether falling under GATT Article XX(d)Treaties — Interpretation — Effect — Interpretation of GATT Article XX(d) — Relationship between GATT and other international agreements

scholarly journals Multilateral Investment Court – a Cure for Investor-State Disputes Under Extra-EU International Investment Agreements?

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 195-211
Author(s):  
Agata Zwolankiewicz
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
International Economic Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement System ◽  
Investment Agreements

Both branches of international economic law – international investment and trade law are currently in crisis. Many reforms have been proposed to cure the shortcomings of their dispute resolution mechanisms. Distinctive though they are, it seems that the newest EU’s proposal to establish the Multilateral Investment Court is heavily inspired by the dispute settlement system which exists in the World Trade Organization. The new system has been introduced to replace the investor-State dispute settlement mechanism existing in most investment treaties. In this article, the author assesses the objectives of the reform through the prism of successes and failures of the WTO dispute settlement system. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document