scholarly journals Trump's Trade War: An Indian Perspective

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 92-109
Author(s):  
Prema-chandra Athukorala
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Bilateral Trade ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Indian Economy ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Generalized System Of Preferences ◽  
Export Subsidies ◽  
Wto Appellate Body ◽  
The U.S

This paper examines the implications of the Trump Administration's U.S. trade policy on U.S.–India relations and the Indian economy against the backdrop of strengthening political and strategic ties between the two countries, which have been strong since the beginning of this century. Trump's strategy of using tariffs as the bargaining chip in bilateral economic relations with India, while ignoring mutual geopolitical interests, has coincided with new protectionist tendencies in India under the Make in India strategy of the Modi government, setting the stage for a protracted bilateral trade dispute. U.S. safeguard duties on steel and aluminium have taken a toll on India's exports of these products to the United States, but these products account for a tiny share of India's total exports to the United States. The hard hit was Trump's termination of India's designation as a beneficiary developing nation under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). The GSP abolition is likely to have a much more significant effect on the Indian economy as exports under the program are heavily concentrated in the traditional labor-intensive industries. However,  given the handsome mandate received by the Modi government at the May 2019 election and that the next election is four years away (2024), GSP abolition is unlikely to receive much weight in determining India's position in trade negotiations compared with the new protectionist policy stance stemming from the Make in India strategy. The WTO verdict on the U.S. complaint on India's manufacturing export subsidies, if upheld by the WTO Appellate body, would strengthen the U.S. position in negotiating a trade deal with India.

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

scholarly journals The Collapse of the Appellate Body as a Determining Factor of the WTO’s Future

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 238-255
Author(s):  
Hryhorii M. Kalachyhin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
World Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Regulation ◽  
Trade Disputes ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
The World ◽  
Shifting Balance ◽  
Wto Appellate Body ◽  
The U.S

The World Trade Organization (WTO) is one of the leading institutions involved in global economic regulation. Its purposes are to ensure multilateral cooperation on the liberalization of international trade, harmonize existing standards and requirements, and peacefully resolve trade disputes between countries. Since 11 December 2019, dispute resolution has been handicapped due to the consistent blocking of the appointment of members to the WTO Appellate Body (AB) by the United States. This has reduced the multilateral trading system’s (MTS) predictability and threatens its final decay. In this article, the fundamental and formal causes of the collapse are described, and its circumvention mechanisms and effectiveness are discussed. At the same time, an assessment is given of the possibility to overcome the collapse in 2021, considering the change of the U.S. president and other events. Special attention is paid to Russia’s position and its current and potential losses. Finally, the issue of dispute resolution through regional trade agreements is proposed for discussion. The fundamental reasons for the collapse were the shifting balance of power in the world order and the WTO’s inflexibility in adjusting the rulebook and its procedures. The main reasons for the U.S.’ dissatisfaction are objective but based on formalities; the blockage of the AB is an overreaction. Moreover, the U.S.’ position on this issue has not changed with the new president. As a result, there is abuse of the current situation as WTO members file appeals “into the void.” Existing tools to circumvent the collapse are partial and not yet popular among WTO members. Russia needs to resume the AB’s work to complete previously started high-profile disputes and to defend its interests in the future.

Japan-US Economic Relations in the Post-Trans-Pacific Partnership Era

2017 ◽  
Vol 09 (03) ◽  
pp. 38-49
Author(s):  
Min-Hua CHIANG
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Bilateral Trade ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Significant Step ◽  
Senkaku Islands

Japan and the United States have agreed to discuss a post-Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) bilateral trade framework during the Abe-Trump meeting in February 2017. The bilateral trade talks will be a significant step for Japan to remain economically connected to America. To reward Japan’s support of Trump’s economic agenda, the United States has promised to defend Japan, including the disputed Senkaku islands.

scholarly journals Atlas Shrugged: The U.S. Fatigue with Being the Market of Last Resort

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 271-274
Author(s):  
Elizbeth Baltzan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Trade Expansion ◽  
Trading System ◽  
New Members ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Campaign Rhetoric ◽  
Excess Production ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Trump Administration

The Trump administration has made no secret about its frustration with the World Trade Organization (WTO). Campaign rhetoric is being channeled into policy. The United States is single-handedly strangling the Appellate Body by blocking appointment of new members and complaining about those who are holding over past their terms. The latest WTO ministerial resulted in no deals. An administration that touts enforcement has largely eschewed filing WTO complaints. The president's imposition of duties pursuant to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232) is a manifestation of deeper concerns with the asymmetry that was built into the global trading system—asymmetry the United States encouraged at the time. That asymmetry contributed to the U.S. status as the market of last resort: the destination of choice for excess production, with adverse consequences for domestic producers of similar goods.

scholarly journals United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (WT/DS217/AB/R: DSR 2003:I,375)

2006 ◽  
Vol 5 (S1) ◽  
pp. 52-86
Author(s):  
Henrik Horn ◽  
Petros C. Mavroidis
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Hong Kong ◽  
European Community ◽  
The United States ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Byrd Amendment ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
The Us ◽  
Wto Appellate Body

On January 16, 2003, the WTO Appellate Body (AB) issued its report on the appeal by the United States (US) of the Panel decision in United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000. The report concerns the consistency of the United States Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (the “CDSOA,” or the so-called Byrd Amendment) with several WTO provisions. This legislation requests the federal state to distribute proceeds from antidumping and countervailing duties to all US economic operators that have supported a request previously submitted to the ratione materiae competent US authority to investigate alleged dumping or subsidization. The appeal was directed against the Panel’s finding that the Byrd legislation was inconsistent with the US obligations under the WTO Antidumping Agreement (AD), and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM). A total of 11 complainants (Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, the European Community, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand), and five additional third parties (Argentina, Costa Rica, Hong Kong (China), Israel, and Norway), evidence the interest among WTO Members in the issues at stake in the dispute.

scholarly journals US Compliance with WTO Rulings on Zeroing in Anti-Dumping

2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
BERNARD HOEKMAN ◽  
JASPER WAUTERS
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Effective Communication ◽  
The United States ◽  
Direct Argument ◽  
Trading System ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Wto Appellate Body

AbstractThis paper reviews the WTO Appellate Body Reports on United States–Zeroing (EC) (Article 21.5 DSU – EC) (WT/DS294/AB/RW, 14 May 2009) and United States–Zeroing (Japan) (Article 21.5 DSU – Japan) (WT/DS322/AB/RW, 18 August 2009). The Appellate Body found that the United States had not brought its anti-dumping measures into compliance with the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement as it continued to use zeroing in annual reviews of anti-dumping orders. We argue that this conclusion – based on a complicated discussion of what constitutes a ‘measure taken to comply’ – could have been reached through a much simpler and direct argument. Continued noncompliance by the United States generates costs to traders targeting the United States and the trading system more generally. We argue that from a broader WTO compliance perspective consideration should be given to stronger multilateral surveillance of anti-dumping practice by all WTO members and to more analysis and effective communication by economists regarding the costs of zeroing and anti-dumping practices more generally.

scholarly journals US-China trade conflict: causes and consequences

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Trade ◽  
Regression Models ◽  
Bilateral Trade ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Stage Of Development ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Usa

At the present stage of development of international economic relations special attention is paid to the study of the relations between the countries that are the world leaders in terms of GDP and foreign trade – the USA and China. This is due to the fact that in recent years the US have introduced a number of measures to counteract the growth of Chinese exports, which has led to backlash from China. The subject of the study is the foreign trade relations of the USA and China. The goal is to analyze the influence of protectionist measures applied by the US and China on the development of their foreign economic relations. The following objectives are set: to determine the level of economic interdependence of the USA and the PRC, to investigate their impact on mutual trade flows and to analyze the dynamics of bilateral trade of countries under restrictive measures. The following methods are: comparative analysis, systematization and generalization, construction of regression models. The results of the analysis revealed that the US and PRC current accounts show reverse dynamics: the United States demonstrates stable deficit, while China has had surplus for many years. Moreover, the structures of the current accounts do differ a lot as well: the US is totally services-oriented country, whereas China is a major exporter of goods. It can be observed that both countries have experienced a recession of foreign economic activity since 2018, as far as their current account balances decreased substantially, which is likely to be the consequence of tariff barriers imposed by the US and PRC. Furthermore, due to trade confrontation, bilateral trade between these countries declines significantly as well, so that now China and the United States are forced to look for new export markets. The results of the regression models allow concluding that import from China is indeed having a negative impact on US exports, which has led to the US restrictions on imports from China. However, the introduction of mutual restrictions did not lead to an improvement of the US foreign trade.

scholarly journals “Path-Dependency” Effect in Japan-U.S. Trade

2021 ◽  
Vol 65 (11) ◽  
pp. 31-39
Author(s):  
Z. Podoba ◽  
V. Gorshkov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Trade ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Bilateral Trade ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
The United States ◽  
Path Dependency ◽  
Trade Negotiations ◽  
Trade Relations ◽  
The U.S

The paper addresses current issues in Japan-U.S. foreign trade following the signing of the Japan-U.S. Trade Agreement and the Japan-U.S. Agreement on Digital Trade in October 2019. By providing an overview of Japan-U.S. trade relations, analyzing current trends in bilateral foreign trade and outlining basic terms of new bilateral agreements, the authors conclude that “path-dependency” in Japan-U.S. contemporary foreign trade persists and trade relations between the two countries are to a greater extent influenced by the U.S. trade policy which aims to assure a broader access of American companies to Japanese markets – the situation that was typical for bilateral trade relations since the 1980s. “Path-dependency” in Japan-U.S. trade relations, conventionally categorized by the existence of numerous trade contradictions, is pronounced in the unchanged goals, strategy and tactics of foreign trade negotiations. The United States maintains its “attacking” role and dominates in the bilateral trade negotiations, while Japan, despite its enhancing influence in the multilateral trading system and regional trade agreements, is forced to “self-defend” and make concessions to a more dominant partner in order to maintain its automobile exports to the United States at the expense of its national interests in other industries, particularly in the agricultural sector. Thus, new trade agreements are unlikely to cause significant structural changes in Japan-U.S. bilateral trade in the shortterm as the problem of persistent trade deficits remains. In order to break the vicious circle of “path-dependency” Japan is to actively cooperate with the economies of the European Union which have large amounts of trade deficits with the U.S., can serve as a mediator in the U.S. – China trade conflicts, as well with other Asian countries via mega-FTAs which possess potential risks to the United States. Further development of foreign trade cooperation will depend on the initiatives of new governments in both countries.

Precedent in the WTO: Retrospective Reflections for a Prospective Dispute Settlement Mechanism

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 262-277
Author(s):  
Mariana Clara de Andrade
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
Wto Appellate Body ◽  
Legitimacy Crisis ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

Abstract Several factors triggered the legitimacy crisis which paralysed the WTO Appellate Body in December 2019. This article focuses on one of them: the criticism expressed by the United States that the ‘Appellate Body claims its reports are entitled to be treated as precedent’. This work describes the origins of the problem and examines the issue of the precedential value of adopted reports within the WTO dispute settlement. It argues that the problem cannot be addressed through textual attempts to better define the value of precedent, as some have suggested, but can be alleviated through the practice of adjudicators. Moreover, it argues that the criticisms regarding the precedential value of past reports is due to the inherent hierarchy ensuing from the existence of an appeals organ. Therefore, the demise of the Appellate Body may weaken the precedential value of past adopted reports.

Mexico–Canada Economic Relations during the NAFTA Era

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Zepeda
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Bilateral Trade ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Trading Partner ◽  
Canadian Province ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
The North ◽  
Trading Partners ◽  
Subnational Governments

Canada is Mexico’s third largest trading partner in terms of the overall bilateral trade, and both countries have become strategic allies during the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) era, between 1994 and 2020. Canada, Mexico, and the United States have been members of the NAFTA since 1994. For both Canada and Mexico, the United States is their first trading partner, in terms of exports, imports, and foreign direct investment. NAFTA has paved the way for economic integration between Canada and Mexico during the period of this agreement. It is significant to highlight the notable expansion of Mexico’s exports to Canada, but also of Canada’s investment in Mexico. From a subnational perspective, the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, and Alberta are among Mexico’s most important trading partners. Economic relations between Mexico and Canada has also facilitated international cooperation from subnational governments and important interchanges in education, science, culture, and environment. Quebec is the only Canadian province with a general delegation in Mexico and representations in several subnational states. The Canadian province of Saskatchewan has established important agreements in education with government agencies and universities in Mexico. Relations between Mexico and Canada have strengthened during the NAFTA era. Not only central governments but also subnational governments define the characteristics and dynamics of this relation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document