scholarly journals WTO Appellate Body Ruling in United States - Certain country of origin labeling requirements: Trading away consumer rights and protections, or striking a balance between competition-based approach in trade and consumer interests?

De Jure ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-148
Author(s):  
Omphemetse S Sibanda
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Country Of Origin ◽  
Country Of Origin Labeling ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Consumer Rights ◽  
Consumer Interests ◽  
Wto Appellate Body ◽  
Labeling Requirements

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 Assessing Consumer Preferences for Country-of-Origin Labeling

2005 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria L. Loureiro ◽  
Wendy J. Umberger
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Willingness To Pay ◽  
Consumer Preferences ◽  
Country Of Origin ◽  
Early Summer ◽  
Consumer Survey ◽  
Safety Issues ◽  
Country Of Origin Labeling ◽  
Implementation Costs ◽  
Selection Of

In this paper, we assess consumer willingness to pay for a mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) program applied to beef ribeye steaks, chicken breasts, and pork chops, all labeled as “Certified U.S.” products. A consumer survey was mailed in spring and early summer 2003 to households in the continental United States. Results indicate that consumers are in general very concerned about food safety issues, viewing U.S. meat as the safest among the selection of countries considered. Nevertheless, consumer willingness to pay for Certified U.S. products is relatively small, although above the expected implementation costs associated with a mandatory labeling program. This finding coincides with the fact that only 36% of the sample favored consumers paying directly for the costs related to a mandatory COOL program.

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.

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.

United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling (Cool) Requirements (US–Cool, Article 22.6 – United States), DS384/DS386

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 526-528
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Carlson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Country Of Origin ◽  
The United States ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Domestic Livestock ◽  
Gatt 1994

On 29 May 2015, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the Article 21.5 Appellate Body reports in these disputes, and the reports of the compliance panel as modified by the Appellate Body. The findings adopted by the DSB were that the United States' amended country of origin labelling (COOL) requirements violated Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement and Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 because they continued to accord less favourable treatment to imported livestock than to like domestic livestock. Thereafter, Canada and Mexico both filed requests with the DSB for authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations under Article 22.2 of the DSU. Canada and Mexico sought authorization to suspend concessions and related obligations in the goods sector under the GATT 1994 to an annual value of CAD3.068 billion and USD713 million, respectively. The mandate of the Arbitrator in these proceedings was to ‘determine whether the level of such [proposed] suspension is equivalent to the level of nullification or impairment' to Canada and Mexico.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document