IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rsc/rsceui/2015-68.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Revisiting Procedure and Precedent in the WTO: An Analysis of US – Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Measures (China)

Author

Listed:
  • Mostafa Beshkar
  • Adam S. Chilton

Abstract

After not applying countervailing duty (CVD) law against non-market economies (NMEs) for two decades, the United State opened a CVD investigation against China in 2006. After extensive litigation, a U.S. appeals court ruled that it was illegal to apply CVD law to NMEs. While that ruling was being appealed, the U.S. Congress passed legislation stipulating that the application of CVD law to NMEs starting in 2006 was legal. China challenged this legislation at the WTO. The dispute resulted in a ruling that left open the possibility that the legislation violated the GATT, as well as a finding that the United States must investigate its application of countervailing and antidumping duties against China. This dispute has implications for a number of current WTO debates including: whether Appellate Body rulings create binding precedent, whether the Appellate Body should have authority to remand cases, and what information should be required in panel requests.

Suggested Citation

  • Mostafa Beshkar & Adam S. Chilton, 2015. "Revisiting Procedure and Precedent in the WTO: An Analysis of US – Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Measures (China)," RSCAS Working Papers 2015/68, European University Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:rsc:rsceui:2015/68
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/37425/RSCAS_2015_68.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1814/37425
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giovanni Maggi & Robert W. Staiger, 2011. "The Role of Dispute Settlement Procedures in International Trade Agreements," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 126(1), pages 475-515.
    2. Bronckers, Marco & Maskus, Keith E., 2014. "China–Raw Materials: a controversial step towards evenhanded exploitation of natural resources," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 393-408, April.
    3. Prusa, Thomas J. & Vermulst, Edwin, 2013. "United States – Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China: Passing the Buck on Pass-Through," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 197-234, April.
    4. Janow, Merit E. & Staiger, Robert W., 2004. "Canada – Dairy Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Dairy Products and the Exportation of Milk," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 277-315, July.
    5. Crowley, Meredith A. & Palmeter, David, 2009. "Japan – Countervailing Duties on Dynamic Random Access Memories from Korea (DS 336 and Corr.1, adopted 17 December 2007)," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 259-272, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Buzard, Kristy & Claussen, Kathleen, 2021. "Under Pressure: Intractable Trade Conflicts and Korea – Pneumatic Valves," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(4), pages 509-523, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bown,Chad P. & Crowley,Meredith A & Bown,Chad P. & Crowley,Meredith A, 2016. "The empirical landscape of trade policy," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7620, The World Bank.
    2. Mostafa Beshkar & Jee-Hyeong Park, 2017. "Dispute Settlement with Second-Order Uncertainty: The Case of International Trade Disputes," CAEPR Working Papers 2017-010, Center for Applied Economics and Policy Research, Department of Economics, Indiana University Bloomington.
    3. Swati Dhingra & Rebecca Freeman & Hanwei Huang, 2023. "The Impact of Non‐tariff Barriers on Trade and Welfare," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 90(357), pages 140-177, January.
    4. Vincent Anesi & Giovanni Facchini, 2019. "Coercive Trade Policy," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 225-256, August.
    5. Conconi, Paola & DeRemer, David R. & Kirchsteiger, Georg & Trimarchi, Lorenzo & Zanardi, Maurizio, 2017. "Suspiciously timed trade disputes," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 57-76.
    6. Mostafa Beshkar & Jee‐Hyeong Park, 2021. "Dispute Settlement With Second‐Order Uncertainty," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 62(4), pages 1433-1452, November.
    7. Grossman, Gene M. & Horn, Henrik, 2012. "Why the WTO? An Introduction to the Economics of Trade Agreements," Working Paper Series 916, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    8. Julian Schumacher & Christoph Trebesch & Henrik Enderlein, 2015. "What Explains Sovereign Debt Litigation?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(3).
    9. Kara M. Reynolds & Chad P. Bown, 2014. "Trade Flows and Trade Disputes," Working Papers 2014-05, American University, Department of Economics.
    10. Crowley, Meredith & Meng, Ning & Song, Huasheng, 2018. "Tariff scares: Trade policy uncertainty and foreign market entry by Chinese firms," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 96-115.
    11. Bo Xiong, 2017. "The implications of US punitive tariffs on Chinese tires for rubber exports from South-East Asia," Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(4), pages 575-586, October.
    12. Frank Stähler, 2023. "An optimal investor-state dispute settlement mechanism," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 138(1), pages 1-16, January.
    13. Kuenzel, David J., 2017. "WTO dispute determinants," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 157-179.
    14. Crowley, Meredith A. & Hillman, Jennifer A., 2018. "Slamming the Door on Trade Policy Discretion? The WTO Appellate Body’s Ruling on Market Distortions and Production Costs in EU–Biodiesel (Argentina)," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 195-213, April.
    15. Phillip McCalman & Frank Stähler & Gerald Willmann, 2019. "Contingent trade policy and economic efficiency," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 155(2), pages 227-255, May.
    16. David R. DeRemer, 2015. "Opportunities for Cooperation in Removing Prohibitive Trade Barriers," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1533, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    17. Chad P. Bown & Kara M. Reynolds, 2017. "Trade Agreements and Enforcement: Evidence from WTO Dispute Settlement," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 64-100, November.
    18. Chad Bown & Kara Reynolds, 2015. "Trade flows and trade disputes," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 145-177, June.
    19. Crowley, M. A. & Exton, O. & Han, L., 2018. "Renegotiation of Trade Agreements and Firm Exporting Decisions: Evidence from the Impact of Brexit on UK Exports," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1839, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    20. Mostafa Beshkar, 2016. "Arbitration and Renegotiation in Trade Agreements," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(3), pages 586-619.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Non-Market Economies; Countervailing and Antidumping Duties; Precedents; Remand Authority; World Trade Organization;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rsc:rsceui:2015/68. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: RSCAS web unit (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rsiueit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.