IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rsc/rsceui/2016-68.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

US-COOL Retaliation: The WTO’s Article 22.6 Arbitration

Author

Listed:
  • Chad P. Bown
  • Rachel Brewster

Abstract

This paper examines the Article 22.6 arbitration report of the WTO dispute over the United States’ country of original labeling (US-COOL) regulation for meat products. At prior phases of the legal process, a WTO Panel and the Appellate Body had sided with Canada and Mexico by finding that the US regulation had negatively affected their exports of livestock – cattle and hogs – to the US market. The arbitrators authorized Canada and Mexico to retaliate by over $1 billion against US exports; this is the second largest authorized retaliation on record and only the twelfth WTO dispute to reach the stage of an arbitration report. Our legal-economic analysis focuses on a number of issues that arise in the arbitration report. First, the complainants requested the arbitrators consider a new formula for computing the permissible retaliation limit that would also include the effects of domestic price suppression. We provide a simple, economics-based model explanation for the arbitrators’ rejection of such a proposal. Second, we provide market context for the $1 billion finding. While the arbitrators relied on the “trade effects” formula – which sets the retaliation limit as equivalent to the perceived loss of export revenue resulting from the WTO violation – we argue this amount to be implausibly large, given the actual conditions in the US market for cattle and hogs during this period. We then describe a number of the challenges facing arbitrators as they construct such estimates, including those likely to have arisen in this particular dispute.

Suggested Citation

  • Chad P. Bown & Rachel Brewster, 2016. "US-COOL Retaliation: The WTO’s Article 22.6 Arbitration," RSCAS Working Papers 2016/68, European University Institute.
  • Handle: RePEc:rsc:rsceui:2016/68
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/44466/RSCAS_2016_68.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1814/44466
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Petros C. Mavroidis & Kamal Saggi, 2018. "What is not so Cool about US–COOL Regulations? A critical analysis of the Appellate Body’s ruling on US–COOL," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Kamal Saggi (ed.), Economic Analysis of the Rules and Regulations of the World Trade Organization, chapter 19, pages 433-454, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Bown,Chad P. & Pauwelyn,Joost (ed.), 2010. "The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521119979, September.
    3. Chad P. Bown, 2002. "The Economics of Trade Disputes, the GATT’s Article XXIII, and the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Understanding," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(3), pages 283-323, November.
    4. Chad Bown & Kara Reynolds, 2015. "Trade flows and trade disputes," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 145-177, June.
    5. Levy, Philip I. & Regan, Donald H., 2015. "EC–Seal Products: Seals and Sensibilities (TBT Aspects of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports)," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 337-379, April.
    6. Crowley, Meredith A. & Howse, Robert, 2014. "Tuna–Dolphin II: a legal and economic analysis of the Appellate Body Report," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 321-355, April.
    7. Broude, Tomer & Levy, Philip I., 2014. "Do you mind if I don't smoke? Products, purpose and indeterminacy in US – Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 357-392, April.
    8. Bagwell, Kyle & Staiger, Robert W., 2001. "Reciprocity, non-discrimination and preferential agreements in the multilateral trading system," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 281-325, June.
    9. Howse, Robert L. & Horn, Henrik, 2009. "European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 49-83, January.
    10. Robert W. Staiger & Kyle Bagwell, 1999. "An Economic Theory of GATT," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 215-248, March.
    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. Louise Johannesson & Petros C. Mavroidis, 2016. "The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995-2016: A Data Set and its Descriptive Statistics," RSCAS Working Papers 2016/72, European University Institute.

    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. Kuenzel, David J., 2017. "WTO dispute determinants," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 157-179.
    3. Bown, Chad P., 2004. "Trade disputes and the implementation of protection under the GATT: an empirical assessment," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 263-294, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Kyle Bagwell & Chad P. Bown & Robert W. Staiger, 2016. "Is the WTO Passé?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 54(4), pages 1125-1231, December.
    6. Martin, Alberto & Vergote, Wouter, 2008. "On the role of retaliation in trade agreements," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 61-77, September.
    7. Cole, Matthew T. & Lake, James & Zissimos, Ben, 2021. "Contesting an international trade agreement," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    8. Fritz Breuss, 2004. "WTO Dispute Settlement: An Economic Analysis of Four EU–US Mini Trade Wars—A Survey," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 4(4), pages 275-315, December.
    9. Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 2012. "Profit Shifting And Trade Agreements In Imperfectly Competitive Markets," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 53(4), pages 1067-1104, November.
    10. Obashi, Ayako, 2019. "Trade agreements with cross-border unbundling," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Blonigen, Bruce A. & Bown, Chad P., 2003. "Antidumping and retaliation threats," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 249-273, August.
    12. Conconi, Paola & Voon, Tania, 2016. "EC–Seal Products: The Tension between Public Morals and International Trade Agreements," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(2), pages 211-234, April.
    13. Robert W. Staiger & Kyle Bagwell, 1999. "An Economic Theory of GATT," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 215-248, March.
    14. Hillman, Arye L., 2003. "Trade Liberalization and Globalization: A Survey," CEPR Discussion Papers 3845, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Kyle Bagwell & Petros C. Mavroidis & Robert W. Staiger, 2003. "The Case for Auctioning Countermeasures in the WTO," NBER Working Papers 9920, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Giovanni Maggi & Andrés Rodríguez-Clare, 2007. "A Political-Economy Theory of Trade Agreements," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1374-1406, September.
    17. Chad Bown & Kara Reynolds, 2015. "Trade flows and trade disputes," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 145-177, June.
    18. David R. DeRemer, 2016. "The Principle of Reciprocity in the 21st Century," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1613, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    19. Ethier, Wilfred J., 2007. "The theory of trade policy and trade agreements: A critique," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 605-623, September.
    20. Zissimos, Ben, 2007. "The GATT and gradualism," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 410-433, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    WTO; dispute; arbitration; retaliation; regulation; nontariff barrier; remedies;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations

    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:2016/68. 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.