IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rsc/rsceui/2020-40.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What If? Tinkering with the Counterfactual. A Comment on US-Washing Machines (Article 22.6-US)

Author

Listed:
  • Edward Balistreri
  • Petros C. Mavroidis
  • Thomas J. Prusa

Abstract

Typically, the WTO Arbitrator, when charged with evaluating the permissible level of countermeasures (suspension of concessions), has chosen a counterfactual state of the world where the challenged (illegal) measure had not been adopted at all. The Arbitrator then would calculate the trade lost because of the adopted (illegal) measure, and thus, decide on the level of permissible countermeasures. In US-Washing Machines (Article 22.6-US), deviating from this custom, the Arbitrator adopted a different counterfactual, assuming that the complainant had adopted a different, “reasonable” measure. The Arbitrator then evaluated the trade lost based on the distance between the adopted (illegal) and the “reasonable” measure and calculated the level of countermeasures. In this paper, we explain the multitude of perils facing dispute settlement if this approach is adopted in future disputes. We also advance a few thoughts on rethinking the workings of the Arbitrator when measuring the level of permissible countermeasures, since similar slippery slopes risk being reproduced in future cases.

Suggested Citation

  • Edward Balistreri & Petros C. Mavroidis & Thomas J. Prusa, 2020. "What If? Tinkering with the Counterfactual. A Comment on US-Washing Machines (Article 22.6-US)," RSCAS Working Papers 2020/40, European University Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:rsc:rsceui:2020/40
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/67092/RSCAS%202020_40.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1814/67092
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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, October.
    2. Patrick A. Messerlin, 2001. "Measuring the Costs of Protection in Europe: European Commercial Policy in the 2000s," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 102, January.
    3. Patrick Messerlin, 2001. "Measuring the costs of protection in Europe : European commercial policy in the 2000s," Post-Print hal-03394451, HAL.
    4. Mavroidis, Petros C. & Prusa, Thomas J., 2018. "Die Another Day: Zeroing in on Targeted Dumping – Did the AB Hit the Mark in US–Washing Machines?," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 239-264, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Francois, Joseph & Nelson, Douglas & Pelkmans-Balaoing, Annette, 2008. "Endogenous Protection in General Equilibrium: Estimating Political Weights in the EU," CEPR Discussion Papers 6979, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/5l6uh8ogmqildh09h2q8j620g is not listed on IDEAS
    3. 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.
    4. Ghoneim, Ahmed Farouk, 2004. "Competition, cultural variety and global governance: The case of the Egyptian audiovisual system," HWWA Reports 246, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWA).
    5. Lionel Fontagné & Thierry Mayer & Soledad Zignago, 2005. "Trade in the Triad: how easy is the access to large markets?," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 38(4), pages 1401-1430, November.
    6. Alexandra Ferreira-Lopes & Ccndida Sousa & Helena Carvalho & Nuno Crespo, 2017. "Trade Protectionism and Intra-industry Trade: A USA - EU Comparison," Research in World Economy, Research in World Economy, Sciedu Press, vol. 8(2), pages 88-102, December.
    7. Kyoji Fukao & Goushi Kataoka & Arata Kuno, 2003. "How to Measure Non-tariff Barriers? A Critical Examination of the Price-Differential Approach," Hi-Stat Discussion Paper Series d03-08, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    8. Ghoneim, Ahmed Farouk, 2004. "Competition, Cultural Variety and Global Governance: The Case of the Egyptian Audiovisual System," Report Series 26109, Hamburg Institute of International Economics.
    9. Jean‐Christophe Maur, 2005. "Exporting Europe's Trade Policy," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(11), pages 1565-1590, November.
    10. Lee, Hiro & van der Mensbrugghe, Dominique, 2006. "Deep integration and its impacts on non-members: EU enlargement and East Asia," MPRA Paper 82286, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/5l6uh8ogmqildh09h2q90i5i1 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/5l6uh8ogmqildh09h2q8j620g is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Swinbank, Alan, 2004. "Dirty Tariffication Revisited: The EU and Sugar," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 5(1), pages 1-14.
    14. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/8324 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:45:y:2007:i::p:789-811 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Bernard POIRINE & Jean-François GAY, 2015. "Le Coût Du Protectionnisme Dans Une Petite Économie Insulaire : Le Cas Extrême De La Polynésie Française," Region et Developpement, Region et Developpement, LEAD, Universite du Sud - Toulon Var, vol. 42, pages 133-156.
    17. Bouët, Antoine, 2006. "What can the poor expect from trade liberalization?: opening the "black box" of trade modeling," MTID discussion papers 93, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    18. Patrick Messerlin, 2010. "New challenging issues for world trade and the world economy Strategies for the EC-Turkey Custom Union," Working Papers hal-00972937, HAL.
    19. Jean‐Christophe Bureau & Luca Salvatici, 2005. "Agricultural trade restrictiveness in the European Union and the United States," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 33(s3), pages 479-490, November.
    20. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/5l6uh8ogmqildh09h2q90i5i1 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Patrick Messerlin, 2003. "Agriculture in the Doha Agenda," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-00972813, HAL.
    22. Francois, Joseph & Nelson, Douglas R., 2014. "Political support for trade policy in the European Union," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 243-253.
    23. Eithne Murphy, 2017. "Cournot's Trade Theory and its Neoclassical Appropriation: Lessons to be Learnt about the Use and Abuse of Models," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 6(2), pages 1-13, September.
    24. Patrick Messerlin, 2010. "The European Community commercial policy," Working Papers hal-00972936, HAL.
    25. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:45:y:2007:i::p:771-787 is not listed on IDEAS
    26. Maryla Maliszewska, 2004. "EU Enlargement: Benefits of the Single Market Expansion for Current and New Member States," CASE Network Studies and Analyses 0273, CASE-Center for Social and Economic Research.
    27. Olper, Alessandro & Raimondi, Valentina, 2004. "The border effect in agricultural markets between European Union, OECD and LDC countries," 85th Seminar, September 8-11, 2004, Florence, Italy 37817, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    de novo review; retaliation; antidumping;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K40 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - General

    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:2020/40. 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.