Simon Lester

I have been puzzling over what is happening with the safeguards issues related to the U.S. steel/aluminum "national security" tariffs (and as I was drafting this post, Brett Williams raised the same issue in a comment here). This is what I see so far. Safeguards Agreement

This is from the Financial Times: China has unveiled retaliatory duties on US food imports including pork, fruit, nuts and wine of up to 25 per cent as a response to the Trump administration’s new tariffs on steel and aluminium imports. Beijing said the additional duties on 128 kinds

This is from the U.S. statements at the DSB meeting on March 27: The United States would be pleased to discuss at length the seriously trade distorting policies adopted by China that are the subject of the ongoing Section 301 investigation mentioned in China’s statement. It is these

Jennifer Hillman asked me to post the following: Does anyone know what the operative time frames are for the imposition of the China 301 tariffs? The President’s memorandum of March 22, in using the language “unreasonable or discriminatory and that burdens or restricts U.S. commerce,” has made it

Inside US Trade describes the steel quotas agreed to as part of the KORUS modifications as follows: Korea’s trade minister Kim Hyun-chong announced at a press briefing Monday that Korea would receive a quota of about 2.68 million tons of steel exports to the U.S. annually,

Unlike NAFTA, the KORUS FTA renegotiation was not a complete overhaul, but more of a "refurbishing" of the agreement (as Ambassador Lighthizer put it the other day), one that was designed to avoid Congressional oversight. There are reports out now that the KORUS talks are complete, with what

The first challenge to the Section 232 steel/aluminum tariffs has been filed (thanks to Larry Friedman for the tip). This is an excerpt from the complaint: Accordingly, Plaintiffs Severstal Export GmbH ("SSE") and Severstal Export Miami Corporation ("SSE M ") (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), by and

When I hear people claim that ISDS/investment protection "de-politicizes" investment disputes, in the sense that governments can avoid the unpleasant task of espousing diplomatic claims against other governments, I usually respond by pointing out that ISDS claims create political controversy of another kind, so at best