Simon Lester

Last week's Thailand - Cigarettes (Philippines), Article 21.5 panel report considered the issue of whether GATT Article XX can provide a defense to claims under the Customs Valuation Agreement: 7.732. Thailand argues that, insofar as the Charges are inconsistent with the provisions of the CVA, such

Along with Jim Bacchus and Huan Zhu, I have a new Cato paper out today on using the WTO to make China more market-oriented. Some of the main points are: -- China's economic ambition is good. The world is better off with a wealthier China. -- However, China

In the India - Iron and Steel Products panel report circulated last Wednesday, the panel explained that it would consider the question of whether the measure at issue is a safeguard measure: 7.30. In this dispute, most of the claims have been raised by Japan under Article XIX of

The folks at Pluricourts asked me to post the following: Call for papers: The ISDS Academic Forum, together with PluriCourts Centre for Excellence (LEGINVEST) and Forum for Law & Social Science at the University of Oslo, will host a workshop on reforming international investment arbitration in Oslo 1-2 February 2019.

Last year, I mentioned a U.S. proposal on WTO notifications. It looks like the U.S. now has a few others on board: PROCEDURES TO ENHANCE TRANSPARENCY AND STRENGTHEN NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS UNDER WTO AGREEMENTS COMMUNICATION FROM ARGENTINA, COSTA RICA, THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN, AND THE UNITED STATES The following

The Appellate Body's approach of taking longer than 90 days to issue its reports, without first getting consent from the participants in the dispute, is one issue that has given rise to the U.S. actions relating to appointment of Appellate Body Members. Apparently, this approach (along with

As I've blogged about before, there was a problem with getting panels appointed under NAFTA Chapter 20, and Chapter 31 of the new NAFTA (USMCA) doesn't look like it fixes the problem. But there is a small tweak to the rules relating to rosters that is

This is a timely piece from Graham Cook: For those interested here is a new paper called "The Legalization of the Non-Violation Concept in the GATT/WTO System". The abstract: Article XXVIII:1(b) of the GATT refers to "any benefit … being nullified or impaired" by

Article 23.9 of the USMCA text as it stands now says: Article 23.9 Sex-Based Discrimination in the Workplace The Parties recognize the goal of eliminating sex-based discrimination in employment and occupation, and support the goal of promoting equality of women in the workplace. Accordingly, each Party shall implement

In response to the recent post by Nicolas and the subsequent comments, as well as some twitter and email exchanges on the issue, I wanted to offer a few thoughts on the role of WTO exceptions in the context of non-violation claims. To state the obvious, WTO obligations are not