In its other appellant submission in the EC - Aircraft case, the U.S. criticizes certain aspects of the Panel's reasoning under the SCM Agreement Article 3.1(a) export contingency standard.  In particular, the U.S. disagrees with what it says is the Panel's consideration

Here's something from the EC - IT Products case that I'm still thinking through.  The basic issue is this.  The EC is imposing a duty that the Panel found is in excess of its bound rate.  Thus, there is a violation of Article II:1(b)

How do you interpret a colon?  This is from the EC - IT Products panel report: The relevance of the colon to an understanding of the terms in the concession Arguments of the parties 7.862 Japan and Chinese Taipei consider the relevance of the use of the colon in

When a country exports goods, it doesn't generally care what happens to those goods once they are sent abroad.  There may be some exceptions:  treatment of animals; nuclear materials; perhaps the use of guns and other weapons.  But for the most part, this is not a big concern.

This is from the EC - IT Products panel: 7.421 Both the complainants and the European Communities have put forward competing interpretations of the motivations and effects of these modifications which, not surprisingly, support their respective positions regarding the key interpretative issue described above.

Well, sort of.  Here's what Lori Wallach of Global Trade Watch says in relation to the Mexico Trucking dispute: until the safety situation improves, Congress must not allow Mexico-domiciled trucks onto American roads. At the same time, Mexico is far from being able to meet key truck and

At long last, here is the U.S. "other appeal" in EC - Aircraft.  It has two potentially interesting issues. First up, the issue of whether certain subsidies constitute an "export subsidy": 1. The United States seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel’s

I said I wouldn't comment on the Vivendi separate opinion relating to the role of the ICSID Secretariat, and I won't, but I was struck by this part of the opinion, which makes a somewhat different point: 16. Another idea seems to be that the Secretariat

Here is a long excerpt from the recent annulment decision in the Vivendi case before an ICSID ad hoc committee, in which the role of the ICSID Secretariat is called into question: Additional Opinion of Professor JH Dalhuisen under Article 48(4) of the ICSID Convention 1. Before ending the