In a submission from June 1, the U.S. made its case in the Negotiating Group on Rules for amending WTO rules to allow "zeroing": ... the Appellate Body reports are contrary to what many have long understood to be consistent with the text of the AD Agreement.  The

In a comment on one of Sungjoon's recent posts, I said the following in response to an earlier comment: ... while a WTO agreement on currencies would be difficult, I think some rules could be worked out on what constitutes "manipulation" or "misalignment." As to

A disturbing and recurring theme in WTO Panel proceedings is the accusation that panelists are "making the case" for one of the parties. This is a serious accusation and panelists try to avoid it by repeating the mantra that they are aware of their limits. This mantra however

In an earlier post, Joel and Simon commented on the importance of the Panel decision in the Brazil–Tyres case and indicated that there would be much more to discuss, especially how the Panel treated Brazil’s obligation under Mercosur. Here are some of my thoughts to share. I believe

To one’s (yet another) disappointment on the Doha round talks, the Fantastic 4 (the U.S., the EU, Brazil, and India) failed to hammer out a framework deal in Potsdam, Germany yesterday. Such a deal was badly needed to complete the negotiation by the end of this year. It

China’s central bank (People’s Bank of China) reacted to the IMF’s recent new surveillance mechanism allegedly targeted for China’s currency intervention (or manipulation, if you like). China emphasized that any solution for this problem should be based on “mutual understanding and respect” rather than being imposed.

Choose the title you like.  Here is today's statement from the U.S.: Postdam, Germany- Statement from USTR Ambassador Susan C. Schwab and USDA Secretary Mike Johanns on Doha Round: The United States is deeply disappointed with the outcome of this week’s negotiations. For the past six