International Economic Law and Policy Blog

Sign in Subscribe

Topic

Standards of Review

7 posts

Multiple Permissible Interpretations under Chevron and AD Agreement Article 17.6(ii)

Here's an excerpt from the majority opinion in the recent Loper Bright U.S. Supreme Court decision that puts an end to Chevron deference, in which the majority says that it does not make sense to talk about "permissible" interpretations because there is always a "

The MPIA: What’s New? (Part I)

On 21 December 2022, more than two and a half years after its creation, the World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) finally produced its first appellate award.[1] The inaugural MPIA award was issued in a dispute filed by the EU in November 2019

U.S. Views on MPIA Arbitrators' Consideration of AD Agreement Legal Standard of Review

At last Friday's DSB meeting, the U.S. had some positive things to say about how the MPIA arbitrators in the Colombia - Frozen Fries dispute handled the issue of the AD Agreement Article 17.6(ii) legal standard of review: - The United States intervenes to comment

The First MPIA Award Is Out, and It Discusses AD Agreement Article 17.6(ii) "Permissible" Interpretations

The first MPIA Award, in the Colombia - Frozen Fries disputes, was circulated today. In a previous blog post on this dispute, I had some uncertainty about whether the arbitrators would say anything about the AD Agreement Article 17.6(ii) legal standard of review, but it turns out they

The Frozen Fries Appeal: Permissible Interpretations under AD Agreement Article 17.6(ii)

When the Colombia - Frozen Fries MPIA appeal started up, I noted that "most of the issues are pretty basic anti-dumping ones, but there is a possibility of an important systemic issue coming up," as "[t]he panel report gets into the issue of the AD Agreement

U.S. Comments on "Precedent," DSU Article 11, and AD Agreement Article 17.6(ii)

In the hope of pushing the substantive discussion related to the Appellate Body crisis forward, here is a brief response to a couple points the U.S. made at the General Council meeting yesterday. First up, the U.S. says the following about the issue of "precedent": On

Clarifying AD Agreement Article 17.6(ii)

The United States has expressed concerns about various Appellate Body interpretations of WTO obligations, in particular relating to trade remedies, but as far as I know it has not offered any specific proposals to address the flaws it sees in the Appellate Body's approach to treaty interpretation in