WTO Disputes

A little while ago, I did a post on the purpose of SCM Agreement countermeasures.  I don't really like how the post came out, though.  So, I'm going to take a do-over and try it again. The basic issue is whether "countermeasures" under the

From the U.S. statement at today's DSB meeting: •             Mr. Chairman, the United States is disappointed that Mexico has chosen to move forward with a request for panel establishment. •             The United States considers its dolphin-safe labeling regime central to the protection of the dolphin population in the Eastern

From the abstract of a "A Theory of WTO Adjudication: From Empirical Analysis to Biased Rule Development," by Juscelino Colares: The positive theory of litigation predicts that, under certain conditions, plaintiffs and defendants achieve an unremarkable and roughly equivalent share of litigation success. This Article, grounded in an

It appears that Mexico is moving ahead with its complaint against U.S. dolphin-safe tuna labeling measures.  Here is the panel request: http://www.worldtradelaw.net/pr/ds381-4(pr).pdf  The specific claims are as follows: 1. Mexican products are not accorded immediately and unconditionally any advantage, favour, privilege or

In the ongoing arbitration in the U.S. - Cotton Subsidies case, the parties disagree on the purpose of "countermeasures" imposed under SCM Agreement Articles 4.10 and 7.9.  In its written submission, the United States argues: 340. Articles 4.10 and 7.9 of the SCM

Some people in France want to retaliate for the extra import duties just imposed by the U.S. on French cheese: "Symbol versus symbol," said Philippe Folliot, a French member of parliament whose Tarn constituency contains many roquefort producers. "Since the United States has decided to surtax

I haven't seen much detail about this, but there are two reports of a new WTO complaint by Mexico against U.S. tuna restrictions: The Mexican government says it has formally requested World Trade Organization consultations on U.S. labeling restrictions that it says effectively exclude Mexican tuna

In another small victory for transparency, the Appellate Body hearing in the latest Bananas appeals will be open to the public:  http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news08_e/hearing_22sept08_e.htm  Of note is that one of the parties is Ecuador, which makes this, I believe, the

From the EEC - Import Restrictions case, adopted in 1983: 12. In the view of the European Community, in order to judge the compatibility of these restrictions with the provisions of GATT, it was not enough to limit examination to a purely legal exercise. All restrictions with which the Panel