Trade, Economics & & Environment Economics Trade, CUTS Centre for International for Centre CUTS

No.1/2010 TRADETRADE LAWLAWMaking TradeBRIEFBRIEF Law Simple leaders toproposedialogueasawayofsettlingdisputes.” the WTOregardingIPRstandards“(flew)infaceofagreementbetweentwocountries’ Premier WuYimaintainedthattheUnitedStates’(US)filingofacomplaintagainstChinain saw theinstitutionoftradedisputesinWTOasafailuredialogueandnegotiation.Vice Mechanism (DSM)hasevolvedconsiderablyoverthelastnineyears.Forsometime, Settlement The attitudeofChinatowardstheWorldTradeOrganisation’s(WTO)Dispute disputes whichmembercountries areexpected particular frameworkfortheresolution oftrade implemented. Assuch,theWTO endorsesa violator iftherecommendations arenot by theviolationcantakeaction againstthe disputing membersandthecountryaffected Settlement Body(DSB),arebindingonthe reports, onceadoptedbytheDispute the AppellateBody.PanelandBody Parties mayappealthepaneldecisionbefore stage, apanelissetuptohearthematter. solution isreachedaftertheinitialconsultation obligations underWTOagreements.Ifno actions againstothermemberswhoviolate Through it,membersoftheWTOcanbring A definingfeatureoftheWTOisitsDSM. globalises economicregulation. multilateral tradingsystemandasaresult, * National Law InstituteUniversity,Bhopal possible’. trade, helping‘worldtradeflowaseasily primarily concernedwithliberalisingworld trade. However,ithassincebecomeabody from thebenefitsofexpandinginternational that developingcountrieswerenotexcluded and environmentalprotectionensuring in consonancewithsustainabledevelopment ensuring fullemployment,realisingitsaims objectives ofraisingstandardsliving, The WTOwasinitiallymeanttopursuethe Organisations Chinese LegalCultureandInternational implemented intheChinesecontext. draws lessonsfromBrazil,asuccessfuldevelopingcountrydisputant,whichcouldbe policy, thelessonsChinahaslearntoveryearsandthoseitisyettoincorporate.Italso trade interests.Thisbriefaimstostudythecauses,stagesandimplicationsofthischangein involvement inWTOlitigationandinstituteddefendedcomplaintsordertoprotectits dispute resolutionbeforetheWTO.Chinahassincedepartedfromthispolicyofminimal This isaclearillustrationoftheuniquenessChina’sinitialperceptionsandapproachto working toresolvedisputesaboutobligationsthroughneutral,legalmechanisms.” Resorting todisputesettlementisitselfaformofengagement.Itevidencetwocountries should notberegardedasafailureinourtraderelationshipwithChina.Quitethecontrary. On theotherhand,USTradeRepresentativeattime,SusanC.Schwab,insisted:“This 3 TheWTOprovidesforarule-based The EvolutionofChinaasa WTO Disputant nature wasconsideredshameful. Hence, tobeinvolvedinlitigation ofany tied tocriminalprocedureand punishment. seen asthelastresort,andall litigationwas compromise. Untilrecentlythecourtswere but rathertosettlethematterandarriveata is notdesirableforonetoassertone’srights, legal tradition.Confucianismteachesthatit harmonious society,hasshapedtheChinese regard. This,coupledwithitsemphasisona values offorbearanceandselflessnessinhigh Chinese valuestoday.Confucianismholdsthe culture, andhasapalpableinfluenceon of thetraditionalChinesestate,societyand Confucian thinkingdominatedmanyaspects East Asiancountries. in clearandstrictterms,isstilldeveloping the ideathatlawissupremeandlaidout However, thisconceptofthe‘rulelaw’, that theKingwouldbeboundbylaw. granting certaininalienablerightsandensuring thought istheMagnaCarta, true basisofwesterncivilisationandlegal democracies. Peng(2000)postulatesthatthe has aculturalbackground–thatofwestern The rules-based,legalisticnatureoftheWTO culture. regulation, itglobalisesaparticularlegal to abideby. 1

Hence, alongwitheconomic Aditi SaraVerghese* 4 thelegalcharter 2 This ethic is common to most East Asian countries and to save face, China saw the dispute through right to the influences the approach and functioning of international Appellate Body stage. The US brought another three cases bodies in which they hold a dominant position, such as against China in 2007. The second dealt with the -Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Here, protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights decisions are reached on a more flexible and consensual (IPRs) and the third, instituted the same day, with trading basis and there is little of the strict legalism that rights and distribution services available for particular characterises western legal systems and the WTO regime. publications and audiovisual entertainment products and This clearly evidences the fact that East Asia has a distinct services. The US, the sole complainant in these two legal culture that it is inclined to adopt even as it cases, received no backing from other countries on these participates in international organisations. issues.

It was at this point, when it found itself the subject of Sequence of Events numerous complaints that China began to institute its China acceded to the WTO on December 11, 2001. In own at the WTO. On May 29, 2007 and April 02, 2007, March the following year, it requested to join the US Department of Commerce made preliminary consultations initiated by the European Communities determinations, on anti-dumping and countervailing (EC) at the WTO challenging the US on its steel duties respectively, for imports of coated free sheet paper safeguard measures. Up until 2006, there was only one from China. The decision to impose countervailing dispute brought against China before the WTO, and that duties on exports from a non-market economy has been was by the US. The complaint was against the partial described as ‘an abrupt change of policy by the US, refund of value-added tax allowed to enterprises in China which broke a 23-year precedent’5 . On September 14, on integrated circuit chips manufactured or designed in 2007, China requested consultations with the US China. Following negotiations, China conceded to regarding these preliminary determinations. The dispute remove the impugned measures by way of a mutually is still in the consultation stage. A number of complaints agreed solution. followed the Coated Free Sheet Paper Dispute, most of them regarding anti-dumping duties imposed on Apart from this, there were three incidents in which products imported from China. China has brought a countries threatened to bring disputes against China total of seven disputes to the WTO since its accession, before the WTO. In these situations China preferred to of which five are against the US and two against the negotiate with the other country rather than be taken to EU. court. For instance, on January 06, 2006, the US threatened to bring a dispute regarding anti-dumping Trade between China and the EU has grown vastly in duties imposed by China on US kraft linerboard in the last couple of years. China is the EU’s biggest trading September 2005. China withdrew the measures three partner after the US, but the EU runs a trade deficit with days later following an administrative review. China and is its largest market.6 As a result, the number of trade disputes between the two is growing as well. However, since 2006, and as of June 2010, there have On May 07, 2010, the EU instituted the most recent been nine disputes (18 cases) brought against China. Of case against China, regarding anti-dumping duties these, the US has been either sole complainant or co- imposed by China on EU iron or steel fastener imports. complainant in all but the latest dispute, in which the European Union (EU) made a request for consultations In addition to this, China has participated in as many just this May. Up until 2006, the George Bush as 67 cases as a third party and is the fifth most frequent administration had consistently opposed attempts in third party participant after (99), the EU (94), the Congress to bring strong actions against China’s US (78) and Canada (71). Third parties to a dispute economic policies, including, for the first time, bills receive all documents in relation to the dispute and are calling for WTO litigation as a means of sanction. It allowed to make written and oral submissions. saw China as an important source of cheap consumer Generally, countries participate in this role if they have goods and as a ready market for US exports. However, market access interests at stake, want to know how a with the Democrat majority in both Houses following particular agreement will be interpreted or require the 2006 midterm elections, the Bush administration experience with the WTO litigation process. China has was forced to change its policy. The sudden increase in been involved as a third party in cases covering a wide US WTO litigation against China is reflective of this variety of trade issues and products and gained a great shift of power and also coincides with failed international deal from the experience. negotiations between the two countries.

In March 2006, the EC, the US and Canada brought a Individual Cases: Lessons Learned dispute against China regarding measures it imposed on A closer look at some of the disputes illustrates the imports of automobile parts. The Auto Parts Case marks lessons China has learned regarding the DSM and the a change in the Chinese government’s attitude towards change in its attitude and approach over the years. the DSM. Far from compromising its interests in order

2 The US Steel Safeguards Case On March 18, 2004, the US lodged a complaint against China was one of the eight countries that challenged China over rebates on value-added tax allowed to the US Steel safeguards in March 2002. This seemingly enterprises in China on integrated circuit (IC) chips aggressive move by China soon after its accession is, manufactured or designed in China. The US argued that perhaps, better described as an anomaly. It was the result this violated China’s obligations under Article I (Most- of a combination of unique circumstances. The measures Favoured Nation Treatment Obligation) and Article III in question were an increase in import duties and a (National Treatment Obligation) of the General tariff rate quota on imports of certain steel products. Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994, the On November 10, 2003, the Appellate Body upheld Accession Protocol and Article XVII (National Treatment the Panel’s ultimate conclusion that all the safeguard Obligation in service sectors) of the General Agreement measures were inconsistent with US obligations under on Trade in Services (GATS). WTO laws. On July 14, 2004, following four rounds of Though some analysts hailed this as a significant victory consultations, China signed a memorandum of for China, and saw in this episode, an emerging policy understanding with the US in which it agreed to revoke of ‘aggressive legalism’7 , a closer look of the surrounding the rebate applicable to firms producing the ICs in China circumstances suggests otherwise. First, amongst China’s by April 01, 2005. Until then it would only be available co-complainants there were major economic powers – to those manufacturers eligible to avail of it as of July14, the EC, Brazil, Japan and Korea – all experienced WTO 2004. China undertook to revoke the rebate applicable disputants. Further, safeguard measures challenged before to ICs designed in China but manufactured abroad, with the WTO are very likely to be struck down8 and the effect from October 01, 2004. measures in this particular dispute were subject to heavy criticism from the international community from the The Coke Export Quotas Case start. US officials themselves expected a negative ruling As far as the VAT Rebate Case is concerned, one might on the safeguards. Charlene Barshefsky, US Trade argue that China’s conciliatory approach could be Representative during President Bill Clinton’s second explained by the fact that it didn’t have a strong legal term, stated: position or vital economic interests to defend. In response, Gao (2005) explains that China’s initial “We had concluded – and I had my office look at reluctance to engage in WTO litigation is unequivocally this closely – that the case was, at that time, a losing demonstrated by the manner in which it handled its case. The notion that the US should initiate a losing dispute with the EC regarding export quotas on coke.11 case flew in the face of free-trade principles.”9 Coke is produced from coal and is used in the manufacture of steel. China is the largest producer of Statements made by US officials during President Bush’s coke in the world12 and supplied more than one third of term suggest that the government wanted the safeguard the EU’s total consumption of coke in 2003. The process measures to be challenged before the WTO. The Bush of converting coal into coke causes a great deal of Administration expected to lose the case, but made use environmental pollution. Many coke production units of the year and a half long process to employ the in the EU were forced to shut down due to safeguards for as long as possible. Besides, it feared that environmentalist movements. At the same time, the EU the EC would take stronger action allowed against is home to some of the largest steel manufacturing safeguards, in the form of demand for compensation or companies in the world. These factors increased the suspension of concessions. bloc’s demand for coke from China. Meanwhile, the Chinese government, also concerned with the pollution The ‘victory’ itself did little for Chinese industry. issue, called a meeting regarding coke exports in July According to officials from the China Association for 2003. Iron and Steel Industries, the Chinese steel industry, which relied more on domestic markets at the time, Many experts suggested that China reduce its coke was not greatly affected by the safeguards measure in exports to curb pollution. On January 01, 2004, China the first place. The officials said the exercise was more announced its decision to reduce its export quota on significant in that it allowed China to get a sense of coke by 26 percent from 12 million tonnes (in 2003) to how to use the WTO DSM.10 9 million tonnes, in order to meet domestic demand. On March 31, 2004, an agitated EU threatened to bring The VAT Rebate Case China before the DSM unless it removed the measure The VAT Rebate case was the first complaint brought and on May 09, 2004, announced a five-day deadline, against China in the WTO since its accession, and the which was eventually extended to May 28, 2004. The Chinese government was embarrassed at having been EU and China reached an agreement whereby China ‘dragged to court’ before the international community. would not only continue to supply the same amount of It preferred to settle the matter quietly rather than go coke in 2004 to the EU as it had in 2003, but also remove through the shameful process of litigation. the export permit fee, reducing the price from US$450 to US$250 per MT.

3 China certainly could have made a case defending the and does not specify what qualifies as compliance. restrictions on the basis of exceptions provided under Within a month of the release of the Panel Report, the WTO laws – exceptions regarding the protection of life government announced a ‘green tax’ system on cars, with and health, conservation of exhaustible natural resources, higher taxes imposed on cars with larger engine securing of essential quantities of domestic materials capacities. It is foreign automobile manufacturers that for a domestic processing industry in certain situations, manufacture cars and parts for cars with larger engine and so on. Instead of allowing litigation to ensue, it capacities. This indirectly achieved what the impugned chose to settle the matter and concede strong economic measures could not. interests. Litigation aside, China could have protected the measures by modifying the form they took or the The EU Footwear Case purpose they averred to fulfill through careful legal The EU Footwear case illustrates the growing involvement drafting. of Chinese industry in trade disputes. The EU Council adopted a resolution on October 05, 2006 imposing a The Auto Parts Case definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of footwear with The Auto Parts case illustrated the Chinese government’s leather uppers from China and Vietnam into the EU. realisation that, in order to survive in the WTO regime, The duties of 16.5 and 10 percent on Chinese and it would have to shed its inhibitions regarding the dispute Vietnamese imports respectively, were ‘aimed at settlement system and learn to use it to its fullest protecting the EU footwear market’.14 The move drew advantage. There are certain loopholes inherent in the strong criticism not only from the Chinese government, system and China was able to utilise them in this case. but also from consumer groups and EU shoe manufacturers, like Nike, Adidas and Puma, with On March 30, 2006, the EC, the US and Canada operations in China. Shoe manufacturers brought a series requested consultations with China regarding measures of cases against the Council resolution before the General imposed on their imports into China of automobile parts Court, a branch of the European Court of Justice. used to manufacture vehicles to be sold in China. They claimed the measures effectively discouraged Chinese However, on March 04, 2010, the Court held that the manufacturers from using imported automobile parts. duties were correctly calculated and legally imposed. It China’s response was noticeably calmer in this case. was only when the EU Council extended the measures Chong Quan, a Ministry of Commerce spokesman, for another 15 months in December 2009 however, that merely said: China resorted to the WTO DSM. Yao Jian, a spokesman “The Chinese side expresses regret over this and is for the Ministry of Commerce, said that China was earnestly studying the request for consultations by ‘strongly dissatisfied’ with the Council’s decision.15 A the EU and the US.”13 (Emphasis supplied.) Panel was established on May 18, 2010 but has not yet been composed. China determinedly saw the case through the full course of the dispute settlement process, even filing an appeal The EU-China Steel Fasteners Cases against the Panel decision. However, the Appellate Body The majority of the complaints brought by China to the for the most part upheld the Panel decision and China WTO have challenged anti-dumping measures imposed notified the DSB that it would implement the necessary on Chinese imports. All of these are pending, while the reforms on September 01, 2009. impugned measures continue to be in force. One such complaint was raised against the EU on July 31, 2009 in China did not limit itself to legal argumentation in order relation to antidumping duties imposed on imports of to protect its economic interests, but took advantage of iron or steel fasteners from China. The Panel expects to certain loopholes in the system. The first such loophole complete its work by September 2010. In the meantime, is the fact that no retrospective compensation can be the Chinese government seems to have taken matters claimed from the respondent even if it is found that the into its own hands by imposing ‘corresponding measures’ impugned measures caused unjust damage to the in the form of anti-dumping duties on imports of iron or complainant or undue benefit to the respondent. steel fasteners from the EU. Consequently, it is in the respondent’s interest to postpone an unfavourable judgement and benefit from Consequently, the EU instituted a case against China on the measures imposed until it is delivered. The measures May 07, 2010 challenging these duties. The EU took were instituted as part of a long-term plan aimed at issue with, inter alia, Article 56 of the Chinese Anti- ensuring that by 2010, half of all automobile sales come Dumping Regulations, which states: from internationally competitive Chinese companies and “…where a country (region) discriminatorily imposes exports of auto parts surpass 40 percent of all parts sales. anti-dumping measures on the exports from the This gained priority over the government’s reluctance to People’s Republic of China, China may, on the basis engage in WTO litigation. of actual situations, take corresponding measures against that country (region)…”16 The second loophole to be noted is the fact that even when it is found that a measure is inconsistent with A Panel is yet to be established to hear the EU’s WTO agreements, the DSB only calls for compliance complaint. China has effectively bypassed the system

4 by imposing corresponding measures without waiting to learn about WTO laws and its dispute settlement for the Panel’s decision on the legality of the EU’s anti- process. “We are newcomers to the WTO. We still need dumping duties. It has succeeded in turning the tables some time to build up full capacity,” states Xiao Jin,17 a on the EU, which until now enjoyed the benefit of a WTO lawyer for King & Wood, a PRC Law firm that has drawn-out WTO dispute. worked with foreign lawyers and the government on some WTO cases. China has largely used foreign lawyers for DSM hearings. Nevertheless, Chinese lawyers have a Lessons for China from Brazil better understanding of Chinese laws and are better placed Those who argue that the WTO DSM can be made to to explain their background and rationale before an work for developing countries quote Brazil as an example. international panel, and so developing domestic expertise It is considered one of the most successful WTO should be a priority. China has managed to increase its disputants in terms of the way in which it has used the institutional involvement in the WTO recently. In system to its advantage. A study of how it has achieved November 2007, Zhang Yuejiao was appointed as a judge this capability could provide valuable lessons for in the Appellate Body, becoming its first Chinese developing countries like China. member.

Brazil’s participation in the dispute settlement system under the GATT prepared it for the still more legalised Conclusion: China as a Successful WTO Disputant WTO system. However, the country did face certain The DSM forms an integral part of the WTO system, challenges. Brazil dealt with these challenges first by and dispute settlement a vital component of foreign trade evolving a ‘three pillar’ institutional structure to deal policy. The study of China’s WTO disputes and trade with WTO disputes. This consists of a specialised body dispute settlement setup shows that though it has that deals with WTO dispute settlement at Brasilia, understood this, it is yet to become what is considered Brazil’s WTO mission in Geneva, and the Brazilian a successful WTO disputant. In order to effectively private sector along with the legal resources it supplies. handle disputes, the government will have to utilise the Secondly, there has been considerable investment by both resources available with the private sector. Major the public and private sector in developing expertise in institutional and legal reforms will be required to trade law and policy. Finally, Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign facilitate private involvement in the process. Affairs has competent trade law and dispute settlement professionals and the country has allocated sufficient Up until 2006 China participated in just two WTO resources on dispute settlement. These three factors of disputes as a respondent or complainant. As a respondent an institutional setup, public-private investment and in the VAT Rebate case it settled the matter early on and involvement, and the focus on training trade law and as a co-complainant in the Steel Safeguards case it gained dispute settlement experts have enabled Brazil to become exposure to the DSM alongside experienced disputants. a successful WTO disputant. Aside from this, where it perceived a matter would be taken to the DSM, China preferred to compromise China, like Brazil, adheres to the civil law system and economic interests rather than be dragged to court. has faced many of the same challenges that Brazil did in China’s change in attitude followed an onslaught of its engagement with the WTO DSM, such as the WTO litigation targeting sensitive sectors such as its emphasis on fact-finding in Panel hearings. Nevertheless, domestic automobile industry. The new approach, aside while private interest groups and industry play an from being more aggressive, made use of loopholes in important role in the DSM in Brazil, the US and the EU, the WTO DSM. More than half the claims brought by it is the Chinese government that dominates China’s China have involved anti-dumping measures on Chinese participation. Enterprises in China with a direct stake in goods. Even as they remain pending at various stages of the outcome of dispute settlement process have had little the DSM, China has countered these actions with influence over what happens at the global level. corresponding measures (in the EU-China Steel Fasteners cases). Over the last couple of decades, China has been in the process of enacting various civil laws in order to fill the In the midst of the global crisis and rising protectionist traditional void in its legal system. The most recent is a tendencies, as well as trade surpluses with some of its tort law code, which came into effect on July 01, 2010. major trading partners, China must expect to be heavily China has recognised the need for civil laws, and civil litigated against in the coming years. A study of the compensation over administrative penalties to enforce disputes and China’s increasing willingness to engage civil laws, in order to engage with the WTO system but in WTO litigation has demonstrated that it has slowly further action is required. but surely accepted the legal culture of the WTO regime. It must now embrace major structural and foreign policy In the years leading up to and following China’s accession changes in order to become a successful disputant and to the WTO, Chinese lawyers and researchers were urged protect its trade interests.

5 Annexure I : Tables – China as a WTO Disputant

China as a Respondent

Date of Request Complainant Dispute Stage Outcome for Consultations March 18, 2004 US Value-Added Tax on Integrated Circuits Mutually agreed solution Against China (Pre-Panel) March 30, 2006 European Measures Affecting Imports of Appellate Body Report Against China (EC, US, Canada) Communities/ Automobile Parts US/Canada February 02, 2007 US/Mexico Certain Measures Granting Refunds, August 31, 2007: Panel Compromise (US) Reductions or Exemptions from Taxes established; and Other Payments December 19, 2007: MoU between February 26, 2007 China and US; February 07, 2008: (Mexico) MoU between China and Mexico

April 10, 2007 US Measures Affecting the Protection and Panel Report Against China Enforcement of Intellectual Property Implementation: US & Rights China – agreed procedures under Art. 21, 22, DSU

April 10, 2007 US Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Appellate Body Report Against China Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products

March 03, 2008 European Measures Affecting Financial December 04, 2008: Informed of Compromise (EC, US) Communities/ Information Services and Foreign MoUs with EC, US and Canada US/Canada Financial Information Suppliers in June 20, 2008 China (Canada)

December 19, 2008 US/Mexico/ Grants, Loans and Other Incentives In consultations NA (US, Mexico) Guatemala January 19, 2009 (Guatemala)

June 23, 2009 US/EU/Mexico Measures Related to the Exportation of March 29, 2010: Panel composed NA (US, EU) Various Raw Materials August 21, 2009 (Mexico)

May 07, 2010 European Provisional Anti-Dumping Duties on May 07, 2010: EU requested NA Union Certain Iron and Steel Fasteners from consultations with China the European Union

China as a Complainant

Date of Request Respondent Dispute Stage Outcome for Consultations March 26, 2002 US Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports Appellate Body Report Against US of Certain Steel Products September 14, 2007 US Preliminary Anti-Dumping and In consultations NA Countervailing Duty Determinations on Coated Free Sheet Paper from China September 19, 2008 US Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing March 04, 2009: Panel NA Duties on Certain Products from China composed April 17, 2009 US Certain Measures Affecting Imports of September 23, 2009: Panel Poultry from China composed NA July 31,2009 European Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on December 09, 2009: Panel Communities Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China composed NA September 14, 2009 US Measures Affecting Imports of Certain March 12, 2010: Panel Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tyres composed NA from China February 04, 2010 European Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain May 18, 2010: Panel Union Footwear from China established, not composed NA

6 Endnotes

1 ‘China warns US piracy case will harm trade ties’, Alibaba.com, April 24, 2007, June 25, 2010. .

2 ‘US Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab Delivers Remarks at the George H.W. Bush U.S.-China Relations Conference’, Political Transcript Wire, October 24, 2007, June 17, 2010. .

3 World Trade Organisation (2003). Understanding the WTO, 3rd Edition.

4 Peng Shin-yi (2000). ‘The WTO Legalistic Approach and East Asia: From the Legal Culture Perspective,’ Asian-Pacific L. & Pol’y J. Vol. 1, p. 13.

5 ‘China threatens WTO claim over US export duties’, Financial Times, September 15, 2007, June 17, 2010. .

6 ‘EU-China trade in facts and figures,’ Europa, September 04, 2009, June 30, 2010. .

7 Jung, Youngjin (2002). ‘China’s Aggressive Legalism: China’s First Safeguard Measure,’ Journal of World Trade, Vol. 36, Issue 6, pp. 1037-1060, 1060.

8 The Request for Consultations from the Permanent Delegation of the European Commission read, ‘The US has already been challenged in four separate cases, and in each and every one, it has been condemned for WTO violations’. G/SG/ 40/Suppl.14, March 19, 2002.

9 Shapiro, Walter, ‘A political miscalculation stamped in steel at White House’, USAToday.com, November 11, 2003, June 24, 2010. .

10 Yan, Meng, ‘WTO opposes US measure’, China Daily, July 14, 2003, June 17, 2010. .

11 Gao Henry S. (2005). ‘Aggressive Legalism: The East Asian Experience and Lessons for China,’ China’s Participation in the WTO, ed. Gao Henry s. and Lewis Donald, Cameron May International Law and Policy, November 2005, p. 334.

12 ‘2010 Report on China’s Coke Industry’, Market Avenue, March 2010.

13 ‘China regrets US action on auto parts’, Reuters/China Daily, March 31, 2006, June 11, 2010. .

14 The Council of the European Union, ‘Council imposes anti-dumping duty on footwear imports from China and Vietnam,’ 13581/06 (Presse 275) Luxembourg, October 05, 2006. .

15 ‘China opposes EU’s extension of anti-dumping duties on footwear’, Xinhua, December 23, 2009, June 28, 2010. .

16 The Anti-dumping Regulations of the People’s Republic of China was promulgated by a decree of the State Council on November 26, 2001 and amended on March 31, 2004.

17 Tina Wang, ‘Where are China’s WTO Lawyers?’, Forbes.com April 27, 2009, June 24, 2010. .

© CUTS 2010. This Briefing Paper is produced by CUTS to inform, educate and provoke debate on issues of trade and development. Readers are encouraged to quote or reproduce material from this paper for their own use, but as the copyright holder, CUTS requests due acknowledgement and a copy of the publication. This Briefing Paper has been researched and written for CUTS Centre for , Economics & Environment, D-217, Bhaskar Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur 302 016, India, Ph: 91.141.228 2821, Fx: 91.141.228 2485, E-mail: [email protected], Web Site: www.cuts-international.org, www.cuts-citee.org.

7