DOCSLIB.ORG

Dispute Settlement Dispute Settlement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dispute Settlement Dispute Settlement Dispute settlement Dispute settlement • WTO dispute settlement had a demanding year in 2013, with adjudicating bodies examining 28 disputes on issues from green energy production to the banning of seal products. • In 2013, the WTO received 20 “requests for consultations” – the first stage in the dispute settlement process – the third- highest number of requests filed in the last ten years. • The Dispute Settlement Body established 12 new panels in 2013 to adjudicate 14 cases. • Four panel reports and two Appellate Body reports were adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body in 2013. Dispute settlement World Trade Organization 80 www.wto.org/disputes Annual Report 2014 Dispute settlement Dispute settlement activity in 2013 82 Appellate Body 93 SETTLEMENT DISPUTE Background on dispute settlement WTO members bring disputes to the WTO if they think their rights under trade agreements are being infringed. Settling disputes is the responsibility of the Dispute Settlement Body. World Trade Organization Dispute settlement Annual Report 2014 www.wto.org/disputes 81 Dispute settlement Dispute settlement activity in 2013 It was a demanding year for WTO dispute settlement in 2013, with adjudicating bodies examining 28 disputes on issues from green energy production to the banning of seal products. The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), which met 13 times, received 20 requests for consultations, the first stage in the dispute settlement process. Developing countries launched nine of the requests, with Latin America particularly active. The rising workload poses challenges for the WTO Secretariat. On a positive note, the WTO’s Digital Dispute Settlement Registry moved into its testing phase. As well as participation by frequent dispute settlement The DSB authorized Antigua and Barbuda to impose trade participants such as the European Union, China, the United retaliation measures against the United States for not fully States and Japan, newer members such as Russia have been complying with the DSB’s recommendations and rulings in a active in initiating dispute settlement proceedings. Members with dispute over online gambling. It referred to arbitration a request less experience in dispute settlement such as Cuba, Namibia, by Indonesia to take trade retaliation measures against the Zambia and Zimbabwe participated in dispute settlement in United States in a dispute over flavoured cigarettes. Finally, an 2013 (see Table 3), either initiating disputes in the case of Cuba arbitration award was circulated establishing the reasonable or taking part in them as third parties in the case of the others. period of time for China to implement DSB rulings and recommendations in a dispute over countervailing and anti- An overview of dispute settlement activity dumping duties on certain electrical steel imports from the During 2013, the DSB received 20 “requests for consultations”, United States. which is the first stage in the WTO’s dispute settlement process. Although less than the record 27 in 2012, it is still the Information about the disputes, including the reports adopted by third-highest number of requests filed in the last ten years. In the DSB, can be found in Table 1. addition to these new matters, 28 active disputes were already proceeding through adjudication, whether before the Appellate Body, panels or in arbitration. The DSB established 12 new panels in 2013 to adjudicate 14 new matters. Where more than one complaint deals with the same matter, they may be Background on dispute settlement activity adjudicated by a single panel. The General Council convenes as the Dispute Settlement The DSB referred two requests for compliance panels back to Body (DSB) to deal with disputes between WTO members. the panels that had originally adjudicated the disputes. This is Such disputes may arise with respect to any agreement the usual approach in compliance proceedings. A compliance contained in the Final Act of the Uruguay Round that is subject to the Understanding on Rules and Procedures panel is established when there is disagreement between the Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU). The DSB has original parties as to whether the losing party has brought its authority to establish dispute settlement panels, refer matters measure into line with WTO rules following an adjudication to arbitration, adopt panel, Appellate Body and arbitration process. These cases were the Canadian and Mexican reports, maintain surveillance over the implementation of complaints against US labelling requirements for meat products recommendations and rulings contained in such reports, and and China’s complaint against EU anti-dumping measures on authorize suspension of concessions in the event of non- steel fasteners (see page 91). compliance with those recommendations and rulings. The DSB adopted four panel reports and two Appellate Body reports. Panels issued reports in disputes concerning Chinese anti-dumping duties on EU x-ray scanners, Chinese anti- dumping and countervailing measures on US broiler products, and Canada’s measures related to Ontario’s renewable energy sector in disputes brought by the European Union and Japan (see Table 1). The Appellate Body reports concerned the same disputes over Ontario’s renewable energy measures. A compliance panel report was circulated in a dispute brought by Mexico over US anti-dumping measures on stainless steel but it was not adopted by the DSB because the parties reached an agreement on how to resolve their dispute. Dispute settlement World Trade Organization 82 www.wto.org/disputes Annual Report 2014 Dispute settlement Table 1: Panel and Appellate Body reports circulated in 2013* Dispute Document Complainant(s) Respondent Third parties WTO agreements Date of symbol covered adoption by DSB China – X-Ray WT/DS425/R European Union China Chile, India, Japan, Anti-Dumping 24 April 2013 Equipment Norway, Thailand, Agreement United States Canada – WT/DS412/AB/R Japan Canada Australia, Brazil, Agreement on Subsidies 24 May 2013 Renewable China, El Salvador, and Countervailing WT/DS412/R Energy European Union, Measures (SCM) Honduras, India, Saudi Agreement on Trade Arabia, Korea, Mexico, Related Aspects of Norway, Chinese Investment Measures Taipei, United States (TRIMs) GATT 1994 DSU Canada – WT/DS426/ European Union Canada United States, Japan, SCM Agreement 24 May 2013 Feed In Tariff AB/R Australia, China, TRIMs Program Chinese Taipei, WT/DS426/R India, Saudi Arabia, GATT 1994 Brazil, Korea, Mexico, DSU Norway, Turkey, El SETTLEMENT DISPUTE Salvador China – Broiler WT/DS427/R United States China Chile, European SCM Agreement 25 September Products Union, Japan, Mexico, 2013 Anti-Dumping Norway, Saudi Arabia, Agreement Thailand EC – Seal WT/DS400/R Canada European Argentina, China, GATT 1994 [Panel report Products Union Colombia, Ecuador, under appeal] TBT Agreement Iceland, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Russia, United States EC – Seal WT/DS401/R Norway European Argentina, Canada, GATT 1994 [Panel report Products Union China, Colombia, under appeal] TBT Agreement Ecuador, Iceland, Japan, Mexico, Agreement on Namibia, Russia, Agriculture United States US – Stainless WT/DS344/RW Mexico United Brazil, China, the Final report not Unadopted Steel (Mexico) States European Union, circulated to WTO (mutually (Article 21.5 – Japan, Korea members (mutually agreed Mexico) agreed solution) solution) *Appellate Body reports are rows shaded in blue. Further information on these reports is provided in Table 4 on page 93. World Trade Organization Dispute settlement Annual Report 2014 www.wto.org/disputes 83 Dispute settlement Which WTO members were active in 2013? Figure 1: Requests for consultations Developing countries launched nine of the 20 new requests in 2013, by complainant for consultations filed in 2013 (see Figure 1). Latin Number of consultations in 2012, by complainant American members initiated five, with Argentina the most active from the region with two complaints. Cuba initiated its Argentina 2 first-ever dispute, a complaint against Australia’s measures China 1 on plain packaging for tobacco products. This brings to five Cuba 1 the number of complaints brought by WTO members against Denmark/ 1 Australia’s plain packaging requirements. A number of Asian Faroe Islands European Union 3 members were active, including Indonesia and Japan, each 2 submitting two requests for consultations. Russia, which Guatemala 1 acceded to the WTO in 2012, was active as a complainant, a Indonesia 2 respondent and as a third party. Japan 2 Table 2 shows requests for consultations made during 2013 Korea, Rep. of 1 and the status of those requests. It highlights the strong New Zealand 1 participation of developing countries in the system. Panama 1 Russian Table 2 shows the variety of WTO agreements raised Federation 1 in disputes initiated in 2013. All disputes initiated United States 3 included challenges under the General Agreement on 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994. Since 1995, 375 of the Number of consultations 474 requests for consultations have included a claim under this agreement. Disputes under the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement and Figure 2: Requests for consultations the Anti-Dumping (ADP) Agreement have also arisen in 2013, by respondent more frequently since 1995 than disputes under other Number of consultations in 2013, by respondent agreements. Figure 3 shows the number of times an agreement has been referred to in requests for Australia 2 consultations since 1995. Brazil 1 Subject matter of the disputes China 1 Table 2 shows that WTO members are litigating in many Colombia 1 different trade areas (see Figure 3). Current disputes European Union 1 4 include complaints concerning: measures imposed by India Colombia on the importation of textiles, clothing and 1 footwear; a recycling fee imposed by Russia on motor Indonesia 3 vehicles; and anti-dumping duties imposed by China on high Pakistan 1 performance seamless stainless steel tubes from Japan and Peru 1 Russian the European Union. 2 Federation A sharp increase in panels during 2013 Ukraine 1 Dispute settlement was very active in 2013, due in no small United States 2 part to last year’s record requests for consultations (see 0 87654321 Figures 1, 2 and 4).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Three Approaches to Fixing the World Trade Organization's Appellate
    Institute of International Economic Law Georgetown University Law Center 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 [email protected]; http://iielaw.org/ THREE APPROACHES TO FIXING THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION’S APPELLATE BODY: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY? By Jennifer Hillman, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center* The basic rule book for international trade consists of the legal texts agreed to by the countries that set up the World Trade Organization (WTO) along with specific provisions of its predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). At the heart of that rules-based system has been a dispute settlement process by which countries resolve any disputes they have about whether another country has violated those rules or otherwise negated the benefit of the bargain between countries. Now the very existence of that dispute settlement system is threatened by a decision of the Trump Administration to block the appointment of any new members to the dispute settlement system’s highest court, its Appellate Body. Under the WTO rules, the Appellate Body is supposed to be comprised of seven people who serve a four-year term and who may be reappointed once to a second four-year term.1 However, the Appellate Body is now * Jennifer Hillman is a Professor from Practice at Georgetown University in Washington, DC and a Distinguished Senior Fellow of its Institute of International Economic Law. She is a former member of the WTO Appellate Body and a former Ambassador and General Counsel in the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). She would like to thank her research assistant, Archana Subramanian, along with Yuxuan Chen and Ricardo Melendez- Ortiz from the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) for their invaluable assistance with this article.
    [Show full text]
  • China Trade Agreement of 2020
    \\jciprod01\productn\H\HNR\26-1\HNR102.txt unknown Seq: 1 17-FEB-21 15:12 A New and Controversial Approach to Dispute Resolution Under the U.S.- China Trade Agreement of 2020 Daniel C.K. Chow* The United States has hailed the 2020 U.S-China Economic and Trade Agreement (USCTA) as a breakthrough in suspending the trade war between the United States and China. Under the USCTA, China committed to purchase $200 billion of U.S. goods and services and to implement significant new protections for U.S. intellectual property rights. However, the true significance of the USCTA lies in its role as part of a larger U.S. scheme to usurp the role of the World Trade Or- ganization (WTO) in resolving international trade disputes. The USCTA is an ominous portent of the future of the WTO. The United States’ scheme has three parts: first, cripple the WTO dispute settlement process so that WTO obligations become unenforce- able; second, create a parallel dispute resolution mechanism in the USCTA to resolve USCTA and WTO disputes involving China that is under complete U.S. control; and third, induce China into violating its WTO obligations by granting the United States special privileges that can no longer be challenged by other WTO members due to the paralysis of the WTO dispute settlement system. Although proponents of the WTO have stated that the paralysis of the WTO dispute settlement system is a life or death dilemma, these proponents must realize that this is only the first step in a larger U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The TRIPS Agreement and WTO Dispute Settlement: Past, Present and Future
    The TRIPS Agreement and WTO Dispute Settlement: Past, Present and Future Peter Van den Bossche WTI Working Paper No. 02/2020 The TRIPS Agreement and WTO Dispute Settlement: Past, Present and Future Peter Van den Bossche1 Introduction In 2020, the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (‘TRIPS Agreement’) marked its 25th anniversary. There was, however, little reason for celebration. The COVID- 19 pandemic had plunged the world economy in an unprecedented crisis. In April 2020, the IMF predicted that global GDP would contract by as much as 3 per cent in 2020,2 and the WTO forecasted that the volume of world trade would decline in 2020 between 13 and 32 per cent depending on the how long the health crisis would last and how governments would respond to the economic impact of the crisis.3 Even the decline under the best-case ‘13 per cent’ scenario would still be the steepest decline on record.4 However, global trade and the multilateral trading system, of which the TRIPS Agreement is one of the pillars, was in crisis already before any of us had heard of the new corona virus or considered ‘social distancing’ a civil duty (rather than deviant behavior). Global trade in goods declined in 2019 by 3 per cent in value terms and global trade in commercial services grew by a paltry 2 per cent only.5 In its latest Report on Trade and Investment Barriers, the European Commission found that in 2019 the overall number of trade barriers kept increasing and noted that ‘protectionism has become ingrained in trade relations with many partners’.6 There are multiple causes for this development in international trade but the dramatic shift in the trade policy of the United States since 2017 has arguable been the most important among these causes.
    [Show full text]
  • Dispute Settlement Practice and Complaint Handling Procedures in ERRA Countries
    cgvdfagaf Dispute Settlement Practice and Complaint Handling Procedures in ERRA Countries Dispute Settlement Practice and Complaint Handling Procedures in ERRA Countries Benchmark Analysis Prepared by: Elza Bergmane PUC, Latvia Dilek Civak Erdas EMRA, Turkey July, 2016 May, 2016 BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: Dispute Settlement Practice and Complaint Handling Procedures in ERRA Countries Energy Regulators Regional Association II. Jánost Pál pápa tér 7., 1081 Budapest Tel.: +36 1 477 0456 ǀ Fax: +36 1 477 0455 E-mail: [email protected] ǀ Web: www.erranet.org BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: Dispute Settlement Practice and Complaint Handling Procedures in ERRA Countries Prepared by: Elza Bergmane Member of the ERRA Customers and Retail Markets Working Group; Senior Lawyer, Energy Division of Legal Department; Public Utilities Commission (PUC) of Latvia and Dilek Civak Erdas Member of the ERRA Customers and Retail Markets Working Group; Energy Expert, Energy Market Regulatory Authority (EMRA) of Turkey July, 2016 The Analysis was prepared based on information collected from ERRA Customers and Retail Markets Working Group Members in the period of June 2014 – June 2016. The following ERRA Members submitted their answers: Public Services Regulatory Commission, Armenia Regulatory Commission for Energy in Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FERK) Regulatory Commission for Energy of Republika Srpska (RERS), Bosnia and Herzegovina Estonian Competition Authority Georgian National Energy and Water Supply Regulatory Commission Hungarian Energy and Public Utility
    [Show full text]
  • The US-China Experience with the WTO Dispute Settlement System
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 64 Issue 1 Article 13 2013 Providing a Release Valve: The U.S.-China Experience with the WTO Dispute Settlement System Kennan J. Castel-Fodor Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Kennan J. Castel-Fodor, Providing a Release Valve: The U.S.-China Experience with the WTO Dispute Settlement System, 64 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 201 (2013) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol64/iss1/13 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Case Western Reserve Law Review·Volume 64·Issue 1·2013 — Note — Providing a Release Valve: The U.S.-China Experience with the WTO Dispute Settlement System Abstract Ever-expanding global trade relations have spawned highly contentious disputes between the United States and the People’s Republic of China, two of the world’s most powerful economic juggernauts. These trade frictions have sparked an increased utilization of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) dispute settlement system. Has the WTO become a forum for proxy trade battles to play out between the United States and China? Or does the increase in trade disputes portend a more serious deterioration of economic relations that could devolve into an outright trade war? This Note addresses this trend toward resorting to WTO dispute settlement through the lens of the legal, cultural, and social aspects of the Sino-American trade relationship.
    [Show full text]
  • Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization (WTO): an Overview
    Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization (WTO): An Overview Daniel T. Shedd Legislative Attorney Brandon J. Murrill Legislative Attorney Jane M. Smith Legislative Attorney November 26, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS20088 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization (WTO): An Overview Summary The World Trade Organization (WTO) Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) provides a means for WTO Members to resolve disputes arising under WTO agreements. WTO Members must first attempt to settle their dispute through consultations, but if these fail the Member initiating the dispute may request that a panel examine and report on its complaint. The DSU provides for Appellate Body (AB) review of panel reports, panels to determine if a defending Member has complied with an adverse WTO decision by the established deadline in a case, and possible retaliation if the defending Member has failed to do so. Automatic establishment of panels, adoption of panel and appellate reports, and authorization of a Member’s request to retaliate, along with deadlines and improved multilateral oversight of compliance, are aimed at producing a more expeditious and effective system than had existed under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). To date, 450 complaints have been filed under the DSU, with nearly one-half involving the United States as a complainant or defendant. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) represents the United States in WTO disputes. Use of the DSU has revealed procedural gaps, particularly in the compliance phase of a dispute.
    [Show full text]
  • Cosette D. Creamer & Zuzanna Godzimirska* the Transition From
    DELIBERATIVE ENGAGEMENT WITHIN THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION: A FUNCTIONAL SUBSTITUTE FOR AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATIONS Cosette D. Creamer & Zuzanna Godzimirska* ABSTRACT The transition from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) dispute settlement proceedings to the Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) represented a notable instance of judicialization within international economic governance. Since it began ruling on trade conflicts in 1995, the DSM has enjoyed significantly greater independence from direct government control than its GATT predecessors. It has also exercised a greater degree of interpretive autonomy than initially intended by WTO member governments (Members). This development largely stems from deadlock among Members and norms of consensus decision-making, which have thwarted use of one of the primary means of legislative response within the WTO: authoritative interpretations. Authoritative interpretations theoretically provide the WTO’s political bodies—the membership as a whole—with an opportunity to respond to interpretations or practices of its adjudicative bodies that are perceived to be at odds with governments’ intention, will, or preferences. Yet the current ineffective nature of authoritative interpretations creates a predicament not only for the WTO’s political organs. It also deprives the DSM of constructive normative guidance from its primary constituents: its Members. This article proposes a functional substitute for the mechanism of authoritative interpretations, namely increased input from Members (in the form of statements within meetings of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body) prior to adoption of the dispute settlement rulings. We argue that such an increase would better enable the DSM to consider the interpretive preferences of the WTO membership as a whole, thus enabling it to better fulfill its fiduciary duties and its responsibility of deliberative engagement with Members in particular.
    [Show full text]
  • Rebalancing TRIPS Molly Land University of Connecticut School of Law
    University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Faculty Articles and Papers School of Law 2012 Rebalancing TRIPS Molly Land University of Connecticut School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_papers Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, International Law Commons, and the International Trade Law Commons Recommended Citation Land, Molly, "Rebalancing TRIPS" (2012). Faculty Articles and Papers. 183. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_papers/183 +(,121/,1( Citation: 33 Mich. J. Int'l L. 433 2011-2012 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Mon Aug 15 17:05:58 2016 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: https://www.copyright.com/ccc/basicSearch.do? &operation=go&searchType=0 &lastSearch=simple&all=on&titleOrStdNo=1052-2867 REBALANCING TRIPS Molly Land* IN TRODU CTION ............................................................................................ 433 I. TRIPS O VERCOMPLIANCE ............................................................. 435 A . TRIPS Flexibilities................................................................. 435 B. Lack of Implementation.......................................................... 442 II. LINKING IP TO WTO DISPUTE RESOLUTION
    [Show full text]
  • Implementing Wto Rules Through Negotiations and Sanctions: the Role of Trade Policy Review Mechanism and Dispute Settlement System
    IMPLEMENTING WTO RULES THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS AND SANCTIONS: THE ROLE OF TRADE POLICY REVIEW MECHANISM AND DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM JULIEN CHAISSE & DEBASHIS CHAKRABORTY* TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. A BSTRA CT .................................................................................... 155 2. IN TRODUCTION ............................................................................ 155 3. ENFORCING WTO LAW THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS: THE TPR C O N TRIBUTIO N ............................................................................ 158 3.1. Ensuring the Transparency of National Trade Policies...... 159 3.2. Examining National Trade Policies.................................... 161 4. ENFORCING WTO LAW THROUGH SANCTIONS: THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM ............ 163 4.1. Efficiency of the Dispute Settlement Process...................... 164 4.2. Imposing Trade Sanctions as the Ultimate Tool to Ensure Proper Enforcem ent ............................................................ 166 5. CONVERGENCE OR DIVERGENCE: ASSESSING THE RELATION BETWEEN TPR AND DSM THROUGH THE C OUNTRY STUDIES ..................................................................... 170 5 .1 . B razil ................................................................................... 170 5.2. The E C ................................................................................ 172 5 .3 . In dia ................................................................................... 173 5 .4 . Japan ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Decision on Competence PCA Case Nº 2016-10
    Annex 9: Decision on Competence PCA Case Nº 2016-10 IN THE MATTER OF A CONCILIATION - before - A CONCILIATION COMMISSION CONSTITUTED UNDER ANNEX V TO THE 1982 UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA - between - THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF TIMOR-LESTE - and - THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA __________________________________________________________ DECISION ON AUSTRALIA’S OBJECTIONS TO COMPETENCE __________________________________________________________ CONCILIATION COMMISSION: H.E. Ambassador Peter Taksøe-Jensen (Chairman) Dr. Rosalie Balkin Judge Abdul G. Koroma Professor Donald McRae Judge Rüdiger Wolfrum REGISTRY: Permanent Court of Arbitration 19 September 2016 this page intentionally blank Conciliation between Timor-Leste and Australia Decision on Australia’s Objections to Competence REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF TIMOR-LESTE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA AGENT AGENT H.E. Hermenegildo Pereira Mr. John Reid Minister of State and of the Presidency of the First Assistant Secretary Council of Ministers Office of International Law Attorney-General’s Department DEPUTY AGENT CO-AGENT Ms. Elisabeth Exposto Ms. Katrina Cooper Chief Executive Officer Senior Legal Adviser Maritime Boundary Office Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES H.E. Kay Rala Xanana Gusmão Mr. Gary Quinlan AO Minister of Planning and Strategic Investment Deputy Secretary Chief Negotiator for Maritime Boundaries Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade H.E. Joaquim da Fonseca H.E. Brett Mason Ambassador to the Court of St. James Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands H.E. Abel Guterres COUNSEL AND ADVOCATES Ambassador to the Commonwealth of Australia Mr. Justin Gleeson SC H.E. Milena Pires Solicitor General of Australia Ambassador to the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations Sir Daniel Bethlehem KCMG QC 20 Essex Street Chambers COUNSEL AND ADVOCATES Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • The U.S.-EU Beef Hormone Dispute
    The U.S.-EU Beef Hormone Dispute Renée Johnson Specialist in Agricultural Policy January 14, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R40449 The U.S.-EU Beef Hormone Dispute Summary The United States and the European Union (EU) have engaged in a long-standing and acrimonious trade dispute over the EU’s decision to ban hormone-treated meat. Despite an ongoing series of dispute settlement proceedings and decisions by the World Trade Organization (WTO), there is continued disagreement between the United States and the EU on a range of legal and procedural issues, as well as the scientific evidence and consensus concerning the safety of hormone-treated beef. To date, the EU continues to ban imports of hormone-treated meat and restricts most meat exports to the European Union to a limited quantity of beef imports that are certified as produced without the use of hormones. Starting in 1981, the EU adopted restrictions on livestock production limiting the use of natural hormones to therapeutic purposes, banning the use of synthetic hormones, and prohibiting imports of animals and meat from animals that have been administered the hormones. In 1989, the EU fully implemented its ban on imports of meat and meat products from animals treated with growth promotants. Initially the ban covered six growth promotants that are approved for use and administered in the United States. The EU amended its ban in 2003, permanently banning one hormone—estradiol-17β—while provisionally banning the use of the five other hormones. The United States has suspended trade concessions with the European Union by imposing higher import tariffs on EU products.
    [Show full text]
  • Background Information on the WTO
    Background Information On the WTO Institutional Issues Membership of the WTO. .................................................................................1 WTO Organizational Structure .............................................................................4 Plurilateral Agreements and Membership .....................................................................5 WTO Accession Application and Status ......................................................................6 2001 WTO Budget Contributions ...........................................................................9 2001 Budget for the WTO Secretariat .......................................................................12 WTO Secretariat Personnel Statistics .......................................................................14 Dispute Settlement Indicative List of Governmental and Non-Governmental Panelists .................................................16 Appellate Body Membership .............................................................................29 Rules of Conduct for the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes .............................................................32 The WTO Work Program and Selected Issues May 1998 Declaration on Global Electronic Commerce .........................................................40 WTO Subsidy Notifications Reviewed in 2000 ................................................................41 Regional Trade Agreements Notified to the WTO ..............................................................42
    [Show full text]