Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-2h6rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-17T09:18:13.317Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EC – Bed: Linen European Communities – Anti-dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2015

Merit E. Janow  and
Robert W. Staiger
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

As comprehensively argued elsewhere in this volume,1 the WTO's antidumping provisions reflect political compromises that mask an underlying lack of consensus on the value and purpose of an antidumping regime at the national level. This is an old story that has been long argued in academic and policy circles. What is noteworthy recently is the significant increase in the use of trade remedies, especially by developing economies. As a result, while the post-Uruguay Round period is generally marked by greater economic openness resulting from various forms of trade liberalization, the use of trade remedies is no longer primarily the province of OECD economies. Indeed, the introduction and use of trade remedies is proliferating around the world.2

Type
Research Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 2 , Special Issue S1: WTO Case Law of 2001 , 2003 , pp. 115 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2003

References

Bagwell, Kyle and Staiger, Robert W.. 2002. The Economics of the World Trading System. Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bagwell, Kyle and Staiger, Robert W.. Forthcoming. Multilateral trade negotiations, bilateral opportunism, and the rules of GATT/WTO. Journal of International Economics.Google Scholar
Ethier, Wilfred. J. 2002. Political externalities, non-discrimination, and a multilateral world. PIER Working Paper no. 02–030, September.Google Scholar
Horlick, Gary N. and Clark, Peggy A.. 1997. Standards for Panels Reviewing Antidumping Determinations under the GATT and WTO, in Petersham, E., ed., International Trade Law and the GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System, Dordrecht: Kluwer, at p. 313.Google Scholar
Horn, Henrik and Mavroidis, Petros. 2001. Economic and legal aspects of the Most-Favored Nation clause. European Journal of Political Economy 17, 233–79.Google Scholar
Jackson, John H. 1969. World Trade and the Law of GATT. Bobbs Meredith, pp. 401–24.Google Scholar
McNellis, Natalie. 2002. What obligations are created by WTO Dispute Settlement Reports? World Trade Forum, August.Google Scholar
Prusa, Thomas A. 2001. On the spread of antidumping. Canadian Journal of Economics, 34: 591–611.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Paul and Vermylen, Robert T. C.. 2000. Review of key substantive agreements: Panel IIE: Antidumping Agreement and Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. 31 Law and Policy International Business:871.Google Scholar
Shin, Hyun Ja. 1998. Possible instances of predatory pricing in recent antidumping cases, in Lawrence, Robert Z., ed., Brookings Trade Forum, pp. 81–98.Google Scholar
Staiger, Robert W. and Wolak, Frank A.. 1994. Measuring industry-specific protection. Brookings papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics, pp. 51–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, Terrence. 1993. The GATT Uruguay Round: a Negotiating History, Dordrecht: Kluwer, vol. 2, p. 1.Google Scholar
Vermulst, E. and Graafsma, . 2001. WTO dispute settlement with respect to trade contingency measures. Journal of World Trade 35 (2): 209–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar