Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-n6p7q Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-24T13:10:09.104Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products (WT/DS259; WT/DS252; WT/DS248; WT/DS249; WT/DS251; WT/DS258; WT/DS254; WT/DS253: DSR 2003:VII, 3117)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2015

Gene M. Grossman
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Alan O. Sykes
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
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.

Since the inception of the WTO, safeguard measures have regularly been the subject of dispute settlement proceedings. The latest in this chain of disputes concerns the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the United States on a wide range of steel products in 2002.

The safeguards investigation of steel imports was initiated under the US law by the US International Trade Commission (USITC) at the request of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in June, 2001. The request covered four broad categories of steel products, which were divided into 33 categories by the USITC for purposes of data collection. Ultimately, the USITC defined 27 separate “industries” producing steel products within the scope of the investigation. For each of these industries, the USITC proceeded to determine whether imports had increased, and if so, whether increased imports were a substantial cause of serious injury or threat of injury. This analysis resulted in negative determinations for 15 industries, affirmative determinations for eight industries, and “divided” determinations (a 3–3 vote) for four industries.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

References

K, Bagwell. and R. W, Staiger. (1990). A Theory of Managed Trade, American Economic Review, 80: 779795.Google Scholar
K, Bagwell. and R. W, Staiger. (2002). The Economics of the World Trading System (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press).Google Scholar
G. M, Grossman. (1986). Imports as a Cause of Injury: The Case of the US Steel Industry, Journal of International Economics, 20: 201222Google Scholar
G. M, Grossman. and P. C, Mavroidis. (2005). United States — Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea. In Horn, H. and Mavroidis, P. C. (eds.), The WTO Case Law of 2002. American Law Institute Reporters Series (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
H, Horn. and P. C, Mavroidis. (2003). United States — Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia: What Should be Required of a Safeguard Investigation?. In Horn, H. and Mavroidis, P. C. (eds.), The WTO Case Law of 2001. American Law Institute Reporters Series (Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
K, Kelly. (1988). The Analysis of Causality in Escape Clause Cases, Journal of Industrial Economics, 37: 187207.Google Scholar
D, Irwin. (2003). Causing Problems? The WTO Review of Causation and Injury Attribution in US Section 201 Cases, World Trade Review, 2: 297325.Google Scholar
E, McGovern. (1986). International Trade Regulation, 2nd edn. (London: Gobefield).Google Scholar
J, Pauwelyn. (2004). The Puzzle of WTO Safeguards and Regional Trade Agreements, Journal ofInternational Economic Law, 7: 109142Google Scholar
A. O., Sykes (1991). Protectionism as a ‘Safeguard’: A Positive Analysis of the GATT ‘Escape Clause’ with Normative Speculations, University of Chicago Law Review, 58: 255305.Google Scholar
A. O, Sykes. (2003). The Safeguards Mess: A Critique of Appellate Body Jurisprudence, World Trade Review, 2: 261295.Google Scholar
A. O, Sykes. (2004). The Persistent Puzzles of Safeguards: Lessons from the Steel Dispute, Journal of International Economic Law, 7: 523564.Google Scholar