This dispute concerns countervailing measures imposed by the European Union (EU) on imports of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) from Pakistan. Pakistan has a ‘duty drawback scheme’ by which it remits import duties on input materials consumed in the production of a product that is subsequently exported. The European Commission considered that all duties remitted to a Pakistani PET producer and exporter named Novatex constituted a countervailable subsidy contingent upon export performance. Also, Pakistan has a programme through which it provides government-financed loans to certain qualifying companies. Pre-approved banks are prohibited from charging interest rates above a specified level. The European Commission considered that the loan conferred to Novatex under this programme constituted a countervailable subsidy.

This paper discusses an important legal issue raised by the United States in its recent attempt to block the reappointment of an Appellate Body member. According to the US, in some of his decisions, the member has made overreaching findings that amount to obiter dicta. As obiter dictum is a unique concept in the Common Law system, the US argument may only stand if the concept may be found in the WTO legal system as well. With a careful analysis of the concept of dicta in Common Law and a close examination of the effects of past panel and Appellate Body decisions in WTO dispute settlement, the paper rejects the US argument by refuting each of the three premises of the US argument, i.e., the WTO legal system based on Common Law; WTO follows stare decisis; and the WTO has rules against dicta. In addition to original contributions on the nature of the WTO dispute settlement system in theory, the article also provides some practical advice on how the controversy may be resolved.

In October 2014, the European Union requested consultations with Russia under the WTO's dispute settlement system regarding Russia's tariff treatment of various agricultural and manufacturing products. Although most of the measures challenged by the EU were individual tariff lines, the final measure in its complaint was a ‘more general measure’ referred to as the systematic duty variation. A WTO Dispute Panel eventually ruled that the EU failed to establish the systematic nature of the duty treatment afforded by Russia to certain products. In this paper, we explore the Dispute Panel's ruling, as well as how claims of systematic non-compliance are treated in other legal settings. We conclude by exploring whether future WTO Panels should instead consider statistical evidence of systematic treatment to promote compliance.

Over the years, many developing countries have attempted to make policies utilizing the WTO–TRIPS flexibilities to address the public health needs of their populations. A common strategic trend in these policies has been the tendency to attempt to increase access to medicines through price reduction, achieved by weakening patent protection. This paper, using the policy that has recently been adopted by the East African Community (EAC) member states as a case study, demonstrates the inappropriateness of this strategy. The core argument is that weakening patent protection will hinder further research and invention, which are necessary to ensure the availability of medicines. For developing countries, especially those in Africa, such as the EAC member states, the problem is aggravated by the fact that pharmaceuticals, due to commercial considerations, have already ignored investing in developing medicines for diseases predominant in these countries, hence the need to strengthen rather than weaken, patent protection.

The dispute concerns tax incentives granted by the state of Washington in the United States (US) pursuant to the tax-related provisions of the Revised Code of Washington. Nine tax-related provisions incentives were adopted to attract the production of large civil aircraft in that state. The State of Washington adopted seven aerospace measures corresponding to the nine tax-related provisions. The aerospace measures fell into three general categories of measures: a reduced tax rate, tax credits, and tax exemptions, which included the following (i) reduced corporate tax rates for aircraft manufacturers and retailers (B&O aerospace rate); (ii) tax credits for property and leasehold excise taxes on computer manufacturing facilitates and aerospace product development; and (iii) exemptions of sales and use tax for certain computer hardware, software and peripherals and construction services and materials, and leasehold excise tax and leaseholder property tax. According to the European Union (EU), the measures at issue are prohibited under Article 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) because they are contingent on the use of domestic over imported goods. This contingency results from two siting provisions: the First Siting Provision and the Second Siting Provision, which are contained in Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5952 (ESSB 5952).

The dispute relates to anti-dumping duties imposed by Russia on certain light commercial vehicles (LCVs) from Germany and Italy. These anti-dumping duties were applied pursuant to Decision No. 113 of 14 May 2013 of the Board of the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC), including the relevant annexes, notices, and reports of the Department for Internal Market Defence of the EEC (DIMD).

The compliance Appellate Body decision marks the latest twist in the long-running EC–Fasteners dispute. The question before the AB is whether the European Union complied with earlier rulings on its anti-dumping procedures. Broadly, the AB found that the EU had not, generally ruling in favor of the People's Republic of China. In the process, the AB raised interesting questions about what it means to be a Non-Market Economy (NME) in the WTO. While NME status has traditionally led to large dumping margins, the AB approach in this case may lessen the consequences for China. Among other things, the case raises the interesting and important question of how pervasive the taint of NME status may be when calculating margins. By allowing for adjustments of certain costs, the AB seems to constrain the more draconian analogue country methodology of calculation.

In 2016, the US objected to the reappointment of a member of the WTO Appellate Body, ‘accusing’ him inter alia of having participated in a decision where the Appellate Body had indulged in unnecessary analysis in the nature of obiter dicta. Henry Gao has used the occasion to investigate, with a fresh approach, the very concept of obiter dicta in international jurisprudence.

In this paper, we examine the recent WTO dispute Colombia – Measures Relating to the Importation of Textiles, Apparel and Footwear. The dispute centers on the appropriate use of trade measures to target trade-related money laundering, the WTO consistency of such measures, and an ancillary question of appropriate time for remedies to be applied. The economics of the measures employed do not directly target the ostensible justification for the measures, while Colombia failed to convince the Panel and Appellate Body of key points related to the necessity of the measures taken. There has been success targeting trade-related money laundering following from cooperation of customs authorities and financial regulators to more directly target the agents involved. There may be a role for the WTO, in the form of steps taken to encourage such cooperation (as in Argentina – Measures Relating to Trade in Goods and Services). The basic lesson is that second best, blunt, and likely misdirected policies are not easily justified at the WTO, though more direct measures may be.

This dispute concerns the challenge by the United States to measures taken by China to comply with the rulings and recommendations of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in the original proceeding China–Broiler Products. Based on a redetermination issued by the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM), China continued to impose anti-dumping and countervailing duties on imports of broiler products from US producers (Keystone, Tyson, and Pilgrim's Pride). Overall, the compliance panel concluded that China failed to bring its measures into conformity with the Anti-Dumping Agreement (AD Agreement) and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement).

The dispute concerns an anti-dumping duty, imposed in 2011 by the European Union, on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia, and Malaysia. Fatty alcohols are mainly used in the production of detergents and surfactants. They are also components of cosmetics, foods, and as industrial solvents. With respect to Indonesia, the anti-dumping duties were imposed primarily on two investigated companies, Ecogreen and Musim Mas. After the initial application of the anti-dumping duty, the Commission revised the determination in the light of an intervening judgment of the European Court of Justice that had addressed an issue of significance to an issue raised during the fatty alcohols investigation. As a result of that revision, the Commission removed a cost adjustment for one of the companies (Ecogreen), but not the other company (Musim Mas). The measure ultimately expired in the fall of 2016, at the very end of the WTO panel proceedings.

This dispute relates to the compliance proceedings in which the panel and the Appellate Body found that that European Union (EU) and certain of the member States acted inconsistently with their obligations under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement). The types of measures at issue in the original panel proceedings include the Launch Aid/Member State Financing (LA/MSF) for, inter alia, the A300, A310, and A380; French and German government ‘equity infusions’ provided in connection with the corporate restructuring of Aérospatiale and Deutsche Airbus; certain infrastructure and related measures provided by the German and Spanish authorities; and research and technological development funding provided by the European Communities and certain member States. The EU replaced the terminated the A300 and A310 programmes with new LA/MSF programmes, including the A350XWB LA/MSF subsidies.

The dispute relates to anti-dumping measures imposed by the European Union (EU) on imports of palm oil from Indonesia. It relates to the same investigation that was at issue in EU–Biodiesel (Argentina). The panel and Appellate Body reports in that dispute were adopted in October 2016. Two of the panellists in the dispute involving Argentina served as panellists in the current dispute.

The dispute relates to anti-dumping measures imposed by the United States (US) on oil country tubular goods (OCTG) imported from the Republic of Korea (Korea). Korea challenged the ‘laws, regulations, administrative procedures and other measures’ through which the US maintains a ‘viability test’ in anti-dumping investigations, administrative reviews, and other aspects of anti-dumping proceedings ‘as such’ and ‘as applied’ in the underlying investigation in this dispute. Korea also challenged certain aspects of the final anti-dumping measure that was applied by the US on imports of Korean OCTG subsequent to a final determination of dumping by the US Department of Commerce (USDOC) in the underlying investigation. Moreover, Korea challenged certain conduct of the USDOC during the course of the investigation at issue. Finally, Korea challenged the USDOC's remand determination of 22 February 2016 that was issued while the current dispute was pending before the panel. This determination was taken by the USDOC subsequent to a review conducted by the US Court of International Trade (USCIT) on the final determination challenged by Korea in this dispute. The USCIT found aspects of the final determination to be inconsistent with US law and remanded that final determination to the USDOC to cure the relevant inconsistencies.

On 8 December 2016, an International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunal chaired by Professor Andreas Bucher, with co-arbitrators Professor Pedro J. Martinez-Fraga (Claimants' appointee) and Professor Campbell McLachlan QC (Respondent's appointee), issued its award in Urbaser and CAAB v. Argentina (Award). The dispute related to a Concession Contract granted to Aguas Del Gran Buenos Aires S.A. (AGBA), a company in which Claimants were shareholders, for the provision of water and sewerage services in the Province of Greater Buenos Aires (Province). Claimants alleged that they had faced numerous obstacles created by the Province's authorities, which precluded the efficient and profitable operation of their Concession. Respondent counterclaimed that Claimants had failed to make the necessary investment in the Concession, thereby violating their obligation under international law based on the human right to water.

On 21 July 2017, an International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunal (Tribunal) chaired by Judge Thomas Buergenthal, with co-arbitrators Henri C. Alvarez (Claimants’ appointee) and Kamal Hossain (Respondent's appointee), issued its award in Teinver SA and others v. Argentine Republic (Award). The Tribunal upheld, by a majority, several of Claimants’ claims, and ordered Argentina to pay US$320 million in compensation, as well as 20% of Claimants’ legal costs and expenses. On 22 November 2017, Argentina registered a request to have the Award annulled.

Indonesia challenged two measures of the United States' (US): first, the imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties (CVDs) on certain coated paper from Indonesia. In particular, Indonesia challenged certain aspects of the US States Department of Commerce (USDOC) final determination ‘as applied’ in its CVD investigation on certain coated paper from Indonesia, and the US International Trade Commission's (USCIT) final threat of injury determination regarding subsidized and dumped imports from Indonesia and China. Second, Indonesia challenged ‘as such’ Section 711(11)(B) of the US Tariff Act. In particular, Indonesia challenged the use of this provision in affirmative threat of injury determinations.