Abstract
Purpose
– This paper aims to clarify the role that economic methodology and approach can help the World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body (AB)make better decisions. The author discusses two prominent disputes to demonstrate how economics could have resulted in improved AB decision. First, there is the question of whether countervailing duties can continue to be imposed subsequent to privatization of state-owned enterprises. Second, there is the frequently challenged zeroing issue.
Design/methodology/approach
– The author uses a case study method. He reviews the details of specific disputes and explains how standard microeconomic methods would have produced greater clarity in the determinations and hence promoted a more efficient dispute resolution process.
Findings
– In this commentary, however, the author addresses a frustration with the AB, namely, the reluctance of the AB to embrace economics in its decision-making. He argues that economic methods would produce superior determinations.
Originality/value
– This paper fulfils an identified need to document how economic methods would have led to better AB decisions.
Subject
Law,Political Science and International Relations,General Economics, Econometrics and Finance,Industrial relations
Reference5 articles.
1. Bown, C.P.
(2010), “The WTO secretariat and the role of economics in DSU panels and arbitrations”, in
Bown, C.P.
and
Pauwelyn, J.
(Eds),
The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement
, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 391-433 (chapter 19).
2. Bown, C.P.
and
Prusa, T.J.
(2011), “US antidumping: much ado about zeroing”, in
Martin, W.
and
Mattoo, A.
(Eds),
Unfinished Business? The WTO’s Doha Agenda
, The World Bank, Washington, DC, pp. 355-392.
3. Grossman, G.M.
and
Mavroidis, P.C.
(2003), “Here today, gone tomorrow? Privatization and the injury caused by non-recurring subsidies. a discussion of the appellate body report on united states – imposition of countervailing duties on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products originating in the United Kingdom”, in
Horn, H.
and
Mavroidis, P.C.
(Eds),
The WTO Case Law of 2001
, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
4. Grossman, G.M.
and
Mavroidis, P.C.
(2004), “United States – countervailing measures concerning certain products from the European communities: recurring misunderstanding of non-recurring subsides”, in
Horn, H.
and
Mavroidis, P.C.
(Eds),
The WTO Case Law of 2002
, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
5. Prusa, T.J.
and
Vermulst, E.
(2009), “A one-two punch on zeroing: US – Zeroing (EC) and US – Zeroing (Japan)”,
World Trade Review
, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 187-241.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献