Revisiting procedure and precedent in the WTO : an analysis of US - countervailing and anti-dumping measures (China) /

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Author / Creator:	Beshkar, Mostafa, author.
Imprint:	[Chicago, Illinois] : Law School, University of Chicago, 2015.
Description:	1 online resource (28 pages)
Language:	English
Series:	Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics working paper ; no. 728 (2d series) Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics working paper ; no. 728.
Subject:	World Trade Organization. -- Appellate Body. World Trade Organization. -- Appellate Body. Antidumping duties -- Law and legislation -- United States. Dumping (International trade) -- Law and legislation -- United States. Dumping (International trade) -- Law and legislation -- China. Stare decisis. Antidumping duties -- Law and legislation. Dumping (International trade) -- Law and legislation. Stare decisis. China. United States.
Format:	E-Resource Book
URL for this record:	http://pi.lib.uchicago.edu/1001/cat/bib/10364584

Hidden Bibliographic Details
Other authors / contributors:	Chilton, Adam S., author.
Notes:	"September 1, 2015." Includes bibliographical references. Title from online title page (viewed September 30, 2015).
Summary:	"After not applying countervailing duty (CVD) law against non-market economies (NMEs) for two decades, the United State opened a CVD investigation against China in 2006. After extensive litigation, a U.S. appeals court ruled that it was illegal to apply CVD law to NMEs. While that ruling was being appealed, the U.S. Congress passed legislation stipulating that the application of CVD law to NMEs starting in 2006 was legal. China challenged this legislation at the WTO. The dispute resulted in a ruling that left open the possibility that the legislation violated the GATT, as well as a finding that the United States must investigate its application of countervailing and antidumping duties against China. This dispute has implications for a number of current WTO debates including: whether Appellate Body rulings create binding precedent, whether the Appellate Body should have authority to remand cases, and what information should be required in panel requests."

Similar Items