Korea in the GATT/WTO dispute settlement system: Legal battle for economic development

Journal of International Economic Law

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 597-653

  Ahn, Dukgeun ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0344082740     PISSN: 13693034     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jiel/6.3.597     Document Type: Review

References (168)

1. See generally Il Sakong, Korea in the World Economy (Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, 1993).
2. Professor Robert Lucas, 1995 Nobel laureate in economics, wrote that 'simply advising a society to "follow the Korean model" is a little like advising an aspiring basketball player to "follow the Michael Jordan model"'. Roben E. Lucas, Jr, 'Making a Miracle', 61 Econometrica 251 (1993), at 252.
3. Professor Robert Lucas, 1995 Nobel laureate in economics, wrote that 'simply advising a society to "follow the Korean model" is a little like advising an aspiring basketball player to "follow the Michael Jordan model"'. Roben E. Lucas, Jr, 'Making a Miracle', 61 Econometrica 251 (1993), at 252.
4. For example, a report by the Korea International Trade Association (KITA) estimates that the contribution of merchandise export to total economic growth in 2001 amounted to 53.6%. However, this significant ratio was partly due to the substantial reduction of the total growth rate, that is estimated to have been 2.8% in 2001 while it was 8.8% in 2000. The economic growth attributed to the merchandise export is estimated to be 3.5% in 2000 and 1.5% in 2001. Korea International Trade Association, 'Effect of Exports on the National Economy in 2001' (Feb. 2002, in Korean).
5. During the 1980s, at least 171 trade remedy measures against Korean exports were reported. See below Figure 2 in Section I.C. See generally N. Han et al., Cases of Trade Disputes of the Korean Industries (Seoul: POSRI, 1999, in Korean) 37.
6. GATT, Basic Instruments and Selected Documents (hereinafter 'BISD'), Vol. II (1952) 33-34. At that meeting, Austria, Peru, Philippines, and Turkey also finished the accession negotiation, While Austria, Peru, and Turkey formally became contracting parties in 1951, the Philippines formally joined the GATT on 27 December 1979.
7. Tae-Hyuk Hahm, 'Reflections on the GATT Accession Negotiations', Diplomatic Negotiation Case 94-1 (1994, in Korean), at 5.
8. The Protocol Amending the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to Introduce a Part IV on Trade and Development, which was adopted on 8 February 1965, entered into force on 27 June 1966. WTO, Analytical Index: Guide to GATT Law and Practice (Geneva, 1995) 1040.
9. Robert E. Hudec, Developing Countries in the GATT Legal System (Trade Policy Research Center, 1987) 59-60.
10. Ibid, at 65.
11. Robert E. Hudec, The GATT Legal System and World Trade Diplomacy (2nd edn, Butterworth Legal Publishers, 1990) 235-50.
12. The accession to the GATT was also substantially increased in the early 1990s during which the Uruguay Round negotiation had been conducted. See generally WTO, n 7, at 1136.
13. The Working Party for Korea's accession included 14 contracting parties. Hahm, above n 6, 23
14. GATT, 'Korea-Accession under Article XXXIII: Decision of 2 March 1967', BISD, No 15 (1968) 60.
15. GATT, above n 13, at 106.
16. GATT, above n 13, at 44.
17. GATT, L/2783 (1967).
18. GATT, L/2783 (1967).
19. GATT, IV2874 (1967)
20. GATT, L/2783 (1967).
21. GATT, L/3580 (1971). See also WTO, above n 7, at 1034-1036. On the other hand, it is noted that 50 contracting parties invoked Article XXXV in respect of Japan at its accession in 1955. Ibid.
22. GATT, L/3580 (1971). See also WTO, above n 7, at 1034-1036. On the other hand, it is noted that 50 contracting parties invoked Article XXXV in respect of Japan at its accession in 1955. Ibid.
23. Chulsu Kim, 'Korea in the Multilateral Trading System: From Obscurity to Prominence', in The Kluwer Companion to the WTO Agreement (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, forthcoming).
24. The Agreement on Interpretation and Application of Articles VI, XVI, and XXIII. In Korea, it was signed on 10 June 1980 and entered into force on 10 July 1980 as Treaty No 709. See Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Compilation of Multilateral Treaties, Vol 5 (in Korean).
25. The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. In Korea, it was signed on 3 September 1980 and entered into force on 2 October 1980 as Treaty No 715. Ibid.
26. The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. In Korea, it was signed on 3 September 1980 and entered into force on 2 October 1980 as Treaty No 715. Ibid.
27. The Agreement on Implementation of Article VII. The Customs Valuation Code entered into force on 1 January 1981 while the other three Codes entered into force on 1 January 1980. GATT, BISD, No 28 (1982) 40. In Korea, it was entered into force on 6 January 1981 as Treaty No 729. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, above n 22.
28. The Agreement on Implementation of Article VI. Korea accepted the Anti-Dumping Code on 24 February 1986 and the Code entered into force for Korea on 26 March 1986 as Treaty No 877. GATT, BISD, No 33 (1987) 207. See also Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Compilation of Multilateral Treaties, Vol 8 (in Korean).
29. WTO, Agreement on Government Procurement, Article XXIV:3. Hong Kong also had one more year for implementation to apply from 1 January 1997.
30. For the GATT panel reports, see generally Pierre Pescatore et al., Handbook of WTO/GATT Dispute Settlement (looseleaf). On-line access to the GATT panel reports is available at 〈http://www.worldtradelaw.net/reports/gattpanels〉 (visited 25 March 2003) and 〈http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/gt47ds_e.htm〉1 (visited 25 March 2003).
31. GATT, BISD, No 36 (1990) 202, 234, 268, adopted 7 November 1989.
32. GATT, BISD, No 40 (1995) 205, adopted 27 April 1993.
33. GATT, C/M/124 (1978).
34. GATT, C/M/134 (1979). See also Robert E. Hudec, Enforcing International Trade Law: The Evolution of the Modem GATT Legal System (Butterworth Legal Publishers, 1993) 283, 471.
35. GATT, BISD, No 36 (1990) 345, adopted 7 November 1989.
36. The section 301 investigation was terminated on 14 August 1986 when the US government concluded an agreement with Korea that would dramatically improve protection of intellectual property rights. US Fed. Reg. 29445, 14 August 1986.
37. GATT, BISD, No 37 (1991) 132, adopted 16 May 1990.
38. GATT, BISD, No 20 (1974) 237, adopted 5 February 1973.
39. GATT, BISD, No 27 (1981) 69, adopted 10 November 1980.
40. GATT, BISD, No 28 (1982) 90, adopted 11 June 1981.
41. The Korean government consulted with the GATT Secretariat prior to the accession application and was assured that, under Article XVIII:B, it might maintain the existing import restraints for even more than a decade. Hahm, above n 6, 10.
42. The fluctuation in cow prices was indeed enormous during the early 1980s in Korea. The price for a cow was about $900 in 1981, $1,600 in 1983 and $1,000 in 1985. The price for a calf fluctuated even more substantially: about $180 in 1981, $900 in 1983 and $380 in 1985. Nevertheless, the domestic beef price remained relatively stable, showing about 15% change during 1981-1985. Hu and Lee, 'Economic Assessment of Beef Industry and Policy Development', 8 Rural Economy 9 (1985, in Korean), at 10.
43. USTR, Section 301 Table of Cases, Beef (301_65) 〈http://www.ustr.gov/html/act301.htm〉.
44. GATT, above n 28.
45. Interview with Young-Rae Lee, President of Korea 4-H (then Director General of Ministry of Agriculture, Forest and Fishery) (13 Aug. 2002). This strategy turned out to be burdensome in its procedural aspect, by requiring the duplicative oral hearings with three parties. The only other GATT cases in which separate panels were established basically on the same matter for different complainants are the cases concerning 'Income Tax Practices' maintained by France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. GATT, BISD, No 23 (1977) 114, 127, 137.
46. A European lawyer was allowed to attend a sitting of an oral hearing without a right to make a statement. The Korean government requested that a meeting be suspended whenever it needed to consult with the foreign legal counsel. Interview with Young-Rae Lee, President of Korea 4-H (then Director-General of Ministry of Agriculture, Forest and Fishery) (13 Aug. 2002). Under the WTO system, the participation of a private counsel became a well-established matter of law. See generally M. Bronckers and John Jackson, 'Editorial Comment: Outside Counsel in WTO Dispute Processes', 2 JIEL 155 (1999).
47. The case raised an important issue of a proper jurisdictional dichotomy between panel and committees. For more detailed discussion on the institutional balance, see Frieder Roessler, 'The Institutional Balance between the Judicial and the Political Organs of the WTO', in Marco Bronckers and Reinhard Quick: New Directions in International Economic Law - Essays in Honour of John H. Jackson (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000) 325. See also Dukgeun Ahn, 'Linkages between International Financial and Trade Institutions - IMF, World Bank and WTO', 34(4) Journal of World Trade 1 (2000), at 16-23.
48. The case raised an important issue of a proper jurisdictional dichotomy between panel and committees. For more detailed discussion on the institutional balance, see Frieder Roessler, 'The Institutional Balance between the Judicial and the Political Organs of the WTO', in Marco Bronckers and Reinhard Quick: New Directions in International Economic Law - Essays in Honour of John H. Jackson (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000) 325. See also Dukgeun Ahn, 'Linkages between International Financial and Trade Institutions - IMF, World Bank and WTO', 34(4) Journal of World Trade 1 (2000), at 16-23.
49. US Fed. Reg. 40769, 28 September 1989.
50. GATT, C/M/237, dated 28 November 1989, at 19.
51. GATT, BOP/R/183/Add.1, dated 27 October 1989, at 2. Since then, Korea has been perceived as having 'graduated' from Article XVIILB. Despite the persistent trade deficit during the most of 1990s, Korea never reinvoked Article XVIII:B. In fact, Korea was the first developing country to dismantle the BOP exception cover in the GATT. Subsequently, there have been many gradual termination of the BOP exceptions in GATT/WTO history. For example, 11 GATT contracting parties disinvoked the BOP exceptions under Articles XII or XVIII:B since 1979. See WTO, above n 7, 395. After the WTO was established, 11 WTO Members disinvoked the BOP exceptions. Only a handful of WTO Members, such as Bangladesh and Pakistan, are still invoking such exceptions. See generally WTO, WT/BOP/R/19, 37, 44, 47, 55.
52. US Fed. Reg. 20376, 26 April 1990.
53. Kim, above n 21, 8.
54. The KTC was established pursuant to Article 37 of the Foreign Trade Act in 1987. The KTC was originally composed of one chairman (part-time member) and four Commissioners (only one full-time member). Currently) the KTC has one chairman and seven Commissioners with one full-time member.
55. This case was the fourth anti-dumping case for the KTC. But, it was in this case that the KTC began a formal investigation based on the pertinent regulations and made a positive determination to impose anti-dumping duties. See generally Korea Trade Commission, A History of 10 Years for the KTC (1997, in Korean) 280.
56. The authority to make a dumping margin determination was transferred to the KTC in 1996 by the revision of the 'Regulations for Implementation of the Customs Duties Act'. See President Order No 14871 (dated 30 December 1995). Since then, the KTC has maintained the authority to make determinations on both dumping margin and injury.
57. GATT, ADP/M/40, para 181.
58. GATT, BISD, No 40 (1995) 198.
59. GATT, ADP/M/40, para 185.
60. Interview with Wan-soon Kim, Investment Ombudsman, Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency (then Chairman of the KTC) (14 Aug. 2002).
61. Yuji Iwasawa, 'WTO Dispute Settlement and Japan', in Bronckers and Quick, above n 44, at 474.
62. For the Japanese experience of the GATT dispute settlement, see generally Saadia M. Pekkanen, 'Aggressive Legalism: The Rules of the WTO and Japan's Emerging Trade Strategy', 24 World Economy 707 (2001).
63. Han et al., above n 4, 37.
64. These cases include: Thrown Silk Agreement with Japan (301_12), Insurance (301_20), NonRubber Footwear Import Restrictions (301_37), Steel Wire Rope Subsidies and Trademark Infringement (301_39), Insurance (301_51), Intellectual Property Rights (301_52), Cigarettes (301_64), Beef (301_65), Wine (301_67), Agricultural Market Access Restrictions (301_95). After the WTO was established in 1995, one more Section 301 case was initiated against Korea regarding Barriers to Auto Imports (301_115) in October 1997. See USTR, Section 301 Table of Cases: Initiated Cases 〈http://www.ustr.gov/html/act301.htm〉 (visited 9 April 2003).
65. Japan's less aggressive attitude toward formal trade dispute settlement is also explained by permanent trade surplus. See Hiroko Yamane, 'The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism and Japanese Traders', 1 JIEL 683 (1998), at 689.
66. For detailed discussion on the WTO dispute settlement system, see generally John H. Jackson, The World Trade Organization: Constitution and Jurisprudence (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1998); David Palmeter and Petros C. Mavroidis, Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999); E.-U. Petersmann, The GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System: International Law, International Organizations and Dispute Settlement (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1997); 'Special Issue: WTO Dispute Settlement System', 1(2) JIEL (1998); Jeff Waincymer, WTO Litigation: Procedural Aspects of Formal Dispute Settlement (London: Cameron May, 2002).
67. For detailed discussion on the WTO dispute settlement system, see generally John H. Jackson, The World Trade Organization: Constitution and Jurisprudence (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1998); David Palmeter and Petros C. Mavroidis, Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999); E.-U. Petersmann, The GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System: International Law, International Organizations and Dispute Settlement (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1997); 'Special Issue: WTO Dispute Settlement System', 1(2) JIEL (1998); Jeff Waincymer, WTO Litigation: Procedural Aspects of Formal Dispute Settlement (London: Cameron May, 2002).
68. For detailed discussion on the WTO dispute settlement system, see generally John H. Jackson, The World Trade Organization: Constitution and Jurisprudence (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1998); David Palmeter and Petros C. Mavroidis, Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999); E.-U. Petersmann, The GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System: International Law, International Organizations and Dispute Settlement (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1997); 'Special Issue: WTO Dispute Settlement System', 1(2) JIEL (1998); Jeff Waincymer, WTO Litigation: Procedural Aspects of Formal Dispute Settlement (London: Cameron May, 2002).
69. For detailed discussion on the WTO dispute settlement system, see generally John H. Jackson, The World Trade Organization: Constitution and Jurisprudence (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1998); David Palmeter and Petros C. Mavroidis, Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999); E.-U. Petersmann, The GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System: International Law, International Organizations and Dispute Settlement (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1997); 'Special Issue: WTO Dispute Settlement System', 1(2) JIEL (1998); Jeff Waincymer, WTO Litigation: Procedural Aspects of Formal Dispute Settlement (London: Cameron May, 2002).
70. For detailed discussion on the WTO dispute settlement system, see generally John H. Jackson, The World Trade Organization: Constitution and Jurisprudence (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1998); David Palmeter and Petros C. Mavroidis, Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999); E.-U. Petersmann, The GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System: International Law, International Organizations and Dispute Settlement (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1997); 'Special Issue: WTO Dispute Settlement System', 1(2) JIEL (1998); Jeff Waincymer, WTO Litigation: Procedural Aspects of Formal Dispute Settlement (London: Cameron May, 2002).
71. WTO, WT/DS/OV/12, dated 7 April 2003, ii. See also Kara Leitner and Simon Lester, 'WTO Dispute Settlement 1995-2002: A Statistical Analysis', 6 JIEL 251 (2003).
72. The second consultation request by the United States encompassed all amendments, revisions, and new measures adopted by the Korean government after the first consultation request. WTO, WT/DS41/1, dated 31 May 1996.
73. WTO, WT/DS5/5, dated 31 July 1995.
74. WTO, WT/DS20/6, dated 6 May 1996.
75. WTO, WT/DS40/2, dated 29 October 1997. Korea and the European Communities signed the 'Agreement on Telecommunications Procurement between the' Republic of Korea and the European Community' on 29 October 1997 and the Agreement entered into force on 1 November 1997. Subsequently, Korea entered into a similar bilateral agreement for telecommunications equipment procurement with Canada. See also Han-young Lie and Dukgeun Ahn, 'Legal Issues of Privatization in Government Procurement Agreements: Experience of Korea from Bilateral and WTO Agreements', 9(2) International Trade Law & Regulation 54 (2003).
76. For example, the Korean government tried to include antitrust law experts regardless of their nationality as panelists, but failed due to the objection by the complainants. Hyun Chong Kim, 'The WTO Dispute Settlement Process: A Primer', 2 JIEL 457 (1999), at 465-66. Except for this case, the Korean government as a respondent did not resort to the Director-General for the panel selection.
77. WTO, WT/DS75/16, WT/DS84/14, dated 4 June 1999.
78. 70 WTO, WT/DS75/18, WT/DS84/16, dated 17 January 2000.
79. See generally Korea Institute of Public Finance, Monthly Public Finance Forum (September 1999, in Korean) 82-102.
80. National Tax Service, Statistical Yearbook of National Tax 2001 (2001). The dollar amount was calculated based on S1 = W1,300.
81. Korea Institute of Public Finance, Monthly Public Finance Forum (September 2001, in Korean) 114.
82. See also above, n 43, and the accompanying text.
83. WTO Appellate Body Report, European Communities - Regimes for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/AB/R, adopted 25 September 1997, paras 10-12.
84. WTO Panel Report, Indonesia - Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry, WT/DS54, DS55, DS59, DS64/R, adopted 23 July 1998, para 14.1.
85. Panel Report, Korea - Soju, WT/DS75, DS84/R, adopted 17 February 1999, para 10.31.
86. The first complaint brought under the Agreement on Safeguards was US - Safeguard Measure against Imports of Com Brooms. WTO, WT/DS78/1, dated 1 May 1997. This case was resolved without litigation although it remained technically pending. The actual panel decision concerning safeguard measures in the WTO system was issued for the first time in Korea - Dairy Safeguards. WTO, WT/DS98/R, adopted 12 January 2000.
87. The first complaint brought under the Agreement on Safeguards was US - Safeguard Measure against Imports of Com Brooms. WTO, WT/DS78/1, dated 1 May 1997. This case was resolved without litigation although it remained technically pending. The actual panel decision concerning safeguard measures in the WTO system was issued for the first time in Korea - Dairy Safeguards. WTO, WT/DS98/R, adopted 12 January 2000.
88. WTO, G/SG/N/10/KOR/1, dated 27 January 1997 and G/SG/N/10/KOR/l/Supp 1, dated 1 April 1997.
89. On the other hand, the KTC has never even initiated a countervailing investigation to date. See Korea Trade Commission, above n 51, 280-99.
90. I b i d.
91. Korea Trade Commission, Summary Report of Trade Remedy Action (February 2003, in Korean) 1.
92. Act on Investigation of Unfair Trade Practice and Trade Remedy Measures, Law 6417; Implementing Regulation, Presidential Order No 17222.
93. WTO, WT/DS121/AB/R, adopted 12 January 2000. See also WTO, WT/DSB/M/75, dated 7 March 2000, at 2.
94. See below n 147 and the accompanying text.
95. WTO, WT/DS161, DS169/12, dated 24 April 2001.
96. Ministry of Agriculture Notification 2000-82.
97. Ministry of Agriculture Notification 2001-54.
98. WTO, WT/DSB/M/110, dated 22 October 2001.
99. This case is the fourth complaint concerning government procurement. The first complaint, Japan - Procurement of a Navigation Satellite (DS73), was settled with a mutually satisfactory solution. The second and third complaints, US - Measure Affecting Government Procurement (DS88, DS95), were in respect of the same issue. The panel's authority lapsed as of 11 February 2000, when it was not requested to resume the proceeding after suspension of the works. WTO, WT/DS88, DS95/6 (dated 14 Feb. 2000).
100. This case is the fourth complaint concerning government procurement. The first complaint, Japan - Procurement of a Navigation Satellite (DS73), was settled with a mutually satisfactory solution. The second and third complaints, US - Measure Affecting Government Procurement (DS88, DS95), were in respect of the same issue. The panel's authority lapsed as of 11 February 2000, when it was not requested to resume the proceeding after suspension of the works. WTO, WT/DS88, DS95/6 (dated 14 Feb. 2000).
101. WTO, WT/DS163/R (adopted on 19 June 2000), para 7.80. 92 WTO, WT/DS163/7 (dated 6 Nov. 2000)
102. Young-Joon Cho, 'Review of the Panel Report for 'Korea - Measures Affecting Government Procurement', 33 International Trade Law 127 (2000, in Korean), at 152.
103. Commission Decision 2002/818/EC, OJ 2002 L 281/15.
104. WTO, WT/DS273/1, dated 24 October 2002.
105. WTO, G/SCM/N/93/EEC, dated 12 March 2003.
106. See, for example, USTR, Subsidies Enforcement Annual Report to the Congress (February 1999), 7-8.
107. US Department of Commerce, Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of Korea, 〈http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/drams-korea-draft-prelim-fr-notice. pdf〉 (visited on 12 April 2003).
108. 'Hynix faces 30-35% EU import duties', Financial. Times (21 March 2003), 17.
109. In 1995, three consultation requests were brought against Korea. The first two requests for Korea - Measures Concerning the Testing and Inspection of Agricultural Products (DS3) and Korea - Measures Concerning the Shelf-Life of Products (DS5) were made on 6 April and 5 May 1995.
110. WTO, WT/DS89/9, dated 18 September 1998.
111. WTO Panel Report, United States - Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea ('US - DRAMS'), WT/DS99/R, adopted 19 March 1999.
112. The Appellate Body Report for Korea - Soju case was circulated on 18 January 1999, while the panel report for US - DRAMS case was circulated on 29 January 1999. See WTO, Korea - Soju, WT/DS75, DS84/AB/R, adopted 17 February 1999 and above n 98.
113. WTO, WT/DS99/12, dated 25 October 2000.
114. For more positive assessment for Article 21.5 proceedings, see generally Jason Kearns and Steve Charnovitz, 'Adjudicating Compliance in the WTO: A Review of DSU Article 21.5', 5 JIEL 331 (2002).
115. For the discussion'of 'aggressive legalism' by the Japanese government to deal with trade disputes, see Pekkanen, above n 58, at 707-37.
116. It took 126 days to compose the panel, which is so far the longest period of time required for the panel appointment in cases involving Korea.
117. Timothy Lane et al., 'IMF-Supported Programs in Indonesia, Korea and Thailand: A Preliminary Assessment', Occasional Paper 178 (Washington DC: International Monetary Fund, 1999).
118. 109 US Fed. Reg. 45279, 28 August 2001. For the original dumping margin determination, see US Fed. Reg. 15443, 31 March 1999 for SSPC and US Fed. Reg. 30664, 8 June 1999 for SSSS.
119. WTO, WT/DSB/26, dated 12 October 2001, 18.
120. The imports above the first 9,000 short tons from each country would be subject to a 19%, 15% and 11 % duty for the first, second, and third year. See WTO Panel Report, United States - Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea ('US - Line Pipe'), WT/DS202/R, adopted 8 March 2002, para 2.5.
121. WTO Appellate Body Report, US - Line Pipe, WT/DS202/AB/R, adopted 8 March 2002. The United States initially filed an appeal on 6 November 2001 (WT/DS202/7), but withdrew it for scheduling reasons on 13 November (WT/DS202/8). The appeal was re-filed on 19 November 2001 (WT/DS202/9).
122. See generally Dukgeun Ahn, 'Critical Review of the WTO Jurisprudence on Safeguard' (mimeo).
123. WTO, WT/DS202/17, dated 26 July 2002.
124. WTO, WT/DS202/18, dated 31 July 2002.
125. WTO, G/ADP/N/65/PHL, dated 21 September 2000.
126. WTO, G/ADP/N/72/PHL, dated 6 March 2001.
127. WTO, G/ADP/N/85/PHL, dated 22 February 2002.
128. For anti-dumping measures, exporters from China and Japan are more frequent targets than those from Korea in the US market. US countervailing measures have targeted Italy, India, Korea, and France. WTO, 'Statistics on Anti-dumping', 〈http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/adp_e/ adp_e.htm〉 and 'Statistics on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures', 〈http://www.wto.org/ english/tratop_e/scm_e/scm_stattab8_e.htm〉 (visited 9 April 2003).
129. For anti-dumping measures, exporters from China and Japan are more frequent targets than those from Korea in the US market. US countervailing measures have targeted Italy, India, Korea, and France. WTO, 'Statistics on Anti-dumping', 〈http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/adp_e/ adp_e.htm〉 and 'Statistics on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures', 〈http://www.wto.org/ english/tratop_e/scm_e/scm_stattab8_e.htm〉 (visited 9 April 2003).
130. US Customs and Border Protection, 'CDSOA FY2001 Disbursements Final', 〈http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/xp/cgov/import/add_cvd/〉 (visited 10 April 2003). On the other hand, it is noted that only two ball bearing companies, Torrington and MPB (The Timken Company), received more offset payments in gross than Zenith Electronics in 2001. Their total disbursements amount to 862.8 million and 325 million, respectively. But, the disbursement for Zenith Electronics is the second largest one in terms of individual claims, following $34.7 million offset payment for Torrington in relation to ball bearings dumping from Japan.
131. US Customs and Border Protection, 'CDSOA FY2002 Disbursements Final', 〈http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/xp/cgov/import/add_cvd/〉 (visited 10 April 2003).
132. WTO, WT/DS251/10, dated 12 August 2002.
133. WTO, WT/DS274/1, dated 11 November 2002.
134. About 12% of trade remedy measures against Korean exports are safeguard actions. For example, as of 31 December 2002, Korean exporters are subject to 10 safeguard measures and 5 investigations in India, United States, Venezuela, China, Argentina, Canada, and European Communities. Korea Trade Investment Promotion Agency (KOTRA), 'Summary of Import Restrictions against Korean Exports 2002' (December, 2002, in Korean).
135. WTO, G/C/10, dated 15 May 2002.
136. WTO, G/C/15, dated 21 May 2002.
137. WTO, G/C/16, dated 21 May 2002.
138. WTO, G/C/17, dated 21 May 2002.
139. WTO, G/C/18, dated 22 May 2002.
140. WTO, G/C/12, dated 16 May 2002. On the other hand, Australia, Brazil, and New Zealand extended the deadline for retaliation to 20 March 2005. See WTO, G/C/11, dated 16 May 2002 and G/C/13, 14, dated 17 May 2002.
141. WTO, G/SG/N/10/USA/6, dated 14 March 2002.
142. WTO, 'Statistics on Anti-dumping', 〈http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/adp_e/adp_e.htm〉 (visited 9 April 2003).
143. On the other hand, Japan, a country with similar trade structure and attitude toward trade dispute settlement, has shown much diverse interest as a complainant concerning its target markets. See generally Iwasawa, above n 57, 473.
144. For the Korean proposal regarding anti-dumping issues, see, for example, WTO, WT/GC/W/235/Rev.1, dated 12 July 1999; TN/RL/W/6, dated 26 April 2002; TN/RL/W/10, dated 28 June 2002.
145. DSU, Art, 4.11.
146. DSU, Art. 10.2.
147. DSU, Art. 17.4. Articles 10.2 and 17.4 only mention 'substantial interest', but the difference from 'substantial trade interest' under Article 4.11 has not drawn much attention.
148. Decision on the Application and Review of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes. WTO, The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations: Legal Text (Geneva, 1994) 465.
149. Ministerial Declaration. WTO, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1, dated 20 November 2001, para 30.
150. WTO, TN/DS/W/11, dated 11 July 2002.
151. In this regard, Korea co-sponsored a concept paper on the sequencing issue. WTO, JOB(02)/45, dated 31 May 2002.
152. As of April 2003, eight Article 21.5 panel rulings were appealed and the Appellate Body issued rulings on those cases.
153. WTO, TN/DS/W/35, dated 22 January 2003.
154. WTO, TN/DS/W/7, 11-13 (dated 30 May 2002).
155. WTO, TN/DS/W/1 (dated 13 March 2002).
156. In fact, Australia made the proposal regarding this issue. WTO, TN/DS/W/ 8 (dated 8 July 2002).
157. In Argentina - Footwear case, Argentina revoked the WTO-inconsistent safeguard measure on 25 February 2000, after the DSB adoption of the panel and Appellate Body reports on 12 January 2000. The safeguard measure was, however, due to expire on 25 February 2000 and thus Argentina did not even engage in negotiation or arbitration to determine the implementation period.
158. WTO, G/SG/N/10/USA/5/Rev.1, dated 28 March 2000.
159. WTO, WT/DS166/12, dated 12 April 2001.
160. Active utilization of safeguard measures by developing countries, notably India, Chile, and Czech Republic, is one of the salient features of the WTO system, in contrast with the GATT system. See Dukgeun Ahn, 'WTO Safeguard System: Present and Perspective', in Korea-China Joint Workshop Proceeding for Trade Remedy Institutions 3 (2002, in Korean).
161. WTO, International Trade Statistics 2002 (Geneva, 2002) 26.
162. WTO, Annual Report 2002 (Geneva, 2002) 165-67. The United States made the largest contribution by providing 15.723% of the budget. China's contribution accounted for 2.973% in the 2002 WTO budget. Ibid.
163. The Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade began to publish 'A Comprehensive Survey of the Trade Environment' since 1998. This can be viewed as a Korean version of 'National Trade Estimate Report' by the USTR, but without Section 301 linkage.
164. In fact, this situation is not peculiar to Korea. The legal technicality and formality of WTO dispute settlement proceedings has become increasingly complicated. Many developing countries find themselves without the proper capacity to deal with trade disputes under the WTO system. In this regard, 32 countries agreed to establish the 'Advisory Centre on WTO Law', an independent body to assist its signatories on WTO dispute settlement. Korea is not yet a signatory to this Centre. See 〈http://www.acwl.ch〉 (visited 25 March 2003).
165. The Presidential Order, No 15710 (28 February 1998).
166. As of April 2003, Korean experts worked as a panelist in three cases. Korean legal experts also contributed to the works of the WTO Secretariat in relation to trade disputes. No Appellate Body Member has been elected from Korea.
167. Until the end of 2002, Argentina was challenged in 15 cases whereas it brought only 8 cases.
168. Professor Jackson raised this question to assess how the Japanese international law practice was related to the maintenance of international economic order. John H. Jackson, 'Western View of Japanese International Law Practice for the Maintenance of the International Economic Order', in Nisuke Ando: Japan and International Law: Past, Present and Future (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999) 208.