United States – Anti–dumping act of 1916 (original complaint by the European communities) – recourse to arbitration by the United States under 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS136/ARB, 24 February 2004: A Legal and Economic Analysis

The WTO Case Law of 2003

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 254-279

  Howse, Robert ^a   Staiger, Robert W ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84924968718     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511754463.012     Document Type: Chapter

References (20)

1. Robert and Neven, Damien, 2004. “United States - Tax treatment for ‘Foreign Sales Corporations’ Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement (WT/DS106/ARB): A comment,” in Horn and Mavroidis (eds.) The WTO Case Law of 2002, The American Law Institute Reporters’ Studies, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
2. A. Kojeve, Outline of a Phenomenology of Right, tr. Frost and Howse (2000).
3. E. Cannizzaro, “The Role of Proportionality in the Law of International Countermeasures,” EJIL (2001) 889-916, 902-903.
4. Analytical Index: Guide to GATT Law and Practice, Volume 2, WTO, 1995, pp. 657-658.
5. Sykes, Alan O., “The Remedy for Breach of Obligations Under the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding: Damages or Specific Performance?” in Marco Bronckers and Reinhard Quick (eds.) New Directions in International Economic Law Kluwer Law International (The Hague), 2000
6. Schwartz, Warren F. and Alan O. Sykes, “The Economic Structure of Renegotiation and Dispute Resolution in the World Trade Organization,” Journal of Legal Studies 31, 2002
7. Lawrence, Robert Z., Crimes & Punishments? - Retaliation Under the WTO, Institute for International Economics (Washington, DC) 2003
8. Bagwell, Kyle and Robert W. Staiger, “An Economic Theory of GATT, ” American Economic Review, March 1999
9. Bagwell, Kyle and Robert W. Staiger, The Economics of The World Trading System, MIT Press, 2002
10. Bagwell, Kyle and Robert W. Staiger, “Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Bilateral Opportunism and the Rules of GATT/WTO,” Journal of International Economics, December 2005
11. Bagwell and Staiger (1999, 2002), for a development of the notion of politically optimal tariffs
12. Winters, L. Alan, “Regionalism and the Rest of the World: The Irrelevance of the Kemp-Wan Theorem,” Oxford Economic Papers, 1997
13. Robert W. and Frank A. Wolak, “Measuring Industry-Specific Protection: Antidumping in the United States,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics, 1994, pp. 51-118
14. Krupp, Corinne M. and Patricia S. Pollard, “Market Responses to Antidumping Laws: Some Evidence from the US Chemical Industry,” Canadian Journal of Economics 29(1), February 1996, pp. 199-227
15. Shin, Hyun Ja, “Possible Instances of Predatory Pricing in Recent Antidumping Cases,” in Robert Z. Lawrence (ed.), Brookings Trade Forum, 1998, pp. 81-98.
16. J. H. Jackson, “The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding-Misunderstanding on the Nature of Legal Obligation,” 91 American Journal of International Law 60 (1997)
17. A. O. Sykes, “The Remedy for Breach of Obligations under the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding: Damages or Specific Performance?” in M. Bronckers and R. Quick, eds., New Directions in International Economic Law: Essays in Honour of John H. Jackson (The Hague: Kluwer, 2000), pp. 347-357
18. Susan Esserman and Robert Howse 2004, “The WTO on trial,” Foreign Affairs, 82(1), 130-140
19. Robert Howse and Kalypso Nicolaidis, (2003), “Enhancing WTO legitimacy constitutionalization or global subsidiarity?” Governance, 16(1), 73-94.
20. John H. Jackson, “Status of WTO Dispute Settlement Reports: Obligations to Comply or Option to ‘Buy Out’?” American Journal of International Law, January 2004, 109-125.