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/DS108/ARB): A comment

The WTO Case Law of 2002: The American Law Institute Reporters' Studies

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 36-63

  Howse, Robert ^a   Neven, Damien J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84926095674     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511754456.005     Document Type: Chapter

References (7)

1. Bernheim, D. and M. Whinston, (1986), Common Agency, Econometrica, 54 (4).
2. Bond, E., (1996), Competition Policy in Customs Unions: a Natural Experiment using State Level Antitrust Enforcement, mimeo, Pen State.
3. Cannizzaro, E., (2001), The Role of Proportionality in the Law of International Countermeasures, European Journal of International Law, 12.
4. Crawford, J., (2002), The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text, and Commentaries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Mavroidis, P., (2000), Remedies in the WTO Legal System: between a Rock and a Hard Place, European Journal of International Law, 11 (4), 763-813.
6. Pauwellyn, J., (2002), “The Nature of WTO Obligations”, Jean Monnet Working Paper, at www.jeanmonnetprogram.org, p. 8.
7. Schwartz, W. and A. Sykes, (2002), The Economic Structure of Renegotiation and Dispute Resolution in the World Trade Organisation, The Journal of Legal Studies, 31J.