Peculiarities of retaliation in WTO dispute settlement

World Trade Review

Volumn 1, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 123-134

  Anderson, Kym ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85016685480     PISSN: 14747456     EISSN: 14753138     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1474745602001118     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Bhala, R. (2000), ‘The Bananas War’, McGeorge Law Review, 31(4), Summer: 839–971.
2. Charnovitz, S. (2001), ‘Rethinking WTO Trade Sanctions’, American Journal of International Law, 95(4), October: 792–832.
3. Feenstra, R. C. (1998), ‘Integration of Trade and Disintegration of Production in the Global Economy’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(4), Fall: 31–50.
4. Grossman, G. and E. Helpman (1994), ‘Protection for Sale’, American Economic Review, 84(4), September: 833–850.
5. Grossman, G. and E. Helpman (1995), ‘Trade Wars and Trade Talks’, Journal of Political Economy, 103(4), August: 675–708.
6. Hillman, A. L. and P. Moser (1995), ‘Trade Liberalization as Politically Optimal Exchange of Market Access’, in M. Canzoneri et al. (eds.), The New Transatlantic Economy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Horn, H. and P. C. Mavroidis (1999), ‘Remedies in the WTO Dispute Settlement System and Developing Country Interests’, mimeo, University of Neuchatel, 16 July.
8. Hufbauer, G. C., J. J. Schott, and K. A. Elliott (1990), Economic Sanctions Reconsidered, 2nd edition, Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
9. Jackson, J. H. (1998), ‘Designing and Implementing Effective Dispute Settlement Procedures: WTO Disputre Settlement, Appraisal and Prospects,’ Ch. 5 in A. O. Krueger (ed.), The WTO as an International Organization, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10. Komura, N. (2000), ‘The EC Banana Regime and Judicial Control’, Journal of World Trade, 34(5): 1–87.
11. Maggi, G. (2001), ‘The Role of Multilateral Institutions in International Trade Cooperation’, American Economic Review, 89(1), March: 190–214.
12. 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.
13. Salas, M. and J. H. Jackson (2000), ‘Procedural Overview of the WTO EC—Banana Dispute’, Journal of International Economic Law, 3: 145–166.
14. Smith, A. (1776), An Enquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, New York: The Modern Library (1994 reprint).
15. Valles, C. M. and B. P. McGiven (2000), ‘The Right to Retaliate under the WTO Agreement: The ‘Sequencing’ Problem’, Journal of World Trade, 34(2): 63–84.
16. World Bank (1998), World Development Report 1998/99, New York: Oxford University Press.
17. World Bank (1999), World Development Report 1999/2000, New York: Oxford University Press.
18. WTO (1995), The WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures: A Collection of the Legal Texts, Geneva: World Trade Organization, August.
19. WTO (1998), Annual Report 1998, Vol. 1, Geneva: World Trade Organization.
20. WTO (1999a), European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas: Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities Under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/AB/R, 9 April, Geneva: World Trade Organization.
21. WTO (1999b), European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones): Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities Under Article 22.6 of the DSU (US complaint), WT/DS26/AB/R, 12 July, Geneva: World Trade Organization.
22. WTO (2000), European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas: Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities Under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/AB/RECU, 24 March, Geneva: World Trade Organization.