Martian
Senior Member
Re: China's recent important victories at the WTO
You have a very idealistic view of the WTO and its rulings. I suggest that you read the saga of the U.S.-Canadian softwood lumber dispute that occurred for nine years from 2001 to 2009. The United States ignores WTO rulings that it doesn't like.
The United States has a tendency to respect WTO rulings in China's favor, because the U.S. is trying to avoid a tit-for-tat protectionism against another heavyweight trading nation. China has leverage.
For example, China does not have to play nice and it could continue to exclude all foreign companies from most government contracts. This is perfectly legal under WTO rules. Instead, China is voluntarily opening up significant portions of its government procurements to foreign companies. "Chinese officials estimate that such procurement contracts exceeded $100 billion in 2009."
Quite frankly, China is merely following in the U.S.'s footsteps and behavior. The young lion learns from the aging lion.
" * On May 27, 2003, the World Trade Organization (WTO) issued a non-binding ruling in Canada's favour with regard to U.S. anti-dumping duties. The decision was appealable to a NAFTA panel.[4]
* On August 13, 2003, a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Chapter 19 panel ruled that the tariff is too high, although noting at the same time that the Canadian lumber industry is subsidized.
* On January 19, 2004, the WTO Appellate Body (AB) issued a final ruling with respect to the countervailing duty determination. The AB decided largely in Canada's favor (WTO Dispute 257).
* On August 11, 2004, the Appellate Body issued a final ruling with respect to U.S. anti-dumping duties (WTO Dispute 264).[1]
* On April 15, 2005, the Canadian Minister of Trade announced that the federal government would provide Canadian softwood lumber associations $20 million in compensation for their legal expenses stemming from the dispute with the United States.
* Another NAFTA Chapter 19 panel reviewed the determination made by the International Trade Commission that the U.S. lumber industry was under a threat of injury because of Canadian imports. Since the U.S. acceded to the World Trade Organization, it is necessary for the U.S. government to establish that a domestic industry is suffering injury or faces a threat of injury before countervailing duties can be imposed. U.S. law had required an injury determination for antidumping duties even before its accession to the WTO. The NAFTA Chapter 19 panel found the International Trade Commission's determination invalid. In addition, the panel took the controversial decision of refusing to allow the International Trade Commission to reopen the administrative record and in fact ordered the International Trade Commission to issue a negative determination after it reached another affirmative determination based on the existing record. Unlike the Lumber III panel, however, this panel's decision was unanimous. However, the U.S. government challenged its decision before an extraordinary challenge committee.
* In the meantime, because of an adverse WTO decision, the international trade commission reopened the administrative record pursuant to a special provision in U.S. law, the so-called Section 129 provision, and issued a new affirmative threat of injury determination in December 2004. This new determination allowed the countervailing and antidumping duty tariffs to remain in place.
* On August 10, 2005, the NAFTA extraordinary challenge committee unanimously held against the United States finding that NAFTA panel's decision were not sufficiently invalid to require vacatur or remand under the standards of NAFTA.
* On August 15, 2005, the U.S. said it would not abide by the NAFTA decision because the Section 129 determination superseded the decision being reviewed by the NAFTA panel. This announcement prompted former Finance Minister Ralph Goodale to say that Peterson is considering Canada's options, which could include litigation or trade sanctions."
You have a very idealistic view of the WTO and its rulings. I suggest that you read the saga of the U.S.-Canadian softwood lumber dispute that occurred for nine years from 2001 to 2009. The United States ignores WTO rulings that it doesn't like.
The United States has a tendency to respect WTO rulings in China's favor, because the U.S. is trying to avoid a tit-for-tat protectionism against another heavyweight trading nation. China has leverage.
For example, China does not have to play nice and it could continue to exclude all foreign companies from most government contracts. This is perfectly legal under WTO rules. Instead, China is voluntarily opening up significant portions of its government procurements to foreign companies. "Chinese officials estimate that such procurement contracts exceeded $100 billion in 2009."
Quite frankly, China is merely following in the U.S.'s footsteps and behavior. The young lion learns from the aging lion.
" * On May 27, 2003, the World Trade Organization (WTO) issued a non-binding ruling in Canada's favour with regard to U.S. anti-dumping duties. The decision was appealable to a NAFTA panel.[4]
* On August 13, 2003, a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Chapter 19 panel ruled that the tariff is too high, although noting at the same time that the Canadian lumber industry is subsidized.
* On January 19, 2004, the WTO Appellate Body (AB) issued a final ruling with respect to the countervailing duty determination. The AB decided largely in Canada's favor (WTO Dispute 257).
* On August 11, 2004, the Appellate Body issued a final ruling with respect to U.S. anti-dumping duties (WTO Dispute 264).[1]
* On April 15, 2005, the Canadian Minister of Trade announced that the federal government would provide Canadian softwood lumber associations $20 million in compensation for their legal expenses stemming from the dispute with the United States.
* Another NAFTA Chapter 19 panel reviewed the determination made by the International Trade Commission that the U.S. lumber industry was under a threat of injury because of Canadian imports. Since the U.S. acceded to the World Trade Organization, it is necessary for the U.S. government to establish that a domestic industry is suffering injury or faces a threat of injury before countervailing duties can be imposed. U.S. law had required an injury determination for antidumping duties even before its accession to the WTO. The NAFTA Chapter 19 panel found the International Trade Commission's determination invalid. In addition, the panel took the controversial decision of refusing to allow the International Trade Commission to reopen the administrative record and in fact ordered the International Trade Commission to issue a negative determination after it reached another affirmative determination based on the existing record. Unlike the Lumber III panel, however, this panel's decision was unanimous. However, the U.S. government challenged its decision before an extraordinary challenge committee.
* In the meantime, because of an adverse WTO decision, the international trade commission reopened the administrative record pursuant to a special provision in U.S. law, the so-called Section 129 provision, and issued a new affirmative threat of injury determination in December 2004. This new determination allowed the countervailing and antidumping duty tariffs to remain in place.
* On August 10, 2005, the NAFTA extraordinary challenge committee unanimously held against the United States finding that NAFTA panel's decision were not sufficiently invalid to require vacatur or remand under the standards of NAFTA.
* On August 15, 2005, the U.S. said it would not abide by the NAFTA decision because the Section 129 determination superseded the decision being reviewed by the NAFTA panel. This announcement prompted former Finance Minister Ralph Goodale to say that Peterson is considering Canada's options, which could include litigation or trade sanctions."
Last edited:
