Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:06:10.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trump Ended WTO Dispute Settlement. Trade Remedies are Needed to Fix it

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2022

Chad P. Bown
Chad P. Bown*
Affiliation:
Peterson Institute for International Economics & CEPR, 1750 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: cbown@piie.com, www.chadpbown.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Unhappy with the rulings of the WTO dispute settlement system, which disproportionately targeted US use of trade remedies, the United States ended the entire system in 2019. There are multiple hurdles to agreeing to new terms of trade remedy use and thus potentially restoring some form of binding dispute settlement. First, a change would affect access to policy flexibility by the now large number of users of trade remedies. Second, although China's exports are the overwhelming target of trade remedies, exporters in other countries increasingly find themselves caught up in trade remedy actions linked to China. Third, critical differences posed by China's economic model may call for new rules for trade remedies, but no consensus on those rules has emerged. Even some of the most promising reforms have practical limitations, create additional challenges, or may be politically unviable.

Keywords

F13WTOtrade remediesantidumpingcountervailing dutiessafeguardsUSChinadispute settlementappellate body
Type
Original Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 21 , Special Issue 3: WTO at a Crossroads: The WTR 20th Anniversary Issue , July 2022 , pp. 312 - 329
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

For helpful discussions, I thank Douglas Irwin, Soumaya Keynes, Niall Meagher, Julia Nielson, Marcus Noland, Tom Prusa, Robert Staiger, and Alan Wolff. Yilin Wang provided outstanding research assistance. Nia Kitchin, Melina Kolb, and Oliver Ward assisted with graphics; Madona Devasahayam and Barbara Karni provided editorial assistance. All remaining errors are my own.

References

Ahn, D. (2021) ‘Why Reform Is Needed: WTO “Public Body” Jurisprudence’, Global Policy 12(3), 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Autor, D.H., Dorn, D., and Hanson, G.H. (2016) ‘The China Shock: Learning from Labor Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade’, Annual Review of Economics 8, 205–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagwell, K. and Staiger, R.W. (1990) ‘A Theory of Managed Trade’, American Economic Review 8(4), 779–795.Google Scholar
Bagwell, K. and Staiger, R.W. (1999) ‘An Economic Theory of GATT’, American Economic Review 89(1), 215–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagwell, K. and Staiger, R.W. (2002) The Economics of the World Trading System. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagwell, K. and Staiger, R.W. (2003) ‘Protection and the Business Cycle’, Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy 3(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagwell, K. and Staiger, R.W. (2006) ‘Will International Rules on Subsidies Disrupt the World Trading System?’, American Economic Review 96(3), 877–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagwell, K., Bown, C.P., and Staiger, R.W. (2016) ‘Is the WTO Passé?’, Journal of Economic Literature 54(4), 1125–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blonigen, B.A. and Prusa, T.J. (2016) ‘Dumping and Antidumping Duties’, in Bagwell, K.W. and Staiger, R.W. (eds.), Handbook of Commercial Policy, Vol. 1B. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 107–159.Google Scholar
Bown, C.P. (2002) ‘Why Are Safeguards under the WTO So Unpopular?’, World Trade Review 1(1), 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bown, C.P. (2011) ‘Taking Stock of Antidumping, Safeguards and Countervailing Duties, 1990–2009’, The World Economy 34(12), 1955–1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bown, C.P. (2021) ‘The US–China Trade War and Phase One Agreement’, Journal of Policy Modeling 43(4), 805–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bown, C.P. and Crowley, M.A. (2010) ‘China's Export Growth and the China Safeguard: Threats to the World Trading System?’, Canadian Journal of Economics 43(4), 1353–1388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bown, C.P. and Crowley, M.A. (2013) ‘Self-Enforcing Trade Agreements: Evidence from Time-Varying Trade Policy’, American Economic Review 103(2), 1071–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bown, C.P. and Hillman, J.A. (2019) ‘WTO'ing a Resolution to the China Subsidy Problem’, Journal of International Economic Law 22(4), 557–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bown, C.P. and Keynes, S. (2020) ‘Why Trump Shot the Sheriffs: The End of WTO Dispute Settlement 1.0’, Journal of Policy Modeling 42(4), 799–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bown, C.P. and Mavroidis, P.C. (2013) ‘One (Firm) Is Not Enough: A Legal-Economic Analysis of EC–Fasteners’, World Trade Review 12(2), 243–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bown, C.P., Cieszkowsky, M., Erbahar, A., and Signoret, J. (2020) Temporary Trade Barriers Database. Washington, DC: World Bank. www.worldbank.org/en/data/interactive/2021/03/02/temporary-trade-barriers-database, accessed October 30, 2021.Google Scholar
Department of Commerce (2006a) Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China (China). China's Status as a Non-Market Economy (NME). A-570-901 Investigation Public Document, 30 August, Washington.Google Scholar
Department of Commerce (2006b) ‘The People's Republic of China (PRC) Status as a Non-Market Economy (NME)’, A-570-901 Investigation Public Document, 15 May, Washington.Google Scholar
Department of Commerce (2007) ‘Countervailing Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China. Whether the Analytical Elements of the Georgetown Steel Opinion Are Applicable to China's Present-Day Economy’, Document C-570-907, 29 March, Washington.Google Scholar
Ethier, W.J. (1982) ‘Dumping’, Journal of Political Economy 90(3), 487–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, A. and Klann, N. (2013) ‘Paying a Visit: The Dalai Lama Effect on International Trade’, Journal of International Economics 91(1), 164–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-Herrero, A. and Ng, G. (2021) ‘China's State-Owned Enterprises and Competitive Neutrality’, Bruegel Policy Contribution 05/21, February, Brussels.Google Scholar
Hoekman, B. and Nelson, D. (2020) ‘Rethinking International Subsidy Rules’, The World Economy 43(12), 3104–3132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, D.A. (2003) ‘Causing Problems? The WTO Review of Causation and Injury Attribution in US Section 201 Cases’, World Trade Review 2(3), 297–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, K. and Ahn, D. (2018) ‘To Be or Not to Be with Targeted Dumping’, Journal of International Economic Law 21(3), 567–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardy, N.R. (2019a) ‘Achieving Competitive Neutrality in China’, in Kai, G. and Schipke, A. (eds.), Opening Up and Competitive Neutrality: The International Experience and Insights for China. Washington, DC: People's Bank of China and International Monetary Fund, 60–67.Google Scholar
Lardy, N.R. (2019b) The State Strikes Back: The End of Economic Reform in China? Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
Mavroidis, P.C. and Sapir, A. (2021) China and the WTO: Why Multilateralism Still Matters. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
OECD (2015) ‘Discussion on Competitive Neutrality’, Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs, Competition Committee’, Note by the Secretariat, 27–28 October.Google Scholar
OECD (2019a) ‘Measuring Distortions in International Markets: The Aluminium Value Chain’, OECD Trade Policy Paper 218, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
OECD (2019b) ‘Measuring Distortions in International Markets: The Semiconductor Value Chain’, OECD Trade Policy Paper 234, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
Staiger, R.W. (Forthcoming) A World Trading System for the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Staiger, R.W. and Sykes, A.O. (2013) ‘Non-Violations’, Journal of International Economic Law 16(4), 741–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staiger, R.W. and Sykes, A.O. (2017) ‘How Important Can the Non-Violation Clause Be for the GATT/WTO?’, American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 9(2), 149–187.Google Scholar
Sykes, A.O. (2003) ‘The Safeguards Mess: A Critique of WTO Jurisprudence’, World Trade Review 2(3), 261–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sykes, A.O. (2005) ‘Subsidies and Countervailing Measures’, in Appleton, A.E., Macrory, P.F.J., and Plummer, M.G. (eds.), The World Trade Organization: Legal, Economic and Political Analysis, Vol. 2. Boston: Springer, 1682–1706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
USTR (2018) ‘2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report of the President of the United States on the Trade Agreements Program’, Washington.Google Scholar
USTR (2020) ‘Report on the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization’, Washington.Google Scholar
Wu, M. (2016) ‘The “China, Inc.” Challenge to Global Trade Governance’, Harvard International Law Journal 57(2), 261–324.Google Scholar
Wu, M. (2020) ‘Managing the China Trade Challenge: Confronting the Limits of the WTO’, Working Paper, October, Penn Project on the Future of US–China Relations, Philadelphia.Google Scholar