The emergence of Airbus transformed the market structure of the LCA industry into a duopoly of similar-sized full-range manufacturers. The financing of Airbus's upfront investment expenditures came in a significant proportion from public funds, which violated, in the US's opinion the SCM Agreement. While the Appellate Body follows this view of things to a large extent, it does so in a measured way: the category of per se illegal export subsidies is interpreted with a view to the manipulation of normal market conditions; the distortion on competitive conditions matters, not the increase of exports as such. Other aspects of subsidies law clarified are the relationship between effect and subsidy. They are closely related but not identical; rightly, the report operates from the premise that the SCM Agreement's regime focuses on the effect, and not on the subsidy as such, which is a manifestation of a political choice by a sovereign Member state. The Appellate Body affirms that a subsidy has a ‘life’, a shorthand for a beginning and an end: it follows that the effect of a subsidy is not bound to be permanent but is bound to terminate. It is to be regretted that the Appellate Body avoided clarifying to what extent partial privatization, hence sale of assets at market prices to private investors, ‘extinguish’ subsidies.

This paper analyzes a number of economic and legal issues raised by the Appellate Body Report in the Thai–Cigarettes case. The paper suggests two improvements that could be made to Panel procedures; supports the Appellate Body's interpretation of Article XX(d) in the present case, which seems to discard an earlier mistaken approach to Article XX; and examines, in some detail, whether the Appellate Body's application of the ‘less favourable treatment’ component of GATT Article III:4 in this and other cases is consistent with its jurisprudence under GATT Article III:2 and TBT Article 2.1. From an economics perspective, the case is straightforward on its face. However, the Appellate Body's rigorous application of the ‘less favourable treatment’ principle might not survive a fuller market analysis in terms of policy impacts on conditions of competition. Further, while we agree with the rejection of Thailand's Article XX claim, we raise the question of whether a strict national-treatment rule may be an unwarranted constraint on policy where there is a clear trade-related external cost to address.

In 2007, the United States reversed its long-standing policy prohibiting the simultaneous imposition of anti-dumping duties (ADDs) and countervailing duties (CVDs) against nonmarket economies. Subsequently, the United States has imposed concurrent ADDs and CVDs in numerous cases against China. China challenged a number of aspects of the US practice, most notably the double-remedies issue, which occurs when a domestic subsidy is offset by both an ADD and CVD. The Appellate Body (AB) correctly ruled that double remedies are inconsistent with the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and that the burden was on the investigating authorities to ensure that double remedies were not being imposed; however, the AB largely limited its discussion to measurement concerns, an approach that may have inadvertently opened the door to future double-remedies disputes involving other methods for computing normal value. Two other issues that are likely to have significant long-term ramifications are (i) the scope of the term ‘public body’ and (ii) the appropriate use of out-of-country benchmarks. On both issues, we believe the AB's conclusions and analysis were correct.

The WTO's Appellate Body (AB) dealt with a number of issues for the first time in this Report. Importantly, it discussed the consistency of the European Union (EU) regulation with the multilateral rules on the conditions for deviating from the obligation to calculate individual dumping margins. Although China formally won the argument, the AB may have opened the door to treat China as a nonmarket economy (NME) even beyond 2016 when China's NME status was thought to expire under the terms of China's 2001 WTO Accession Protocol. The AB further dealt with numerous other issues ranging from statistical sampling to the treatment of confidential information. In handling its investigation, the EU authorities made a number of questionable decisions regarding the collection of information, and this aspect of the process was central to China's legal challenges.

In 2009, the United States imposed additional tariffs for a three-year period on imports of automotive tires from China under a special-safeguard provision included in China's Protocol of Accession to the WTO. China challenged the measure in the WTO. The case marked the first WTO dispute in which a challenged safeguard was upheld by the Appellate Body; the first in which an accession protocol was used successfully as a defense; and the first that China lost as a complaining party. It also was noteworthy in that the safeguard was sought by a labor union, not the domestic industry. This paper reviews the WTO Appellate Body's findings and discusses a number of the legal and policy implications regarding China's Accession Protocol, the Safeguards Agreement, and WTO accession law, as well as economic aspects of the case.

This paper provides a legal–economic analysis of the Appellate Body decision in Philippines – Taxes on Distilled Spirits (Philippines–Spirits). In Philippines–Spirits, the Panel and the Appellate Body had an opportunity to consider again the scope of ‘like products’ and of ‘directly competitive or substitutable products’ under Article III:2 of GATT. The Panel and Appellate Body followed the Border Tax Adjustments factors in order to determine whether the products were sufficiently similar. The Appellate Body explicitly extended its jurisprudence from other areas of Article III to a like-products determination under the first sentence of Article III:2: this analysis is to be focused on the degree of competition between the imported and domestic products. We observe that the effect of different taxation on domestic products is affected by the degree of substitution between products as well as competitive conditions, whereas the Appellate Body seems to focus on the former and ignore the latter. We also question some of the Panel and Appellate Body interpretations of the evidence regarding the degree of substitution between products. Overall, we find that even if there may be a segment in which foreign and domestic products compete, the reported evidence in this case would seem to be consistent with the view that for the bulk of the market, foreign and domestic items are distant substitutes.

Putting aside the jurisprudence, a methodologically sound finding regarding substitution (and competition) seems necessary, but not sufficient, for a finding of inefficient discrimination. In order to find inefficient discrimination, there must also be a finding that the nonprotectionist benefits that may arise from the national regulation are not sufficient to justify the discriminatory action, otherwise, rational regulation that is globally efficient might be invalidated, inappropriately restricting the national right to regulate. In the present case, the Philippines articulated no nonprotectionist rationale for its distinctions. Existing WTO jurisprudence in this area prior to the Appellate Body decision in US–Clove Cigarettes (in the context of Article 2.1 of the technical barriers to trade agreement) has only hinted at the additional focus on the justificatory role of nonprotectionist regulatory benefits, yet an explicit and appropriately contextualized reference to the nonprotectionist rationale, if any, of regulation seems to be a necessary part of decision-making.

In a series of controversial 2011 decisions, WTO DSM Panels sought to reconcile legitimate regulatory interests of the state with various obligations to treat imported products in an even-handed and not unnecessarily trade-restrictive manner. Among the key points of contention were which obligation pertained in each case – national treatment, limits on technical regulations, or rules governing standards. In each case, the Panel imposed significant restrictions on national regulatory practices, and in each case the Panel reasoning was challenged by the Appellate Body. This paper addresses some of the key legal and economic issues raised in the original Panel decisions, leaving the late-breaking Appellate Body decisions for future analysis. Given the unsettled nature of the terrain, the economic analysis focuses primarily on the question of national treatment, while the legal analysis deals with other interesting points that emerge from these rulings, such as the appropriate level of deference to international standards and the legitimacy of labeling requirements.

This paper analyzes Brazil's WTO challenge to the methods undertaken by the United States in calculating anti-dumping duties in administrative reviews and other investigations of Brazilian orange juice. The dispute resulted in a Panel ruling that conforms with earlier Appellate Body decisions outlawing the use of ‘weighted average to transaction’ zeroing in such reviews. However, we note that the Panel's stance was driven largely from a desire to preserve ‘stability and predictability’ within the system, suggesting a practical recognition of the shadow of past Appellate Body decisions on the same legal question. In addition, we argue that to understand fully the effects of zeroing, it is important to account for the underlying reasons behind observed price changes in the market. We show that zeroing is more likely to convert a negative dumping determination into a positive one when price changes are driven by variations in demand relative to when they are driven by variations in the cost of exporting. In the present case, Brazilian exporters of orange juice experienced an increase in (residual) demand for their product since, by reducing the local supply of round oranges, adverse weather conditions in the United States made it difficult for US orange-juice producers to meet local demand.

This paper analyzes the dispute between Korea and the United States regarding the method of calculating anti-dumping duties. The case mirrors other recent WTO disputes involving zeroing. Even though it ceased zeroing in original investigations in December 2006, the United States implemented the policy change only prospectively. As a result, the margins applied to the products in this dispute remained unchanged because they had been calculated prior to the policy change. The United States did not contest Korea's claims. The Panel confirmed that zeroing was used and, following the long line of Panel and Appellate Body rulings, found the practice inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement. After the Panel Report was adopted, the United States recalculated the margins without zeroing. It, however, refused to refund unliquidated cash deposits that were based on zeroing, highlighting the United States's continued lukewarm compliance with WTO rulings on zeroing. This dispute offers an opportunity to ponder on weaknesses of the WTO Dispute Settlement and the ability of one Member to take advantage of it. Since the facts and their legal assessment were undisputed, why was litigation necessary? Can compliance with WTO law be improved with broader findings and more incisive remedies?

This article is about how easy a WTO case is when the defendant concedes the claims, the description of the facts, and the evidence presented by the complainant. In US–Zeroing (Korea), the United States did just that. We explore whether Korea obtained any additional benefit by having an easy case. We identified some small benefits at the preparation stage of the case arising from the favourable precedents and shorter time frames only at the Panel stage. There were, however, some additional costs for the complainant stemming from the Panel's reasoning when it addressed case law. In our opinion, benefits were few. Korea was obliged in any case to engage in two years of multilateral procedures before three old measures, which were not defended by the defendant, were revoked.

This unappealed Panel Report deals with now standard controversies involving US zeroing practices, but also involves a number of novel problems in administrative reviews of US anti-dumping orders that transcend zeroing issues. Most importantly, this dispute highlights the economic, legal, and statistical importance of sample-selection bias when calculating ‘all others’ rates for exporters that were not queried during dumping investigations. Sampling is particularly problematic in this dispute since US investigators found only zero and de minimis margins in the administrative reviews, a situation in which the relevant provision of the Anti-Dumping Agreement appears to provide no guidance (an apparent ‘lacuna’). The Panel did not directly deal with the key sample-selection issues in the case, and so we provide an alternative legal and statistical analysis. These issues are likely to become more important as the practice of zeroing is phased out in the United States. Indeed, sampling may well be the new zeroing.