IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/glecon/v15y2015i1p155-172n1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Did the Agreement on Safeguards Nullify their Use?

Author

Listed:
  • Hartigan James C.

    (Department of Economics, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019–2103, USA)

Abstract

The Agreement on Safeguards (ASG) clarified the obligation to apply measures in accordance with the most favored nation (MFN) principle. Because foreign supply shocks can be non-uniform, MFN can induce nullification and impairment (N&I) complaints at the World Trade Organization from (third party) foreign suppliers not benefitting from the shock. These suppliers’ exports are reduced by both the beneficial shock to other exporters and the safeguard (SG) action by the home country. Although the ASG made use of SG more attractive by delaying requests for retaliation for three years in the absence of compensation for N&I, this may have been negated by the MFN requirement. Thus, it becomes a plausible explanation for the proliferation of antidumping actions. For recent U.S. anti-dumping cases against multiple exporting countries, dumping margins differing by over an order of magnitude were common. This suggests that alternative use of SG with an MFN requirement would elicit third party N&I.

Suggested Citation

  • Hartigan James C., 2015. "Did the Agreement on Safeguards Nullify their Use?," Global Economy Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 15(1), pages 155-172, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:glecon:v:15:y:2015:i:1:p:155-172:n:1
    DOI: 10.1515/gej-2014-0033
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/gej-2014-0033
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/gej-2014-0033?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hylke Vandenbussche & Maurizio Zanardi, 2008. "What explains the proliferation of antidumping laws? [‘Antidumping Laws in the US; Use and Welfare Consequences’]," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 23(53), pages 94-138.
    2. Bown, Chad P., 2002. "Why are safeguards under the WTO so unpopular?," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 47-62, March.
    3. Irwin, Douglas A., 2003. "Causing problems? The WTO review of causation and injury attribution in US Section 201 cases," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(3), pages 297-325, November.
    4. Malhotra Nisha & Rus Horatiu & Kassam Shinan, 2008. "Antidumping Duties in the Agriculture Sector: Trade Restricting or Trade Deflecting?," Global Economy Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 8(2), pages 1-19, June.
    5. John H. Jackson, 1997. "The World Trading System, 2nd Edition: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262600277, December.
    6. Martin, Alberto & Vergote, Wouter, 2008. "On the role of retaliation in trade agreements," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 61-77, September.
    7. Michael O. Moore & Maurizio Zanardi, 2009. "Does antidumping use contribute to trade liberalization in developing countries?," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(2), pages 469-495, May.
    8. Sykes, Alan O., 2006. "The WTO Agreement on Safeguards: A Commentary," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199277407.
    9. Richard Harris, 1985. "Why Voluntary Export Restraints Are 'Voluntary.'," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 18(4), pages 799-809, November.
    10. Beshkar, Mostafa, 2010. "Optimal remedies in international trade agreements," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 455-466, April.
    11. Beshkar, Mostafa, 2010. "Trade skirmishes safeguards: A theory of the WTO dispute settlement process," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 35-48, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Beshkar, Mostafa, 2010. "Trade skirmishes safeguards: A theory of the WTO dispute settlement process," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 35-48, September.
    2. Beshkar, Mostafa, 2009. "Trade skirmishes and safeguards: A theory of the WTO Dispute Settlement Process," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2009-09, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    3. Mostafa Beshkar, 2016. "Arbitration and Renegotiation in Trade Agreements," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(3), pages 586-619.
    4. Kaz Miyagiwa & Huasheng Song & Hylke Vandenbussche, 2016. "Accounting for Stylised Facts about Recent Anti-dumping: Retaliation and Innovation," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 221-235, February.
    5. Mostafa Beshkar, 2014. "Arbitration and Renegotiation in Trade Agreements," Caepr Working Papers 2014-004, Center for Applied Economics and Policy Research, Economics Department, Indiana University Bloomington.
    6. Hartigan, James C., 2018. "Punching out of one's weight class? Cross agreement retaliation in the WTO," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 274-288.
    7. Maggi, Giovanni, 2014. "International Trade Agreements," Handbook of International Economics, in: Gopinath, G. & Helpman, . & Rogoff, K. (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 0, pages 317-390, Elsevier.
    8. Beshkar, Mostafa & Bond, Eric W. & Rho, Youngwoo, 2015. "Tariff binding and overhang: Theory and evidence," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 1-13.
    9. Staiger, Robert & Maggi, Giovanni, 2009. "Breach, Remedies and Dispute Settlement in Trade Agreements," CEPR Discussion Papers 7527, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    10. Horn, Henrik, 2011. "The burden of proof in trade disputes and the environment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 15-29, July.
    11. Mostafa Beshkar & Jee-Hyeong Park, 2017. "Dispute Settlement with Second-Order Uncertainty: The Case of International Trade Disputes," CAEPR Working Papers 2017-010, Center for Applied Economics and Policy Research, Department of Economics, Indiana University Bloomington.
    12. Yi Liu & Ning Zhang, 2015. "Sustainability of Trade Liberalization and Antidumping: Evidence from Mexico’s Trade Liberalization toward China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-20, August.
    13. Martin, Alberto & Vergote, Wouter, 2008. "On the role of retaliation in trade agreements," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 61-77, September.
    14. Chrysostomos Tabakis & Maurizio Zanardi, 2017. "Antidumping Echoing," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(2), pages 655-681, April.
    15. Vincent Anesi & Giovanni Facchini, 2019. "Coercive Trade Policy," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 225-256, August.
    16. Kara M. Reynolds & Chad P. Bown, 2014. "Trade Flows and Trade Disputes," Working Papers 2014-05, American University, Department of Economics.
    17. repec:rye:wpaper:wp078 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Gea Myoung Lee, 2011. "Optimal International Agreement and Treatment of Domestic Subsidy," Working Papers 01-2011, Singapore Management University, School of Economics.
    19. Frank Stähler, 2023. "An optimal investor-state dispute settlement mechanism," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 138(1), pages 1-16, January.
    20. Bown,Chad P. & Crowley,Meredith A & Bown,Chad P. & Crowley,Meredith A, 2016. "The empirical landscape of trade policy," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7620, The World Bank.
    21. Chad P. Bown & Kara M. Reynolds, 2017. "Trade Agreements and Enforcement: Evidence from WTO Dispute Settlement," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 64-100, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:glecon:v:15:y:2015:i:1:p:155-172:n:1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.