IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/wotrrv/v19y2020i2p164-181_3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

US–OCTG (Korea): Legal Boundary of ‘Political’ Remedy

Author

Listed:
  • Ahn, Dukgeun
  • Levy, Philip I.

Abstract

The United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea (US–OCTG (Korea)) Panel decision concerned the latest in a long line of antidumping (AD) disputes about Oil Country Tubular Goods. It was notable for a broadly permissive approach by the Panel – on all major legal issues but one, the Panel sided with the United States over Korean objections. The case itself was also notable for the US reversal of a negative preliminary determination, something that had occurred in less than 1% of prior cases. Finally, the case was notable for unusual behaviour outside of the investigative process, including both vocal political complaints and a curious decision by Korea not to appeal. We discuss the legal determinations made by the Panel and offer a new interpretation of how to think about whether AD practices are justifiable. We also describe the broader diplomatic context in which Korea and the United States interacted and consider the implications if political pressures play an increased role in determining dispute outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Ahn, Dukgeun & Levy, Philip I., 2020. "US–OCTG (Korea): Legal Boundary of ‘Political’ Remedy," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(2), pages 164-181, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:wotrrv:v:19:y:2020:i:2:p:164-181_3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1474745620000014/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    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:cup:wotrrv:v:19:y:2020:i:2:p:164-181_3. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/wtr .

    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.