This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Privatization and The Definition of Subsidy: A Critical Study of Appellate Body Texturalism

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Richard Diamond
Abstract

Analysis of the Appellate Body's (AB) treatment of a particular legal question often provides insight into issues of more general importance. In this article, examination of the AB's treatment of a particular subsidy issue is used to explore the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures' (SCM Agreement) definition of subsidy and to question the efficacy of the AB's reliance on texturalism. The legal question analyzed arose when European governments challenged the US's imposition of countervailing duties (CVDs) on steel manufactured by 'privatized' steel companies. The US claimed the CVDs were proper since subsidies provided prior to privatization had 'passed through' to the privatized companies. The AB, relying heavily on the meaning of words rather than on consideration of 'object and purpose', found that the US had violated its obligations under the SCM Agreement. An analysis of the AB's logic and the authorities cited demonstrates that neither justifies the AB's conclusion. A heuristic model of the definition of subsidy is used to show that the question raised by privatization implicates issues of causation, overlooked by the AB, that are important in correctly interpreting the SCM Agreement. The problems arising from AB texturalism are contrasted with the justifications given for that approach, suggesting that a change in approach may be warranted. , Oxford University Press.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jiel/jgn026
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Publisher Info
Article provided by Oxford University Press in its journal Journal of International Economic Law.

Volume (Year): 11 (2008)
Issue (Month): 3 (September)
Pages: 649-678
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:oup:jieclw:v:11:y:2008:i:3:p:649-678

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK
Fax: 01865 267 985
Email:
Web page: http://www.jiel.oupjournals.org/

Order Information:
Web: http://www.oup.co.uk/journals

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

Related research
Keywords:

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? There is a FAQ (frequently asked questions).

This page was last updated on 2009-12-15.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.