Trade remedies and World Trade Organization dispute settlement : Why are so few challenged?
Antidumping and related trade remedies are the most popular policy instruments that many of the largest importing countries in the World Trade Organization (WTO) system use to restrict international trade. While such trade remedies are also frequent targets of dispute settlement activity under the WTO, given that Panel and Appellate Body rulings have almost invariably found that some aspect of each reviewed remedy was inconsistent with WTO obligations, an open research question is why aren't more remedies targeted by dispute settlement? The author provides a first empirical investigation of the trade remedy and WTO dispute settlement interaction by focusing on determinants of WTO members'decisions of whether to formally challenge U.S. trade remedies imposed between 1992 and 2003. He provides evidence that it is not only the size of the economic market at stake and the capacity to retaliate under potential DSU (dispute settlement understanding)-authorized sanctions that influence the litigation decision of whether to formally challenge a measure at the WTO. The author also finds that if the negatively affected foreign industry has the capacity to directly retaliate through a reciprocal antidumping investigation and measure of its own, its government is less likely to pursue the case on its behalf at the WTO. This is consistent with the theory that potential complainants may be avoiding WTO litigation in favor of pursuing reciprocal antidumping and hence"vigilante justice."
|Date of creation:||01 Mar 2005|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (202) 477-1234
Web page: http://www.worldbank.org/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 2005.
"Enforcement, Private Political Pressure and the Gatt/Wto Escape Clause,"
0405-13, Columbia University, Department of Economics.
- Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 2004. "Enforcement, Private Political Pressure and the GATT/WTO Escape Clause," NBER Working Papers 10987, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Bagwell,K. & Staiger,R.W., 2004. "Enforcement, private political pressure and the GATT/WTO escape clause," Working papers 23, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
- Blonigen, Bruce A. & Bown, Chad P., 2003.
"Antidumping and retaliation threats,"
Journal of International Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 249-273, August.
- Bown, Chad P., 2013.
"How different are safeguards from antidumping ? evidence from us trade policies toward steel,"
Policy Research Working Paper Series
6378, The World Bank.
- Chad Bown, 2013. "How Different Are Safeguards from Antidumping? Evidence from US Trade Policies Toward Steel," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 449-481, June.
- Chad P. Bown, 2004. "How Different Are Safeguards from Antidumping? Evidence from US Trade Policies Toward Steel," Econometric Society 2004 North American Summer Meetings 434, Econometric Society.
- Sykes, Alan O., 2003. "The safeguards mess: a critique of WTO jurisprudence," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(03), pages 261-295, November.
- Hansen, Wendy L & Prusa, Thomas J, 1996.
"Cumulation and ITC Decision-Making: The Sum of the Parts Is Greater Than the Whole,"
Western Economic Association International, vol. 34(4), pages 746-69, October.
- Wendy L. Hansen & Thomas J. Prusa, 1995. "Cumulation and ITC Decision-Making: The Sum of the Parts is Greater thanthe Whole," NBER Working Papers 5062, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Wendy L. Hansen & Thomas J. Prusa, 1996. "Cumulation and ITC Decision-Making: The Sum of the Parts is Greater Than the Whole," Departmental Working Papers 199422, Rutgers University, Department of Economics.
- Prusa, Thomas J., 1992. "Why are so many antidumping petitions withdrawn?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1-2), pages 1-20, August.
- Chad P. Bown, 2005. "Participation in," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 19(2), pages 287-310.
- Tarullo, Daniel K., 2003. "Paved with good intentions: the dynamic effects of WTO review of anti-dumping action," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(03), pages 373-393, November.
- Robert M. Feinberg & Kara M. Reynolds, 2006.
"The Spread of Antidumping Regimes and the Role of Retaliation in Filings,"
Southern Economic Journal,
Southern Economic Association, vol. 72(4), pages 877–890, April.
- Robert M. Feinberg & Kara M. Olson, 2004. "The Spread of Antidumping Regimes and the Role of Retaliation in Filings," International Trade 0411003, EconWPA.
- Horn, Henrik & Mavroidis, Petros C & Nordström, Håkan, 1999. "Is The Use Of The WTO Dispute Settlement System Biased?," CEPR Discussion Papers 2340, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Holmes, Peter & Rollo, Jim & Young, Alasdair R., 2003. "Emerging trends in WTO dispute settlement : back to the GATT?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3133, The World Bank.
- Thomas J. Prusa, 1999.
"On the Spread and Impact of Antidumping,"
NBER Working Papers
7404, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Martin, Alberto & Vergote, Wouter, 2004. "Antidumping: Welfare Enhancing Retaliation?," MPRA Paper 5416, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Maurizio Zanardi, 2004.
"Anti-dumping: What are the Numbers to Discuss at Doha?,"
The World Economy,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 403-433, 03.
- Maurizio Zanardi, 2004. "Antidumping: what are the numbers to discuss at Doha?," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9831, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Van de Ven, Wynand P. M. M. & Van Praag, Bernard M. S., 1981. "The demand for deductibles in private health insurance : A probit model with sample selection," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 229-252, November.
- John Greenwald, 2003. "WTO Dispute Settlement: an Exercise in Trade Law Legislation?," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 113-124, March.
- Bruce A. Blonigen & Thomas J. Prusa, 2001. "Antidumping," NBER Working Papers 8398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Bown, Chad P. & Hoekman, Bernard & Ozden, Caglar, 2003. "The pattern of US antidumping: the path from initial filing to WTO dispute settlement," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(03), pages 349-371, November.
- Bown, Chad P., 2002. "Why are safeguards under the WTO so unpopular?," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(01), pages 47-62, March.
- Chad P. Bown, 2004. "On the Economic Success of GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(3), pages 811-823, August.
- Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 2004. "The Economics of the World Trading System," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262524341, June.
- James P. Durling, 2003. "Deference, But Only When Due: WTO Review of Anti-Dumping Measures," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 125-153, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:3540. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Roula I. Yazigi)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.