No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 January 2008
1 Edwin, Vermulst, Antidumping Law and Practice in the United States and the European Communities (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1987)Google Scholar; John, Jackson and Edwin, Vermulst (eds), Antidumping Law and Practice: A Comparative Study (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1990)Google Scholar; Edwin, Vermulst, Jacques, Bourgeois, and Paul, Waer (eds), Rules of Origin in International Trade: A Comparative Study (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1994)Google Scholar; Edwin, Vermulst and Paul, Waer, EC Anti-Dumping Law and Practice (Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1996)Google Scholar; Stefano, Inama and Edwin, Vermulst, Customs and Trade Laws of the European Community (Kluwer, The Hague, 1999)Google Scholar; Edwin, Vermulst and Folkert, Graafsma, WTO Disputes: Anti-Dumping, Subsidies & Safeguards (Cameron May, London, 2002)Google Scholar; Edwin, Vermulst, Customs and Trade Laws as Tools of Protectionism: Selected Essays (Cameron May, London, 2005).Google Scholar
2 See <http://www.worldtradelaw.net>, <http://www.wto.org/appellatebody>, and Kara, Leitner and Simon, Lester, ‘WTO Dispute Settlement from 1995 to 2005: A Statistical Analysis’ (2006) 9 Journal of International Economic Law 219, 224.Google Scholar
3 See, eg, Michael, Finger, Francis, Ng, and Sonam, Wangchuk, Antidumping as Safeguard Policy, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2730 (2001).Google Scholar
4 See, eg, WTO Press Release 458, ‘WTO Secretariat reports new anti-dumping investigations continue to decline, while new final measures show increase’, 27 11 2006.Google Scholar
5 Judith, Czako, Johann, Human, and Jorge, Miranda, A Handbook on Anti-Dumping Investigations (CUP, Cambridge, 2003).Google Scholar
6 James, Durling and Matthew, Nicely, Understanding the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement: Negotiating History and Subsequent Interpretation (Cameron May, London, 2002).Google Scholar See also Terence, Stewart (ed), The GATT Uruguay Round: A Negotiating History (1986–1992): Antidumping (Kluwer, Deventer, 1993).Google Scholar
7 Terence, Stewart and Amy, Dwyer, WTO Antidumping and Subsidy Agreements: a Practitioner's Guide to ‘Sunset’ Reviews in Australia, Canada, the European Union, and the United States (Kluwer, The Hague, 1998).Google Scholar
8 Appellate Body Report, European Communities: Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India (‘EC—Bed Linen’), WT/DS141/AB/R, circulated 1 03 2001Google Scholar, adopted 12 03 2001, para 66.Google Scholar
9 See most recently Appellate Body Report, United States—Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews (‘US—Zeroing (Japan)’), WT/DS322/AB/R, circulated 9 01 2007Google Scholar, not yet adopted at time of writing; Appellate Body Report, United States—Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins (‘Zeroing’) (‘US—Zeroing (EC)’), WT/DS294/AB/R, circulated 18 04 2006, adopted 9 05 2006Google Scholar; Appellate Body Report, United States—Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada, Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada (‘US—Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5—Canada)’), WT/DS264/AB/RW, circulated 15 08 2006, adopted 1 09 2006.Google Scholar
10 See most recently Panel Report, United States—Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Argentina, WT/DS268/R, circulated 30 11 2006.Google Scholar
11 See WTO news item, ‘Viet Nam joins WTO with Director-General's tribute for true grit’, 11 01 2007.Google Scholar