Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:16:43.154Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

NAFTA Panel Dismisses Chapter 11 Challenges to U.S. Administration of Antidumping andCountervailing Duty Laws, Allows Byrd Amendment Claim to Proceed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2017

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* Both items relating to Settlement of Disputes in this issue of the Journal have been written by Ernesto J. Sanchez, a member of the American Society of International Law and law clerk at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C. All views expressed in these items are the author’s and in no way reflect those of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims or its staff. The Editor of this section, who served as an arbitrator in one of the cases discussed by Mr. Sanchez, gratefully acknowledges his role in taking responsibility for these items.

1 See Chi, Carmody, Case Report: Softwood Lumber Dispute (2001–2006), 100 AJIL 664 (2006)Google Scholar; John R., Crook, Contemporary Practice of the United States, 99 AJIL 272 (2005)Google Scholar, 100 AJIL 242, 243, & 702 (2006); John R., Crook, The 2005 Activity of the NAFTA Tribunals, 100 AJIL 429 (2006)Google Scholar.

2 Canfor Corp. v. United States, Decision on Preliminary Question (NAFTA Ch. 11 Arb. Trib. June 6, 2006), at <http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/67753.pdf>.

3 John R., Crook, Contemporary Practice of the United States, 100 AJIL 722 (2006)Google Scholar.

4 John R., Crook, Contemporary Practice of the United States, 100 AJIL 243 (2006)Google Scholar.

5 Canfor Corp. v. United States at 104.

6 Id. at 112.

7 Id. at 159–60 (footnote omitted).