Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:16:04.870Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chile – price band system and safeguard measures relating to certain agricultural products

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2004

KYLE BAGWELL  and
ALAN O. SYKES
KYLE BAGWELL
Affiliation:
Columbia University
ALAN O. SYKES
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper addresses the dispute brought to the World Trade Organization (WTO) by Argentina concerning certain Chilean measures affecting the importation of wheat, wheat flour, oil seeds, edible vegetable oils and sugar. The complaint by Argentina challenged two types of policies – a ‘price band system’ that was applicable to four of those product categories, and safeguard measures that were applicable to three of them. The WTO panel ruled in favor of Argentina on both sets of measures. It found that the price band system violated Article IV of the Agriculture Agreement and Article II of GATT 1994. The safeguard measures, according to the panel, violated various provisions of the Safeguards Agreement, as well as Article XIX of GATT 1994. Chile elected not to appeal the panel ruling regarding the safeguard measures, but did appeal the adverse finding as to the price band system. The Appellate Body subsequently affirmed in substantial part the finding that the price band system violated Article 4 of the Agriculture Agreement, but reversed the finding of a violation under Article II of GATT 1994. Chile has since indicated an intention to comply with the ruling, and an arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU determined that the reasonable period of time for compliance would expire on December 23, 2003.

Type
Dispute settlement corner
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , November 2004 , pp. 507 - 528
Copyright
2004 Kyle Bagwell and Alan O. Sykes

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.)

Footnotes

Reproduced by kind permission of the American Law Institute and Cambridge University Press. This case analysis is included alongside others in The WTO Case Law of 2002: The American Law Institute Reporters' Studies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming. The authorized full printed text of this case is in DSR 2002, III, also from Cambridge University Press.