No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
US–OCTG (Korea): Legal Boundary of ‘Political’ Remedy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 April 2020
Abstract
The United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea (US–OCTG (Korea)) Panel decision concerned the latest in a long line of antidumping (AD) disputes about Oil Country Tubular Goods. It was notable for a broadly permissive approach by the Panel – on all major legal issues but one, the Panel sided with the United States over Korean objections. The case itself was also notable for the US reversal of a negative preliminary determination, something that had occurred in less than 1% of prior cases. Finally, the case was notable for unusual behaviour outside of the investigative process, including both vocal political complaints and a curious decision by Korea not to appeal. We discuss the legal determinations made by the Panel and offer a new interpretation of how to think about whether AD practices are justifiable. We also describe the broader diplomatic context in which Korea and the United States interacted and consider the implications if political pressures play an increased role in determining dispute outcomes.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Ahn, D and Zanardi, M (2017) China–HP-SSST: Last Part of Growing Pains? World Trade Review 16(2): 159–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagwell, K and Staiger, RW (1990) A Theory of Managed Trade. American Economic Review. American Economic Association 80(4): 779–795.Google Scholar
Bown, CP and Wauters, J (2008) United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) from Mexico: A Legal-Economic Assessment of Sunset Reviews. World Trade Review 7(1): 269–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dizikes, P (2010) Explained: Knightian Uncertainty. MIT News. http://news.mit.edu/2010/explained-knightian-0602.Google Scholar
Grossman, GM and Mavroidis, PC (2005) United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea. In Horn, H and Mavroidis, PC (eds.), The WTO Case Law of 2002: The American Law Institute Reporters’ Studies. Cambridge University Press, pp. 99–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, GM and Wauters, J (2008) United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina: A Cloudy Sunset. World Trade Review 7(1): 235–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handley, K and Limão, N (2017) Policy Uncertainty, Trade, and Welfare: Theory and Evidence for China and the United States. American Economic Review 107(9): 2731–2783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ikenson, D (2014) US Abides Global Trade Rules … Just Ignore the Steel Protectionism, Antidumping Abuse, WTO Violations, etc., https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/us-abides-global-trade-rulesjust-ignore-steel-protectionism-antidumping (visited 2 March 2019).Google Scholar
Porter, JM and Bowers, DE (1989) A Short History of Agricultural Trade Negotiations. Agriculture and Rural Economy Division, Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture. Staff Report No. AGES 89-23, August 1989. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/41764/54007_ages8923.pdf?v=42298.Google Scholar
Prusa, TJ and Vermulst, E (2013) United States – Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China: Passing the Buck on Pass-Through. World Trade Review 12(2): 197–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar