In 2009, the EU imposed anti-dumping duties on aluminum foil imported from Armenia, Brazil, and China for five years. The final determination resulted in the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties of 13.4% (Armenia), 17.6% (Brazil), and 6.4–30% (China). This paper quantifies the direct and indirect effects of the EU anti-dumping duty on EU and US imports from targeted and unaffected countries using detailed data for the years 2006 through 2012, and controlling for exports of all products within the aluminum sheet, plate, and foil manufacturing industry from all countries. The findings point to the trade destruction, trade depression, trade diversion, and trade deflection effects typically found in the existing literature. However, the uniqueness of this case lies in the fact that the Armenian exporter is a subsidiary of a Russian firm. And as Armenia's exports to the EU declined, they expanded rapidly to the US. At the same time, the US imports from Russia, a country not directly touched by the anti-dumping ruling, declined dramatically, and were diverted to the EU. This points to the potential ineffectiveness of anti-dumping duties in the presence of multinational corporations with production facilities located across countries differentially impacted by anti-dumping duties.

This article explores the concept of ‘regulatory convergence’ in the context of the evolving literature on legal convergence and divergence. Such a concept has emerged as an overarching horizontal discipline in the latest generation of preferential trade agreements and aims to reduce unnecessary regulatory incompatibilities between countries in order to facilitate cross-border trade and investment.

Differing approaches to regulatory convergence found in recently concluded PTAs, or are currently under negotiation, are examined, with a special focus on the ‘regulatory cooperation’ approach embedded in CETA, the path of ‘regulatory improvement’ taken by members of the Pacific Alliance, and the ‘regulatory coherence’ track included in the TPP. We also refer to the TTIP negotiations conducted between the EU and the US.

The article offers a broad understanding of the different ways in which regulatory convergence is implemented across PTAs, and the legal complexities resulting from the ambiguity of the concept. It further describes the scope and effects of the different mechanisms used to achieve regulatory convergence, on both substantive and procedural matters.

China's unique economic system poses increasing challenges to the world trading system and attracts growing academic and policy debate. WTO members have frequently resorted to antidumping measures in dealing with price distortions caused by the Chinese government's influence on the economy. The Appellate Body's decision in the recent EU–Biodiesel dispute starts to remove the flexibility of condemning state intervention and price distortions under the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement through antidumping measures. This decision, read with the relevant WTO jurisprudence on the ‘ordinary course of trade’ test and subsidies, suggests that price distortions resulting from state intervention should be addressed under other WTO rules. Therefore, it is necessary for WTO members to shift their focus to, and explore the capacity of, the other rules to overcome the challenges arising from China's state capitalism.

Recently, the World Trade Organization (WTO) granted Mexico the right to retaliate against the US as a compensation for losses related to the US ‘dolphin-safe’ label (May 2017). Despite the diversity of works on the issue, few analyze the changes in the US approach to dolphin protection as a result of international and domestic pressures related to the tuna–dolphin controversy. This paper seeks to understand such changes and their consequences using the process tracing method. It shows that (1) the US approach to dolphin protection passed through a process of policy change motivated by trade and diplomatic concerns mediating dolphin protection, and that (2) it was partially reversed in court as an outcome of the concessions offered to get the policy change approved. Finally, the paper argues that (3) this process led to the lock-in of the US ‘dolphin-safe’ label and to its expansion in response to recent WTO decisions.

There has been increasing litigation in the WTO on environmental issues in recent years, much of it about fishing. Two cases, Chile–Swordfish and Faroes–Herring, brought to light the potential for conflict between trade and fisheries law through the imposition of port state measures by WTO members to prevent illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, although both cases were settled before reaching Panel stage. Port state measures aim to combat IUU fishing by allowing countries to close their ports to IUU fish. This includes using trade measures and trade-related measures, such as import bans and transshipment bans, which may violate WTO law. The potential for conflict is even more acute now that the Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA) has come into force. This paper takes as its study Faroes–Herring, where the Faroes challenged certain EU regulations aimed at preventing IUU fishing through the use of port state measures. It examines whether these regulations comply with WTO law, and makes recommendations as to how a Panel or Appellate Body can resolve this type of dispute. Specifically, it focuses on ways in which international fisheries law can be incorporated in this process to avoid a conflict between international trade and fisheries law.

This dispute concerns countervailing measures imposed by the European Union (EU) on imports of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) from Pakistan. Pakistan has a ‘duty drawback scheme’ by which it remits import duties on input materials consumed in the production of a product that is subsequently exported. The European Commission considered that all duties remitted to a Pakistani PET producer and exporter named Novatex constituted a countervailable subsidy contingent upon export performance. Also, Pakistan has a programme through which it provides government-financed loans to certain qualifying companies. Pre-approved banks are prohibited from charging interest rates above a specified level. The European Commission considered that the loan conferred to Novatex under this programme constituted a countervailable subsidy.

The dispute relates to anti-dumping duties imposed by Russia on certain light commercial vehicles (LCVs) from Germany and Italy. These anti-dumping duties were applied pursuant to Decision No. 113 of 14 May 2013 of the Board of the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC), including the relevant annexes, notices, and reports of the Department for Internal Market Defence of the EEC (DIMD).

This dispute relates to the compliance proceedings in which the panel and the Appellate Body found that that European Union (EU) and certain of the member States acted inconsistently with their obligations under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement). The types of measures at issue in the original panel proceedings include the Launch Aid/Member State Financing (LA/MSF) for, inter alia, the A300, A310, and A380; French and German government ‘equity infusions’ provided in connection with the corporate restructuring of Aérospatiale and Deutsche Airbus; certain infrastructure and related measures provided by the German and Spanish authorities; and research and technological development funding provided by the European Communities and certain member States. The EU replaced the terminated the A300 and A310 programmes with new LA/MSF programmes, including the A350XWB LA/MSF subsidies.