Our annual gathering in Florence (8 and 9 July 2019), generously sponsored by the European University Institute, amidst the crisis at the WTO, was business as usual. Trading nations continue to entrust the WTO dispute settlement system with the adjudication of their disputes. The conference covered a very healthy number of disputes across different subject matter, ranging from antidumping duties to protection of public health.

In July 2014, Indonesia implemented a safeguard tariff on galvalume, a type of galvanized flat-rolled steel. Chinese Taipei and Viet Nam challenged the measure, mainly claiming that Indonesia's administering authority failed to satisfy various substantive and procedural requirements of the GATT 1994 and the Safeguards Agreement. The Panel and AB found that the tariff was not a safeguard measure but rather was a simple increase in Indonesia's applied rate. Interestingly, Viet Nam, the largest import supplier, is a member of a free trade area with Indonesia, meaning Viet Nam is not subject to the MFN rate. Viet Nam's preferential tariff treatment likely influenced Indonesia's decision to claim the action was a safeguard. Ironically, even though the Appellate Body essentially rejected its claims, the ruling benefits Viet Nam.

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.

This article discusses the ambiguity found in the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement concerning price suppression analysis. Previous case law has established that investigating authorities undertaking to highlight price suppression must conduct a counterfactual analysis. This article examines the difficulties that investigating authorities face in performing such an analysis when the investigating period overlaps with a financial crisis or other abnormal economic circumstances. It suggests that the Appellate Body was correct to require consideration of how profit margins and costs are affected by market circumstances, but ought to pay further attention to the behavior of firms in imperfectly competitive markets.

Subsequent to the 2016 modifications concerning the strengthening of the administrative requirements on dolphin-safety outside the ETP fishery zone, the second WTO compliance proceedings have finally found the US Dolphin-Safe labelling scheme compatible with the multilateral trade system. We provide an overview of the long-running US–Mexico dispute and assess the final findings of the WTO adjudicators attempting to determine the effects of the multilateral litigation on the involved non-trade values and the real winners of the case. We find an improvement in dolphin protection, though more could be achieved through a qualification of the US measure under the principle of sustainable development also contemplated in the Preamble of the WTO Agreement, as well as an enhancement on consumer information, since declaration of dolphin-safety may now be better monitored and enforced through the new discipline for non-Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean tuna products. However, we also observe that with no change to the appearance of the label or an informational campaign, the improved credibility of the label may hardly be passed-through to the average consumer. Furthermore, despite an increase in the stringency of the regulation for their competitors, Mexican producers do not gain greater access to the US and instead have been diversifying towards other markets. We then highlight that the Appellate Body missed an opportunity to reinforce the transparency of the system by supporting the first-ever decision to grant partially open panel meetings.

This paper presents a legal-economic analysis of key aspects of the WTO Panel Report involving a challenge by Indonesia against the anti-dumping and countervailing duties imposed by the US on certain coated paper from Indonesia. We focus on the findings in this case relevant to the determination of a ‘benefit’ to the recipient, a core requirement to establish the existence and extent of a subsidy. We examine benchmarking for determining benefit in cases of predominant government ownership of a natural resource and the use of ‘adverse facts available’ against a non-cooperative respondent to infer the existence of a benefit. The benefit analysis in this case may have broader implications. First, it may limit the scope for governments to determine their own policies regarding the ownership and management of natural resources. Second, it may create a loophole allowing investigating authorities to fill gaps in the factual record by intentionally using the ‘facts available’ to the disadvantage of a respondent. In both cases, the panel's findings may open the door to potential misuse of these flexibilities to find a benefit where none exists, or to inflate the margin of benefit to allow for higher countervailing duties.

The Appellate Body report in EU–PET (Pakistan) raises distinct questions regarding the need for findings in relation to expired measures, the conditions under which duty drawback schemes may constitute subsidies and the causation methodology to apply under the SCM Agreement. We conclude that the report offers no clear guidance on whether the function and design of WTO dispute settlement require or preclude findings in case of expired measures. We welcome the Appellate Body's conclusion that, in case of duty drawback schemes, the financial contribution element of the subsidy is limited to the excess remission or drawback of import charges. Finally, although the Appellate Body rightly found that authorities are free to choose the methodology for the causation analysis provided that the analysis is complete and objective, the methodology used by the investigating authority in this case shows a number of deficiencies that were not recognized by the Appellate Body.

We critically assess the Appellate Body (AB) report on the Brazil–Taxation dispute, taken to the World Trade Organisation by the European Union and Japan, and encompassing seven different Brazilian industrial programmes granting tax benefits to different firms and products. The trigger of the dispute was most likely the automotive sector programme, instituted under pressure from the local industry and without much attention to effects on consumers or imports. The resulting WTO case underscores some salient issues related to the WTO compatibility of subsidy programmes, in particular the application of the National Treatment rules to subsidies provided exclusively to domestic producers, and the identification of local content requirements, prohibited under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM). The AB diverged from the Panel report and its jurisprudence on those issues. The AB tried to reconcile the existence of legitimate eligibility criteria in subsidy programmes and their discriminatory features with WTO rules under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the SCM. However, the legal test, developed by the AB in this dispute to distinguish prohibited local content requirements from legitimate eligibility criteria, may facilitate circumvention of the SCM prohibition of local content requirements and have important impacts on trade flows.

The lengthy and long-awaited WTO Panel Reports in Australia–Tobacco Plain Packaging contain a host of material for reflection, particularly in relation to the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. While two of the Panel Reports proceed to appeal, we consider with respect to the two adopted Panel Reports the Panel's reasoning in relation to Article 2.2 of the TBT, focusing on the meaning of trade-restrictiveness. This concept central to WTO law has been under-examined to date, and these Panel Reports demonstrate some of the complexities in identifying trade-restrictive measures, particularly where they are non-discriminatory. The Panel found that Australia's measures restrict trade because they contribute to their objective of reducing tobacco consumption. Therefore, any equally effective alternative will similarly restrict trade. This curious result under TBT Article 2.2 may be particular to non-discriminatory measures that target ‘socially bad’ products such as tobacco.

This article explores economic and legal issues in the WTO dispute China–Broiler Products (Article 21.5–United States). In 2011, the US initiated a dispute against the conduct and results of China's 2009 trade remedy investigation into US broiler products (chickens). The Panel Report found that China had acted inconsistently with its WTO obligations. On the basis of a redetermination, China continued to impose duties and the United States initiated WTO compliance proceedings. The compliance Panel Report, circulated in 2018, concluded that China had failed to comply with its WTO obligations when allocating costs to construct US domestic prices for broiler products. However, China was found to have acted consistently with its WTO obligations with respect to two claims which raise some interesting legal questions. Ultimately, after almost a decade of litigation, China removed the antidumping and countervailing duties on US broiler products in 2018.

EU–Biodiesel (Indonesia) is the latest in two lines of cases. On the one hand, the case offers yet another example of the Dispute Settlement Body striking down creative interpretations of antidumping rules by developed countries. Applying the Appellate Body's decision in EU–Biodiesel (Argentina), the panel found that the EU could not use antidumping duties to counteract the effects of Indonesia's export tax on palm oil. On the other hand, the decision is another chapter in the battle over renewable energy markets. Both the EU and Indonesia had intervened in their markets to promote the development of domestic biodiesel industries. The panel's decision prevents the EU from using antidumping duties to preserve market opportunities created by its Renewable Energy Directive for its domestic biodiesel producers. The EU has responded in two ways. First, through regulations that disfavor palm-based biodiesel, but not biodiesel made from from other foodstocks, such as rapeseed oil commonly produced in the EU. Second, the EU has imposed countervailing duties on Indonesian biodiesel, finding that Indonesia's export tax on crude palm oil constitutes a subsidy to Indonesian biodiesel producers. The EU's apparently inelastic demand for protection raises two questions: First, when domestic political bargains rest on both protectionist and non-protectionist motives and policies have both protectionist and non-protectonist effects, what are the welfare consequences of restraining only overt protectionism? Second, under what circumstances may regulatory approaches be even less desirable than duties for addressing combined protectionist and environmental interests, and would the WTO have the right powers to discipline them in an environmentally sound way?

This article reviews the Appellate Body decision in the implementation phase of the EC–Aircraft dispute. Focusing on some of the key findings, we assess whether they are legally and economically correct. We conclude that (a) though still unclear, the test for establishing de facto contingency on import substitution subsidies is probably too demanding; (b) though legitimate, the interpretation of the remedy of removal of the adverse effects for actionable subsidies is the weakest and most deferential possible; (c) the hesitation in confirming that quantitative methods are the key tool to define the relevant market is unwelcome; and (d) the Appellate Body correctly recognize the importance for Panels to consider, in the context of the serious prejudice analysis, whether the like product of the complainant has been subsidized. Most importantly, the analysis of this case, set within the broader jurisprudence and practice, has led us to conclude that WTO subsidy disciplines are not particularly strong. The review of the main economic theories justifying subsidy control (strategic trade policy, terms of trade, private information, commitment theory) has shown that no single theory is able to fully account for subsidies and the need to control them. The key question is the definition of what we want to achieve by controlling subsidies, which is the main message sent to the policy-makers and negotiators that are currently considering law reform.