Advertisement

Countermeasures in the WTO Law and the Principle of Proportionality: A Developing Country’s Perspective

  • Daniel Damásio Borges
Chapter

Abstract

One of the most important features of the WTO dispute settlement is the use of trade sanctions as a means of promoting compliance with the WTO decisions by Member States. Member States that were injured by the refusal of another Member State to comply with WTO decisions can be authorized to exercise countermeasures against this State. WTO rules regulate the conditions and limitations on the taking of countermeasures by an injured State. The focus of this paper is more circumvented: the role of the principle of proportionality in the WTO discipline on countermeasures. As we try to demonstrate in this paper, the principle of proportionality influences the amount and the type of the countermeasures. WTO arbitrators, however, have not applied correctly this principle. In particular, WTO arbitrators have failed to take into account the economic difficulties of developing countries. Moreover, they have adopted a very strict approach in analyzing cross-retaliation. This strict approach is not compatible with the single undertaking underlying WTO agreements.

References

Books and Articles

  1. Alland D (1994) Justice privée et ordre juridique international – Étude théorique des contre-mesures en droit international public. Editions A. Pedone, ParisGoogle Scholar
  2. Bederman DJ (2002) Counterintuiting countermeasures. Am J Int Law 96:831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cannizzaro E (2001) The role of proportionality in the law of international countermeasures. Eur J Int Law 12(5):889–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cho S-J (1998) GATT non violation issues in the WTO framework: are they the achilles’ heel of the dispute settlement process. Harv J Int Law 39(1998):311–355Google Scholar
  5. Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries 2001, International Law Commission, available at http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2018
  6. de Visscher C (1970) Théories et réalités en droit international public. Éditions A. Pedone, ParisGoogle Scholar
  7. Hudec R (1993) Enforcing international trade law: the evolution of the modern GATT legal sytem. Butterworths, Salem, NHGoogle Scholar
  8. Krugman P (1991) The move toward Free Trade Zones. Econ Rev, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, November 1991, p 15Google Scholar
  9. Marceau G (2004) WTO dispute settlement and human rights. Available at: http://www.ejil.org/forum_tradehumanrights. Accessed 1 Dec 2004
  10. Reuter P (1995) Introduction au droit des traités, 3e Édition. Presses Universitaires de France, ParisGoogle Scholar

Decisions of International Dispute Settlement Bodies

    Arbitral Awards

    1. Case Concerning the Air Service Agreement of 27 March 1946 between the United States of America and France, Decision of 9 December 1978, available at http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XVIII/417-493.pdf Accessed 20 Jan 2018

    International Court of Justice

    1. Case Concerning the Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary-Slovakia), Judgment of 25 September, International Court of Justice, § 85, available at available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/92/7375.pdf

    GATT Decisions

    1. Netherlands action under article XXIII:2 to suspend obligations to The United States, Report adopted by the Contracting Parties on 8 November 1952 (L/61)Google Scholar

    WTO Decisions

    1. Brazil – Export financing programme for aircraft - recourse to arbitration by Brazil under article 22.6 of the DSU and article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, decision by Arbitrators, 28 August 2000Google Scholar
    2. Canada – Export credits and loan guarantees for regional aircraft, recourse to arbitration by Canada under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, decision by the Arbitrator, 17 February 2003, WT/DS222/ARBGoogle Scholar
    3. European Communities – Measures concerning meat and meat products (hormones), original Complaint by the United States, recourse to arbitration by The European Communities under article 22.6 of the DSU, decision by the Arbitrators, 12 July 1999, WT/DS26/ARBGoogle Scholar
    4. European Communities – Measures concerning meat and meat products (hormones), original complaint by Canada, recourse to arbitration by The European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, Decision by the Arbitrators, 12 de julho de 1999, WT/DS48/ARBGoogle Scholar
    5. European Communities – Regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas – recourse to arbitration by the European Communities under article 22.6 of the DSU, decision by the arbitrators, 9 April 1999, WT/DS27/ARBGoogle Scholar
    6. United States – Import measures on certain products from the European Communities, Report of the Panel, 17 July 2002, WT/DS165/RGoogle Scholar
    7. United States – Tax treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations” - Recourse to arbitration by the United States under article 22.6 of the DSU and article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, Decision of the Arbitrator, 30 August 2002, WT/DS108/ARBGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Damásio Borges
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Public LawSchool of Human and Social Sciences of UNESP (University of the State of São Paulo)FrancaBrazil

Personalised recommendations