Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:11:02.362Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

US – Lamb: United States – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia: What Should be Required of a Safeguard Investigation?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2015

Henrik Horn  and
Petros C. Mavroidis
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The United States (US) imposed, in July 1999, a safeguard on lamb meat, in the form of tariff rate import quotas, which were to be applied for a period of three years. The measure was based on findings by the US International Trade Commission that increased imports of lamb meat were a substantial cause of threat of serious injury to the US industry producing the like product. Following complaints by New Zealand and Australia that the measure was inconsistent with Articles I, II and XIX of GATT 1994, and several provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body established, in November 1999, a panel to review the consistency of the US measure with the mentioned WTO rules.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 2 , Special Issue S1: WTO Case Law of 2001 , 2003 , pp. 72 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2003

References

Bhagwati, Jagdish. 1981. Import Competition and Response. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Deardorff, Alan. 1987. Safeguards Policy and the Conservative Social Welfare Function. In Kierzkowski, Henryk, Protection and Competition in International Trade: Essays in Honor ofW. M. Corden. Blackwell: Oxford.Google Scholar
Dixit, Avinash. 1987. Trade and Insurance with Moral Hazard. Journal of International Economics, 23: 201–20.Google Scholar
Dixit, Avinash. 1989a. Trade and Insurance with Imperfectly Observed Outcomes. Quarterly Journal of Economics, February: 195–203. 1989b. Trade and Insurance with Adverse Selection. Review of Economic Studies, 56: 235–48.Google Scholar
Eaton, Jonathan and Grossman, Gene. 1985. Tariff as Insurance: Optimal Commercial Policy when Domestic Markets are Incomplete. Canadian Journal of Economics, 18: 258–72.Google Scholar
Grossman, Gene. 1986. Imports as a Cause of Injury: the Case of the U.S. Steel Industry. Journal ofInternational Economics 121.Google Scholar
Irwin, Douglas A. 2002. Causing Problems? The WTO Review of Causation and Injury Attribution in U.S. Section 201 Cases. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Kelly, Kenneth. 1988. The Analysis of Causality in Escape Clause Cases. Journal of Industrial Economics, 37: 187–207.Google Scholar
Mussa, Michael. 1981. Government Policy and the Adjustment Process. Pp. 73–120 in Bhagwati, Jagdish, Import Competition and Response. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Neary, Peter. 1981. Inter-Sectoral Capital Mobility, Wage Stickiness, and the Case for Adjustment Assistance. Pp. 39–67 in Bhagwati, Jagdish, Import Competition and Response. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Newbery, David M. G. and Stiglitz, Joseph E.. 1981. The Theory of Commodity Price Stabilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pindyck, Robert and Rotemberg, Julio. 1987. Are Imports to Blame? Attribution of Injury under the 1974 Trade Act. Journal of Law and Economics, 30: 101–22.Google Scholar
Sykes, Alan. 1990. GATT Safeguards Reform: the Injury Test. In Trebilcock, Michael and York, R., Fair Exchange: Reforming Trade Remedy Laws. Policy Study 11. C. D. Toronto: Howe Institute. 1991. Protectionism as a “Safeguard”: a Positive Analysis of GATT Article XIX with Normative Speculations. University ofChicago Law Review, Winter.Google Scholar