This paper examines the World Trade Organization's Article 22.6 arbitration report on the dispute over the United States’ country of origin labeling (US–COOL) regulation for meat products. At prior phases of the legal process, a WTO Panel and the Appellate Body had sided with Canada and Mexico by finding that the US regulation had negatively affected their exports of livestock – cattle and hogs – to the US market. The arbitrators authorized Canada and Mexico to retaliate by over $1 billion against US exports – the second largest authorized retaliation on record and only the twelfth WTO dispute to reach the stage of an arbitration report. Our legal–economic analysis focuses on several issues in the arbitration report. First, the complainants requested that, to compute the permissible retaliation limit, the arbitrators consider a new formula that would include the effects of domestic price suppression. We present a simple, economics-based model to explain the arbitrators’ rejection of this proposal. Second, we provide market context for the $1 billion finding. The arbitrators relied on the trade effects’ formula, which sets the retaliation limit as equivalent to the perceived loss of export revenue from the WTO violation. We argue that this amount was implausibly large, given the conditions in the US market for cattle and hogs during this period. We then describe the challenges facing arbitrators as they construct such estimates, including those likely to have arisen in this dispute.

On 9 March 2017, an International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunal chaired by Professor Lucy Reed, with co-arbitrators Dr. Michael Pryles (Ansung's appointee) and Professor Albert Jan van den Berg (China's appointee) (the Tribunal), issued its award in Ansung Housing Co., Ltd. v. People's Republic of China (the Award). The dispute arose out of Ansung's investment in a golf course and condominium development project in Sheyang-Xian, China. The Award dismissed Ansung's claim and ordered Ansung to pay 75% of China's legal fees and expenses, as well as the direct costs of the proceeding.

The dispute principally concerns the provisional and definitive anti-dumping measures applied by Canada on imports of certain Carbon Steel Welded Pipe (CSWP) from Chinese Taipei.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement process allows a defending Member a ‘reasonable period of time’ (RPT) to implement any findings that its contested measures are inconsistent with WTO law. If agreement on this RPT cannot be reached, Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) provides for the possibility of arbitration on the length of the RPT. The DSU provides limited guidelines on the RPT, stating only that it should not normally exceed 15 months. In practice, Arbitrators have developed the standard that the RPT should reflect the shortest possible period under the domestic legal system of the defending Member to make the changes necessary to comply with the WTO rulings. Our research confirms that in practice Arbitrators have determined this period by ‘splitting the difference’ approximately between the periods suggested by the complaining and defending Member. In addition, the process appears to reward defending Members that request an RPT that exceeds the 15-month guideline in Article 21.3(c).

The dispute concerns the GATT Article XXVIII negotiations of the European Union's (EU) Schedule of Concessions. The EU sought to modify its tariff concessions in respect of certain poultry products. The EU conducted this modification through two separate negotiations. The first round of negotiations were initiated in 2006 and covered the modification of tariff concessions on poultry products falling under HS Codes 0210 99 39, 1602 31, and 1602 32 19 (First Modification Package). The second round of negotiations began in 2009 and pertained to the modification of products falling under HS Codes 1602 20 10, 1602 32 11, 1602 32 30, 1602 32 90, 1602 39 21, 1602 39 29, 1602 39 40, and 1602 39 808 (Second Modification Package). In both rounds, the EU notified its intention to modify its tariff concessions under Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994. It subsequently entered into negotiations with Brazil and Thailand, which it considered to have the required legal interest to enter into these negotiations. The EU reached agreements with Brazil and Thailand and replaced its previous tariff concessions in respect of the tariff rate quotas (TRQs) for certain poultry products.

This dispute concerns an anti-dumping measure imposed by China on imports of cellulose pulp form Canada. Canada specifically challenged the determination of injury made by China's Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) in the anti-dumping investigation. MOFCOM applied an ad valorem duty on imports from producers in the investigated countries. It applied anti-dumping duties of 13% on cooperating Canadian producers and 23.7% on all other Canadian producers, except for one producer that was excluded from the investigation due to a de minimis dumping margin.

This dispute concerns China's claims regarding three issues related to certain anti-dumping measures applied by the United States Department of Commerce (USDOC): the use of the weighted average-to-transaction (WA-T) method in dumping margin calculations, the treatment of multiple companies as a non-market economy-wide entity (NME-wide entity), and the way that USDOC determines anti-dumping duty rates for this type of entity and the level of these duty rates.

This dispute arose after African Swine Fever (ASF), a highly contagious disease of pigs, was detected in four member States of the European Union (EU) and Russia stopped accepting imports of pigs and pig products from the EU. The EU presented claims with respect to two measures: (i) the ‘EU-wide ban’, consisting of Russia's ban on the importation of the products at issue from the entire EU; and (ii) the ‘country-specific import bans’ imposed by Russia on imports from the four EU member States – Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. There were two categories of products at issue: ‘treated products’ (finished products subject to a treatment that ensures destruction of ASF) and ‘non-treated products’ (products including live pigs, and raw meat preparations). Treated products were not subject to the EU-wide ban. The EU brought multiple claims under the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement).