dc.contributor.author | CHARNOVITZ, Steve | |
dc.contributor.author | HOEKMAN, Bernard M. | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2014-02-10T11:09:33Z | |
dc.date.available | 2014-02-10T11:09:33Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2013 | |
dc.identifier.citation | World Trade Review, 2013, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 273-296 | en |
dc.identifier.issn | 1475-3138 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1474-7456 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1814/29838 | |
dc.description | Published online: 10 April 2013. | en |
dc.description.abstract | In 2009, the United States imposed additional tariffs for a three-year period on imports of automotive tires from China under a special-safeguard provision included in China's Protocol of Accession to the WTO. China challenged the measure in the WTO. The case marked the first WTO dispute in which a challenged safeguard was upheld by the Appellate Body; the first in which an accession protocol was used successfully as a defense; and the first that China lost as a complaining party. It also was noteworthy in that the safeguard was sought by a labor union, not the domestic industry. This paper reviews the WTO Appellate Body's findings and discusses a number of the legal and policy implications regarding China's Accession Protocol, the Safeguards Agreement, and WTO accession law, as well as economic aspects of the case. | en |
dc.language.iso | en | en |
dc.relation.ispartof | World Trade Review | en |
dc.title | US–tyres : upholding a WTO accession contract — imposing pain for little gain | en |
dc.type | Article | en |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1017/S1474745612000602 | |
dc.identifier.volume | 12 | en |
dc.identifier.startpage | 273 | en |
dc.identifier.endpage | 296 | en |
eui.subscribe.skip | true | |
dc.identifier.issue | 2 | en |