Links
Archives
Current events related to international law.
Monday, December 15, 2003
The Statute of the Iraqi Tribunal provides guidance for the trial of Saddam Hussein, if that tribunal succeeds in being able to try the case. The composition of the tribunal is still unsettled. The US rejects an international tribunal, and also rejects an independent Iraqi tribunal as too immature to try such a complex case. Sovereignty interests, victims rights, international opinion, are just some of the concerns complicating the problem of where and how to try this case. The question of the underlying legality of the invasion, and the problem of foreign governments deciding, even for humanitarian reasons, to arrest leaders of other nations, are also unsettled and may affect the choice and operation of the tribunal.
Thursday, December 11, 2003
The U.S. attempt to restrict Iraq reconstruction contract awarding to select countries and to exclude France, Germany, and Canada has caused an international outcry. Although Wolfowitz presents the restrictions as a legal "security" exception to international agreements, that explanation fails to satisfy those nations.
See Eligibility Criteria.
See Eligibility Criteria.
Wednesday, December 10, 2003
The UN General Assembly has asked the ICJ for an advisory opinion regarding the wall being constructed in Israel. See ICJ request .
Friday, December 05, 2003
Atlantic Monthly's recent issue has a piece by Samantha Powers, author of "'A Problem from Hell': America and the Age of Genocide."
The magazine describes it:
"Interviews SAMANTHA POWER: LIFE IN MUGABE-VILLE 'I worry about Zimbabweans. They bend, they bend, they bend, they bend--where do the people break? How long can they go on scrounging for food in garbage dumps and using the moisture from sewage drains to plant vegetables? When, politically, do they say 'enough' and really rise up?' Samantha Power, the author of "How to Kill a Country," describes Zimbabwe's descent into chaos."
The magazine describes it:
"Interviews SAMANTHA POWER: LIFE IN MUGABE-VILLE 'I worry about Zimbabweans. They bend, they bend, they bend, they bend--where do the people break? How long can they go on scrounging for food in garbage dumps and using the moisture from sewage drains to plant vegetables? When, politically, do they say 'enough' and really rise up?' Samantha Power, the author of "How to Kill a Country," describes Zimbabwe's descent into chaos."
Thursday, December 04, 2003
December 4, 2003
The recent news about ending steel tariffs requires some background information. Though Bush claimed they were imposed to protect US steel from "predatory pricing" the GATT provided for such emergency tariffs where there was a harmful increase in foreign imports, not for pricing practices. While the US argued that ANY increase could support such tariffs, the WTO held that GATT requires, among other things, that the increase be of a type likely to cause harm (causation must also be shown). The WTO decision affirmed an earlier holding in Argentina Footwear:
" … the determination of whether the requirement of imports "in such increased quantities" is met is not a merely mathematical or technical determination. In other words, it is not enough for an investigation to show simply that imports of the product this year were more than last year - or five years ago. Again, and it bears repeating, not just any increased quantities of imports will suffice. There must be "such increased quantities" as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the domestic industry in order to fulfil this requirement for applying a safeguard measure. And this language in both Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994, we believe, requires that the increase in imports must have been recent enough, sudden enough, sharp enough, and significant enough, both quantitatively and qualitatively, to cause or threaten to cause "serious injury".
"Predatory pricing" was not at issue in the USITC (US International Trade Commission) report that originally supported the tariffs, nor in the case before the WTO. The case centered on the requirement in GATT that emergency tariffs be supported by evidence that "unforseen developments" caused a harmful increase in imports. There was some discussion about whether the strengthening of the dollar that contributed to the increase in imports could qualify as an "unforseen development." Recent declines in the dollar make foreign steel less attractive, even without tariffs.
_________
Notes:
Get the decision as download - go to "AB Reports in United States row and then select "E" to download the entry (at the top or near the top of the list).
Note the invocation of customary law at page 10 of the decision.
How are WTO disputes handled?
USITC is the United States International Trade Commission.
The recent news about ending steel tariffs requires some background information. Though Bush claimed they were imposed to protect US steel from "predatory pricing" the GATT provided for such emergency tariffs where there was a harmful increase in foreign imports, not for pricing practices. While the US argued that ANY increase could support such tariffs, the WTO held that GATT requires, among other things, that the increase be of a type likely to cause harm (causation must also be shown). The WTO decision affirmed an earlier holding in Argentina Footwear:
" … the determination of whether the requirement of imports "in such increased quantities" is met is not a merely mathematical or technical determination. In other words, it is not enough for an investigation to show simply that imports of the product this year were more than last year - or five years ago. Again, and it bears repeating, not just any increased quantities of imports will suffice. There must be "such increased quantities" as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the domestic industry in order to fulfil this requirement for applying a safeguard measure. And this language in both Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994, we believe, requires that the increase in imports must have been recent enough, sudden enough, sharp enough, and significant enough, both quantitatively and qualitatively, to cause or threaten to cause "serious injury".
"Predatory pricing" was not at issue in the USITC (US International Trade Commission) report that originally supported the tariffs, nor in the case before the WTO. The case centered on the requirement in GATT that emergency tariffs be supported by evidence that "unforseen developments" caused a harmful increase in imports. There was some discussion about whether the strengthening of the dollar that contributed to the increase in imports could qualify as an "unforseen development." Recent declines in the dollar make foreign steel less attractive, even without tariffs.
_________
Notes:
Get the decision as download - go to "AB Reports in United States row and then select "E" to download the entry (at the top or near the top of the list).
Note the invocation of customary law at page 10 of the decision.
How are WTO disputes handled?
USITC is the United States International Trade Commission.
