As tariff barriers have fallen worldwide, regulation of domestic policy has become increasingly important in international trade agreements. This has led to the emergence of a theoretical literature addressing the integration of perfectly observable domestic policy into trade agreements. However, the assumption that domestic policy is perfectly observable is problematic since the interpretation and enforcement of domestic policy statutes is often non-transparent.
This paper estimates the impact of macroeconomic shocks on the trade policies of thirteen major emerging economies over 1989-2010; by 2010, these WTO member countries collectively accounted for 21 percent of world merchandise imports and 22 percent of world GDP.
These three kinds of measures are regulated by the Anti-dumping Agreement. According to the WTO provisions, dumping is not forbidden, but the WTO members have a right to take measures to protect their domestic industry from the harmful effects of dumping. While the countries of the world want trade enhancement at the global level, why do they apply anti-dumping measures, and is the approach of the WTO to this issu e appropriate?
The report identifies concerns with the EU anti-dumping instrument, as applied today, regardless of the fact that the investigation procedures and methods might be in line with the current regulation and practice. The report’s arguments are based on the recent anti-dumping investigation – and imposition of anti-dumping measures – on imports of ceramic tiles from China, but the observations and conclusions from the analysis are valid for most EU anti-dumping investigations. The report observes that price dumping is evaluated differently depending on whether the product is manufactured in the EU or imported from third countries.
On September 2, 2011, a panel report ruling against the U.S. ban on flavored cigarettes (which are often used to hook teenagers) was circulated to World Trade Organization (WTO) members after Indonesia successfully challenged the measure. In nearly 200 rulings over 16 years, this was the first time that the WTO ever found a violation under this article, which has long been of concern to consumer advocates.