Privatization-related Subsidies under SCM Agreement:Focusing on Subsidies Countervailed by the United States
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
There have been growing interests among the WTO member countries in the issue whether it is reasonable under WTO subsidy rules to impose countervailing duties on those goods imported from the privatized company based on the pre-privatization subsidies, even when the company was privatized at arm's length. This paper suggests the proposal for more reasonable interpretations and application of the SCM Agreement to avoid the abuse of the countervailing measures under the current WTO Agreement. For the applicable suggestion, it reviews the problems exposed through the enforcement of the United States subsidy-relating policy and irrational methodology in treating with the privatization-related subsidies, and the WTO's judicial decisions on them. With regard to the privatization-related issues, the United States attempted to impose countervailing measures on products imported from privatized companies, for which the U.S. made amendment to the countervailing duties law and tried to apply various methodologies in the countervailing investigation. Such efforts of the U.S., however, were criticized severely by the trading partner countries and also judged to be in breach of the SCM provisions of the WTO. The United States laws and the Department of Commerce's enforcement would impede the effect of the several salient U.S. trade policies and threaten the credibility in its efforts to pursue a trade policy toward liberalization and open markets. Such an approach would be harmful to the U.S. consumers and industry, foreign industries, and free trade in general. Since the United States has maintained ideological and pragmatic interests in promoting privatization in the word markets, its legislative and administrative approach to the privatization-related subsidies should conceptually be reframed to be well-grounded in economic principles, and compatible with the U.S. trade policy goals and, at the same time, the WTO spirit and principles.
Abstract
There have been growing interests among the WTO member countries in the issue whether it is reasonable under WTO subsidy rules to impose countervailing duties on those goods imported from the privatized company based on the pre-privatization subsidies, even when the company was privatized at arm's length. This paper suggests the proposal for more reasonable interpretations and application of the SCM Agreement to avoid the abuse of the countervailing measures under the current WTO Agreement. For the applicable suggestion, it reviews the problems exposed through the enforcement of the United States subsidy-relating policy and irrational methodology in treating with the privatization-related subsidies, and the WTO's judicial decisions on them. With regard to the privatization-related issues, the United States attempted to impose countervailing measures on products imported from privatized companies, for which the U.S. made amendment to the countervailing duties law and tried to apply various methodologies in the countervailing investigation. Such efforts of the U.S., however, were criticized severely by the trading partner countries and also judged to be in breach of the SCM provisions of the WTO. The United States laws and the Department of Commerce's enforcement would impede the effect of the several salient U.S. trade policies and threaten the credibility in its efforts to pursue a trade policy toward liberalization and open markets. Such an approach would be harmful to the U.S. consumers and industry, foreign industries, and free trade in general. Since the United States has maintained ideological and pragmatic interests in promoting privatization in the word markets, its legislative and administrative approach to the privatization-related subsidies should conceptually be reframed to be well-grounded in economic principles, and compatible with the U.S. trade policy goals and, at the same time, the WTO spirit and principles.
참고문헌 (27)
- Bourgeois Jacques H.J., "The GATT Rules for Industrial Subsidies and Countervailing Duties and the New GATT Round-The Weather and the Seeds, in 5 The New GATT and Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations: Legal and Economic Problems", pp.219~235 (1990)
- Herlach Mark D, "Major Changes in U.S. Countervailing Duty Law: A Guide to the Basics", Prac. L. Inst., Com. L. & Prac. Course Handbook Series, 722 (2005)
- Jackson John H., "The World Trading System: Law and Policy of International Economic Relation" (1997), MIT Press
- Codevilla David A., "Comment, Discouraging the Practice of What We Preach: Saarstahl I, Inland Steel and the Implementation of the Uruguay Round of GATT 1994", George Mason Independent Law Review, 3 (1995)
- Da Silva Cornell David S., "May be You Can Take It with You, After All: Subsidies and Privatization under U.S. Countervailing Duty Law", Law and Policy in International Business, 25 (1994)
- David Rushford, "Subsidies and Privatization: Protectionism's Integral Role in United States Trade Law", U.C. Davis Law Review (1999)
- Dunne Julie, "Notes and Comments, Delverde and The WTO'S British Steel Decision Foreshadow More Conflict Where the WTO Subsidies Agreement, Privatization, and United States Countervailing Duty Law Intersect", American University International Law Review, 17 (2001)
- Guillermo de la Dehesa, "Privatization in Eastern and Central Europe", Occasional Papers, (34) (1991)
- Divestiture of State Enterprises An Overview of the Legal Framework, "Guislain Pierre", World Bank, ~, pp.Technical Paper, Number 186 (1992)
- United StatesImposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom: Here Today, Gone Tomorrow? Privatization and the Injury Caused by Non-Recurring Subsidies, "Grossman Gene M", The American Law Institute, ~ (2001)
- Richard Diamond, "Privatization and The Definition of Subsidy: A Critical Study of Appellate Body Texturalism", Journal of International Economic Law (2008), Oxford University Press
- Rosenthal Paul C, "The WTO Antidumping and Subsidies Agreements: Did the United States Achieve its Objectives during the Uruguay Round", Law & Policy International Business, 31 (2000)
- Privatization: Trends and Recent Developments, "Kikeri Sunita", World Bank Policy Research, ~ (2005)
- Magnus John R., "World Trade Organization Subsidy Discipline: This the 'Retrenchment Round'", Journal of World Trade, 38(6) (2004)
- Polevoy Pamela L., "Privatization in Vietnam: The Next Step in Vietnam's Transition from a Nonmarket to a Market Economy", Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 23 (1998)
- Southwick James D., "The Lingering Problem with the Specificity Test in United States Countervailing Duty Law", Minnesota Law Review, 72 (1988)
- Shirley Mary M., "Privatization and Performance", Hastings lnt'l & Comp. L. Rev, 17 (1994)
- Sheshinski Eytan, "Privatization and Its Benefits:Theory and Evidence", CESifo Economic Studies, 49 (2003)
- Sykes Alan O., "Countervailing Duty Law: An Economic Perspective", Columbia Law Review, 89 (1989)
- Ya Qin Julia, "WTO Regulation of Subsidies to State-owned Enterprises (SOEs)A Critical Appraisal of the China Accession Protocol", Journal of International Economics Law, 7 (2004)
- "Website 2010 highlights in local government privatization"[URL]
- WTO, "Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, Apr.15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex A1, Legal Instruments-Results of the Uruguay Round, 33 I.L.M.1125", ~ (1994)
- "TARIFF ACT OF 1930, 19 U.S.C", ~
- "TARIFF ACT OF 1930, 19 U.S.C", ~
- United States-Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom, "WTO", WTO, ~, pp.WT (2000), DS138[DOI]
- United States-Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain Products from The European Communities, "WTO", WTO, ~, pp.WT (2002), DS212[DOI]
- United States-Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products, "WTO", WTO, ~ (2000)