1 / 23

Todd J. Friedbacher Nicolas J. S. Lockhart Christian Lau

U.S. – Cotton Subsidies 18 May 2005 BIICL Conference, London. Todd J. Friedbacher Nicolas J. S. Lockhart Christian Lau. Results of the Cotton Case. Prohibited subsidies Export credit guarantee programs Step 2 program. Results of the Cotton Case (cont.). Subsidies causing “adverse

azize
Télécharger la présentation

Todd J. Friedbacher Nicolas J. S. Lockhart Christian Lau

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. U.S. – Cotton Subsidies 18 May 2005 BIICL Conference, London Todd J. FriedbacherNicolas J. S. LockhartChristian Lau

  2. Results of the Cotton Case • Prohibited subsidies • Export credit guarantee programs • Step 2 program

  3. Results of the Cotton Case (cont.) • Subsidies causing “adverse • effects” • Marketing loan payments • Counter-cyclical payments • Step 2 payments

  4. Topics • Evidence and the Appellate Body’s standard of review • “Green box” domestic support • Circumvention of agricultural export subsidy commitments

  5. Evidence • Complex economic and econometric evidence • Numerous studies from various sources • Expert testimony • Alternative approaches offered for certain issues

  6. No Appellate Review of the Facts • Article 11 is the bulwark • Panel’s discretion • “Egregious” Errors • Procedural Gloss

  7. U.S. Appeal “…the evidence did not support the conclusion that U.S. payments have insulated U.S. cotton farmers from market forces.”

  8. Appellate Body “the United States confirmed that it has not made an Article 11 claim in this appeal…”(para. 398)

  9. Appellate Body Application of Law to Facts NOT Objective Assessment of Matter?

  10. Appellate Body “… the Panel adopted a plausible view of the facts …, even though it attributed to these factors a different weight or meaning than did the United States.”(para. 445)

  11. Appellate Body “We are not prepared to second-guess the Panel’s appreciation and weighing of the evidence before it …”(para. 448)

  12. Appellate Body “… this fact seems to support the Panel’s conclusion …”(para. 449)

  13. Appellate Body Application of Law to Facts PERMITS Review of the Facts on Appeal

  14. “Green Box” Agricultural domestic support that is properly classified as “Green box” is exempt from domestic support reduction commitments

  15. Measures at Issue • Production flexibility contract payments • Direct payments Restrictions on plantings of fruits and vegetables

  16. Reasons for “Green Box “Challenge • Peace Clause • Support of adverse effects claims • Clarification of provisions in view of the Round

  17. “Green Box” Finding Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture Paragraph 6(b): related to, or based on, the type of production undertaken after the base period Planting restrictions on fruits and vegetables U.S. programs violate this requirement

  18. Implementation • No requirement to implement • Significant incentive to implement • Significant difficulties in implementing

  19. Implications of the green box finding • Members cannot self-declare support as green box • Panels and the Appellate Body will interpret Annex 2 strictly

  20. Circumvention Findings

  21. Appellate Body “There is, in other words, no mechanism in the measure for stemming, or otherwise controlling, the flow of FSC subsidies that may be claimed with respect to any agricultural products.”(FSC, para. 149)

  22. Appellate Body “There is no basis in Article 10.1 for requiring WTO Members to take affirmative, precautionary steps to ensure that circumvention of their export subsidy commitments does not occur.”(para. 707)

  23. Circumvention Findings

More Related