Abstract

This paper analyzes the results of WTO dispute settlement consultation requests involving trade remedies – antidumping, countervail and safeguard cases. The paper focuses on what actually happened in the cases where reports were adopted – examining the time that it took to obtain implementation and to the “quality” of implementation, i.e., was the trade remedy measure significantly altered and did the implementation action actually resolve the dispute? In addition to an analysis of the cases that led to panel and Appellate Body reports, the paper also examines the results of consultation requests in the trade-remedy area made through 31 December 2004. Within each trade-remedy category, the paper’s analysis is sub-divided on a country-by-country basis, with special attention paid to the United States, which was the respondent in most of these cases – 17 of 29, or almost 60%. The paper finds that implementation in safeguards cases occurred without problems and on time. The measures found to have violated the rules were simply removed, albeit often at the time they were scheduled to expire. In contrast, implementation in antidumping and countervail cases has been more problematic. In many of those cases, the authority imposing the challenged measure has made revised determinations and calculations, and then continued the measure in effect. This has often led to claims that there has not been appropriate implementation.