Trade Remedy Actions by WTO Members: A Cause for Concern or a Reflection of Improved Market Access?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first countervailing duty law dates from the late nineteenth century when the US enacted a law to address sugar subsidies provided by Russia. Canada enacted the first anti-dumping law in 1904, and the US introduced the right to use safeguard measures in the US-Mexico reciprocal trade agreement of 1942. In the late 1940s, these trade remedies were included in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Before 1995, however, their use was mainly limited to developed countries at the forefront of trade liberalization. Before the Uruguay Round, many countries had made only limited tariff bindings and had little need for trade remedies to address import problems. Since the Uruguay Round, which established the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 and required all Members to bind the vast majority of their tariff lines, many more countries have found trade remedies to be a necessary tool to address import problems. Over the first eighteen years of the WTO's existence, the number of users of trade remedies (antidumping, countervailing duty, and safeguard actions) has increased and these measures are now used by both the traditional users of such remedies (e.g., US, EU, Canada, Australia) and by new users (e.g., India, Argentina, Brazil, China, Turkey, Egypt). Some ask whether the use of the internationally negotiated trade remedy tools within the WTO by a wide range of countries (both old and new users) is a cause of concern or a positive sign. In the author's view, the increased use of trade remedies within the WTO is a positive sign for the global trading system, and not a cause for concern. Resort to trade remedies is not a sign of protectionism but an integral part of the trading system which can help Member nations expand their trade liberalization. However, the WTO needs to be concerned about the abuse of trade remedies by WTO Members who appear to have used trade remedies as a form of retaliation against trading partners pursuing their WTO rights.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".