Trade Cases
WTO Rules in Crosshairs of Section 232 Dispute
Written by Sandy Williams
October 30, 2018
The United States has denied initial requests by World Trade Organization members to establish dispute settlement panels over Section 232 tariffs, claiming that once a national security measure is invoked under Article XXI, it cannot be litigated by a WTO panel.
The United States may block a request for a dispute panel one time, but not a second, leaving the door now open to China, the European Union, Canada, Mexico, Norway, Russia and Turkey to initiate another request.
The group maintains that use of Article XXI under WTO rules for national security was abused by the United States. Article XXI states that the agreement will not “prevent any contracting party from taking any action which it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests.” The agreement typically applies to the areas of nuclear material, arms trafficking and actions taken in a time of war or international emergency.
The U.S. claims it was within its legal rights to invoke Article XXI to curtail imports of steel and aluminum that threaten the national security of the United States. The Section 232 tariffs are de facto safeguard measures, countered the seven countries.
“It is not the WTO’s function, nor within its authority, to second guess a sovereign’s national security determination,” said Dennis Shea, U.S. ambassador to the WTO. “WTO members did not abdicate their responsibilities to their citizens to protect their essential security interests when they formed the WTO. Because the United States has invoked Article XXI, there is no basis for a WTO panel to review the claims of breach raised by the European Union.
“The United States wishes to be clear,” Shea said. “If the WTO were to undertake to review an invocation of Article XXI, this would undermine the legitimacy of the WTO’s dispute settlement system and even the viability of the WTO as a whole.”
Canada, Mexico, the EU and China are “hypocritical” to call the U.S. measures safeguards and then to insist their retaliatory measures are “substantial equivalent concessions,” Shea added. The U.S. has requested dispute panels against all four countries for their retaliatory tariffs, all of which were blocked.
“Just as those members appear to be ready to undermine the dispute settlement system by throwing out the plain meaning of Article XXI and 70 years of practice,” Shea said, “so too are they ready to undermine the WTO by suggesting they are following WTO rules while taking measures blatantly against those rules.”
Sandy Williams
Read more from Sandy WilliamsLatest in Trade Cases
Market unfazed by US circuit court’s IEEPA decision
Repealing any reciprocal tariffs placed by President Donald Trump on US imports of direct reduced iron (DRI), iron ore, hot-briquetted iron (HBI), and pig iron would have only a nominal impact on the US steel market, market participants said.
ITC votes to keep HR duties after sunset review
The US government determined this week that hot-rolled steel imports from a handful of countries continue to threaten the domestic steel industry.
Steel Summit: Zekelman advocates for ‘Fortress North America’
Barry Zekelman has a unique vantage point from which to view today’s trade landscape. A Canadian national who owns operations in both the US and Canada, he has also had dialogue with both Canadian and American administrations.
Steel Summit: Execs urge clarity on trade/tariff policy, want stronger USMCA
Tariff policy dominated the discussion of the SMU Steel Summit trade panel on Tuesday afternoon. The message was clear: uncertainty is rattling the steel supply chain.
Final AD/CVD margins announced in coated steel trade case
The Commerce Department announced the final anti-dumping and countervailing duty (CVD) margins in the sprawling trade case investigating corrosion-resistant steel imports.