Interpreting the 'Removal' Obligation in Article 7.8 of the WTO SCM Agreement
Abhimanyu George Jain
Delhi High Court; Georgetown University; National Law School of India University
January 21, 2013
Manchester Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2013
The meaning of the phrase ‘remove the adverse effects’ as used in Art. 7.8 of the WTO Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement (SCM Agreement) is unclear; it has been explored neither in the jurisprudence of the DSM, nor in academic literature. There are three fundamental principles underlying the interpretation of the SCM agreement – avoidance of economic analyses, proscription of retrospective remedies and interpretation of ‘withdrawal’ in Art. 4.7 as prospective cessation. Based on these fundamental interpretive principles, there are several possible meanings of the removal obligation, including equivalent subsidisation, price controls and quantitative restrictions. In the absence of decisive reasons to prefer one over the other, the removal obligation should be construed as a result rather than process obligation. This analytical inquiry demonstrates the problems engendered and perpetuated by the avoidance of economic analyses in interpretation of the SCM Agreement.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 25
Keywords: WTO, SCM Agreement, Subsidies, Adverse Effects, RemediesAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: December 29, 2013
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.407 seconds