'Flying High in a Plane' Appellate Body Report, European Communities and Certain Member States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (WT/DS316/AB/RW)

Pramila Crivelli, L. Rubini
{"title":"'Flying High in a Plane' Appellate Body Report, European Communities and Certain Member States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (WT/DS316/AB/RW)","authors":"Pramila Crivelli, L. Rubini","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3489223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article reviews the Appellate Body decision in the implementation phase of the EC – Aircraft dispute. Focusing on some of the key findings, we assess whether they are legally and economically correct. We conclude that a) though still unclear, the test for establishing de facto contingency on import substitution subsidies is probably too demanding; that b) though legitimate, the interpretation of the remedy of removal of the adverse effects for actionable subsidies is the weakest and most deferential possible; that c) the hesitation in confirming that quantitative methods are the key tool to define the relevant market is unwelcome; and that d) the Appellate Body correctly recognise the importance for Panels to consider, in the context of the serious prejudice analysis, whether the like product of the complainant has been subsidised. Most importantly, the analysis of this case, set within the broader jurisprudence and practice, has led us to conclude that WTO subsidy disciplines are not particularly strong. The review of the main economic theories justifying subsidy control (strategic trade policy, terms of trade, private information, commitment theory) has shown that no single theory is able to fully account for subsidies and the need to control them. The key question is the definition of what we want to achieve by controlling subsidies, which is the main message sent to the policy-makers and negotiators that are currently considering law reform.","PeriodicalId":300963,"journal":{"name":"Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies (RSCAS) Research Paper Series","volume":"118 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies (RSCAS) Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3489223","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article reviews the Appellate Body decision in the implementation phase of the EC – Aircraft dispute. Focusing on some of the key findings, we assess whether they are legally and economically correct. We conclude that a) though still unclear, the test for establishing de facto contingency on import substitution subsidies is probably too demanding; that b) though legitimate, the interpretation of the remedy of removal of the adverse effects for actionable subsidies is the weakest and most deferential possible; that c) the hesitation in confirming that quantitative methods are the key tool to define the relevant market is unwelcome; and that d) the Appellate Body correctly recognise the importance for Panels to consider, in the context of the serious prejudice analysis, whether the like product of the complainant has been subsidised. Most importantly, the analysis of this case, set within the broader jurisprudence and practice, has led us to conclude that WTO subsidy disciplines are not particularly strong. The review of the main economic theories justifying subsidy control (strategic trade policy, terms of trade, private information, commitment theory) has shown that no single theory is able to fully account for subsidies and the need to control them. The key question is the definition of what we want to achieve by controlling subsidies, which is the main message sent to the policy-makers and negotiators that are currently considering law reform.
“高空飞行”上诉机构报告,欧洲共同体和某些成员国-影响大型民用飞机贸易的措施(WT/DS316/AB/RW)
本文回顾了上诉机构在欧共体-飞机争端执行阶段的裁决。重点关注一些关键发现,我们评估它们在法律和经济上是否正确。我们得出的结论是:a)尽管仍不清楚,但建立进口替代补贴事实上的偶然性的测试可能过于苛刻;b)尽管合法,但对消除可诉补贴的不利影响的补救措施的解释是最弱和最恭顺的;c)在确认定量方法是定义相关市场的关键工具方面的犹豫是不受欢迎的;d)上诉机构正确认识到,在严重偏见分析的背景下,专家组考虑投诉人的同类产品是否获得补贴的重要性。最重要的是,在更广泛的法理和实践范围内对此案的分析使我们得出结论,WTO的补贴纪律并不是特别强。对证明补贴控制的主要经济理论(战略贸易政策、贸易条件、私人信息、承诺理论)的回顾表明,没有任何一种理论能够充分解释补贴和控制补贴的必要性。关键问题是我们要通过控制补贴实现什么目标的定义,这是向目前正在考虑法律改革的政策制定者和谈判代表发出的主要信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信