Trade and Investment

WTO Panel Rules on Geographical Indications

In mid-March 2005, a World Trade Organization (WTO) panel ruled on a case of interest to many WTO members.[1] The case, brought by Australia and the United States, challenged the WTO consistency of a European Union (EU) regulation[2] related to the protection of geographical indications (GIs) for agricultural products and foodstuffs. The widespread interest stems from concern that at a time when WTO negotiations are focusing on liberalizing trade in agricultural products, the EU regulation effectively limits import competition for much of its farm and food sector.
 
Topic: 
Topic 1
Volume: 
9
Issue: 
13
Author: 
Eliza Patterson
Image: 
Related Terms / Attribute Tags: 
Trade and Investment
Sponsored By: 
 
 

The WTO Decision on U.S. Cotton Subsidies

On March 3, 2005, the WTO Appellate Body (AB) issued a landmark decision[1] interpreting key WTO provisions on agricultural subsidies and upholding a prior panel ruling finding various US cotton subsidies to be WTO illegal. In September 2004 the panel, in a challenge by Brazil, had ruled that various US agricultural programs constituted illegal subsidies under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, the Agreement on Agriculture and Article XVI of the GATT 1994.[2]
 
Topic: 
Topic 1
Volume: 
9
Issue: 
11
Author: 
Eliza Patterson
Image: 
Related Terms / Attribute Tags: 
International Economic Law
International Law in Domestic Courts
North America
Trade and Investment
Blog Name: 
International Law in Brief

Arbitral Tribunal Denies Jurisdiction in Achmea B.V. v. The Slovak Republic (May 20, 2014)

Author: 
Emily MacKenzie

On May 20, 2014, an arbitral tribunal (the Tribunal) convened under the terms of a bilateral investment treaty between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Czech and Slovak Republic (the Treaty),

Sealing the Deal: The WTO’s Appellate Body Report in EC – Seal Products

On May 22, 2014, the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Appellate Body (AB) issued its report in the EC – Seal Products dispute.[1] The decision arose from complaints by Canada and Norway against a legislative scheme adopted by the European Union (EU) in 2009 to prohibit the importation and marketing of seal products (EU Seal Regime).[2]

Topic: 
Topic 1
Volume: 
18
Issue: 
12
Author: 
Rob Howse, Joanna Langille, and Katie Sykes
Image: 
Related Terms / Attribute Tags: 
Energy and Natural Resources
Environment
Global
Indigenous People Rights
International Business Transactions
International Courts and Tribunals
North America
Trade and Investment
Transnational Litigation, Arbitration, and Dispute Resolution
Western and Central Europe
Blog Name: 
International Law in Brief

Caribbean Court of Justice Declares Guyana Customs Act Invalid (May 8, 2014)

Author: 
Emily MacKenzie

On May 8, 2014, the Caribbean Court of Justice (the Court) delivered its

WTO Law and the Right to Regulate: China – Rare Earths

On March 26, 2014, a World Trade Organization (WTO) panel issued its report on a dispute between the European Union, Japan and the United States as complainants and China as respondent over access to so-called “rare earths,” as well as tungsten and molybdenum.[1] The Panel found that China violated its obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT)[2] and the Accession Protocol[3] by

Topic: 
Topic 1
Volume: 
18
Issue: 
10
Author: 
Markus Wagner
Image: 
Related Terms / Attribute Tags: 
Energy and Natural Resources
Environment
Trade and Investment
Blog Name: 
International Law in Brief

U.S. and E.U. Impose Sanctions on Russian and Ukrainian Officials (March 17, 2014)

Author: 
Emily MacKenzie

On March 17, 2014, by Executive Order, President Obama i

Blog Name: 
International Law in Brief

European Council Imposes Restrictive Measures on Former Ukrainian Officials (March 6, 2014)

Author: 
Emily MacKenzie

Further to the ILIB post of February 20, 2014, on March 6, 2014, the European Council