Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Explaining Trade Agreements: The Practitioners' Story And The Standard Model, Donald H. Regan
Explaining Trade Agreements: The Practitioners' Story And The Standard Model, Donald H. Regan
Articles
There are two widely accepted explanations of why politically motivated governments make trade agreements. There is an informal explanation, which I shall call the ′practitioners′ story′, even though it is most economists′ informal view as well. And there is a formal explanation in the economics literature, which I shall call the ′standard model′, referring to the basic structure shared by the Bagwell-Staiger and Grossman-Helpman models. Unfortunately, the practitioners′ story and the standard model contradict each other at every crucial point. For example, in the practitioners′ story, trade agreements are about reducing politically motivated protectionism; and getting an agreement depends on …
Further Thoughts On The Role Of Regulatory Purpose Under Article Iii Of The General Agreement On Tariffs And Trade: A Tribute To Bob Hudec, Donald H. Regan
Further Thoughts On The Role Of Regulatory Purpose Under Article Iii Of The General Agreement On Tariffs And Trade: A Tribute To Bob Hudec, Donald H. Regan
Articles
My topic in this article is the role of regulatory purpose under Article III of the GATT, and I regard Bob [Hudec] as the patron saint of efforts to establish the relevance of purpose. His famous "Requiem for an 'Aims and Effects' Test" may have been called a requiem, but it was reluctant and sceptical. Bob thought dispute settlement tribunals ought to consider the regulator's purpose, and he thought they would do so, whatever they said. As decisions on Article III accumulate, we are in the process of learning that he was right on both counts.
Regulatory Purpose And 'Like Products' In Article Iii:4 Of The Gatt (With Additional Remarks On Article Ii:2), Donald H. Regan
Regulatory Purpose And 'Like Products' In Article Iii:4 Of The Gatt (With Additional Remarks On Article Ii:2), Donald H. Regan
Articles
In European Communities-Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products (EC-Asbestos) the Appellate Body has told us that (1) in interpreting Article 111:4 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), we must take explicit account of the policy in Article 111:1 that measures should not be applied "so as to afford protection to domestic production" [hereafter just "so as to afford protection"]. In Chile--Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages (Chile--Alcohol) the Appellate Body has told us that (2) in deciding whether a measure is applied "so as to afford protection", we must consider "the purposes or objectives of a Member's legislature and …
Judicial Review Of Member-State Regulation Of Trade Within A Federal Or Quasi-Federal System: Protectionism And Balancing, Da Capo, Donald H. Regan
Judicial Review Of Member-State Regulation Of Trade Within A Federal Or Quasi-Federal System: Protectionism And Balancing, Da Capo, Donald H. Regan
Articles
The topic of this Essay is not one Terry Sandalow has worked on, but he got me started on it by organizing, with Eric Stein, the Bellagio Conference on comparative constitutional economic integration in the United States and the European Community. For that, and for thirty-three years during which he has been an unfailingly stimulating and supportive colleague, Dean, and friend, I am deeply grateful.
The Product/Process Distinction - An Illusory Basis For Disciplining 'Unilateralism' In Trade Policy, Robert L. Howse, Donald H. Regan
The Product/Process Distinction - An Illusory Basis For Disciplining 'Unilateralism' In Trade Policy, Robert L. Howse, Donald H. Regan
Articles
It has become conventional wisdom that internal regulations that distinguish between products on the basis of their production method are GATT-illegal, where applied to restrict imports (although possibly some such measures might be justified as 'exceptions' under Article XX). The aim of this article is to challenge this conventional wisdom, both from a jurisprudential and a policy perspective. First, we argue there is no real support in the text and jurisprudence of the GATT for the product/process distinction. The notion developed in the unadopted Tuna/Dolphin cases that processed-based measures are somehow excluded from the coverage of Article III (National Treatment) …