Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Judicial Review of Anti-dumping Measures in China
View through CrossRef
This collection of articles analyses the problems with judicial review of trade remedy determinations in ten user countries - Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, India, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa, and the United States - and is a follow-up to similar studies in 2004 and 2007 respectively. Each article succinctly describes the major problems with judicial review in their jurisdictions covering the period from 2001 to 2010 with an aim to examine the effectiveness of judicial review (and/or, where applicable, review by an administrative tribunal) of trade remedy determinations in the light of Article 13 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. Two problems have been underlined: (1) the excessively long duration of the judicial review procedures; and (2) the considerable deference given to the administrative authorities on substantive issues by the courts typically on account of the technicality of the anti-dumping determinations and the absence of expert judges versed with trade remedy laws. These two problems have deeply impacted the effectiveness of the judicial review systems in most jurisdictions investigated and the situation is far from what is envisaged in Article 13 of the ADA. Both problems are related to the absence of specialized courts and chambers with judges trained in trade remedy laws. In contrast, the United States and India - the only two countries that have specialized courts - have effective judicial review systems. For the ten year period covered by this study, the ten countries investigated can be divided into two groups as regards the recourse to judicial review of anti-dumping determinations. One group comprises the European Union, India, Mexico and the United States where judicial review of anti-dumping determinations has been frequent. The second group comprises the remaining countries namely Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Indonesia and South Africa where judicial reviews have been more limited. In fact the judicial review systems for trade remedy determinations in countries such as China and Indonesia are in the early stages of development.
Title: Judicial Review of Anti-dumping Measures in China
Description:
This collection of articles analyses the problems with judicial review of trade remedy determinations in ten user countries - Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, India, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa, and the United States - and is a follow-up to similar studies in 2004 and 2007 respectively.
Each article succinctly describes the major problems with judicial review in their jurisdictions covering the period from 2001 to 2010 with an aim to examine the effectiveness of judicial review (and/or, where applicable, review by an administrative tribunal) of trade remedy determinations in the light of Article 13 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.
Two problems have been underlined: (1) the excessively long duration of the judicial review procedures; and (2) the considerable deference given to the administrative authorities on substantive issues by the courts typically on account of the technicality of the anti-dumping determinations and the absence of expert judges versed with trade remedy laws.
These two problems have deeply impacted the effectiveness of the judicial review systems in most jurisdictions investigated and the situation is far from what is envisaged in Article 13 of the ADA.
Both problems are related to the absence of specialized courts and chambers with judges trained in trade remedy laws.
In contrast, the United States and India - the only two countries that have specialized courts - have effective judicial review systems.
For the ten year period covered by this study, the ten countries investigated can be divided into two groups as regards the recourse to judicial review of anti-dumping determinations.
One group comprises the European Union, India, Mexico and the United States where judicial review of anti-dumping determinations has been frequent.
The second group comprises the remaining countries namely Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Indonesia and South Africa where judicial reviews have been more limited.
In fact the judicial review systems for trade remedy determinations in countries such as China and Indonesia are in the early stages of development.
Related Results
The Role of the Judiciary in Constitutional Interpretation in Pakistan
The Role of the Judiciary in Constitutional Interpretation in Pakistan
This study examines the evolving role of the judiciary in Pakistan in interpreting the Constitution, exploring how the courts have come to terms with their position as the primary ...
Analisis Yuridis Kewajiban Anti Dumping Bagi Sebagian Produk Fatty Alcohol antara Indonesia dan Uni Eropa
Analisis Yuridis Kewajiban Anti Dumping Bagi Sebagian Produk Fatty Alcohol antara Indonesia dan Uni Eropa
This research aims to analyze the case of anti-dumping obligations against fatty alcohol products in the dispute between Indonesia and the European Union. The research method used ...
TARIFFS, TRADE REMEDIES, AND ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES: IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE-WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO INDIA AND THE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY MODEL
TARIFFS, TRADE REMEDIES, AND ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES: IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE-WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO INDIA AND THE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY MODEL
This study examines the role of tariffs, trade remedies, and anti-dumping measures in international trade with special reference to India and the Anti-Dumping Duty Model. Using sec...
Judicial Review in Nepal
Judicial Review in Nepal
Judicial Review of Laws and Administrative decisions in question is an integral exercise of democratic practice. As one of the organs of the government Judiciary should not only vi...
Judicial Review Oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi: Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint dalam Perspektif Kebebasan Kehakiman
Judicial Review Oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi: Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint dalam Perspektif Kebebasan Kehakiman
The discourse between the application of judicial activism or judicial restraint has become a hot issue of judicial review authority where recently the Constitutional Court through...
Perbandingan Sistem Hukum Antara Indonesia dan Malaysia Terkait Peninjauan Kembali
Perbandingan Sistem Hukum Antara Indonesia dan Malaysia Terkait Peninjauan Kembali
Judicial review serves as one of the major backbones of the judicial system in any democratic polity. It ensures the consolidation of democracy because it serves as the principal m...
PENGATURAN ANTI DUMPING DALAM HUKUM GATT-WTO DAN IMPLEMENTASINYA DI INDONESIA
PENGATURAN ANTI DUMPING DALAM HUKUM GATT-WTO DAN IMPLEMENTASINYA DI INDONESIA
This research aims to discuss the basis for anti-dumping regulations in WTO law and the implementation of WTO anti-dumping rules in Indonesia. This research is normative research w...
Doklam Standoff Resolution: Interview of Major General S B Asthana by SCMP
Doklam Standoff Resolution: Interview of Major General S B Asthana by SCMP
(Views of Major General S B Asthana,SM,VSM, (Veteran), Questioned by Jiangtao Shi of South China Morning Post on 29 August 2017.Question 1 (SCMP)Are you surprised that the over 70-...

