Commentary on the Appellate Body Report in EC-Bananas III (Article 21.5): Waiver-thin, or lock, stock, and metric ton?

5Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

At first glance, the Appellate Body Report in Bananas III (Article 21.5; Second Recourse) does not seem to be a case for the Guinness Book. The AB upheld most of the Panel's findings, and the EC lost big. This was hardly surprising, given that the contested measure only marginally differed from the measure at issue in the first recourse to a compliance Panel. It is at second sight that this AB Report reveals its interesting facets. We highlight a few remarkable legal and economics aspects, some of a more systemic nature, some offering practical insights: For practitioners, the role of estoppel in WTO litigation, the legal effect of Panel suggestions, and the relevance of Uruguay Round Modalities Papers as interpretative tools may be of interest. Readers more concerned with systemic aspects of the WTO may take interest in the economics of tariff quotas, the inherently discriminatory nature of tariff-quota allocation in the WTO, and the relevance of compliance proceedings for the damage calculation under Article 22.6 of the DSU. Copyright © 2010 Simon A. B. Schropp and David Palmeter.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Schropp, S. A. B., & Palmeter, D. (2010, January). Commentary on the Appellate Body Report in EC-Bananas III (Article 21.5): Waiver-thin, or lock, stock, and metric ton? World Trade Review. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147474560999019X

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free