Privatization and The Definition of Subsidy: A Critical Study of Appellate Body Texturalism

Analysis of the Appellate Body's (AB) treatment of a particular legal question often provides insight into issues of more general importance. In this article, examination of the AB's treatment of a particular subsidy issue is used to explore the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Me...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of international economic law 2008-09, Vol.11 (3), p.649-678
Main Author: Diamond, Richard
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Agreements
Carbon steel
Conflict resolution
Economic analysis
Economic policy
Fair market value
Government subsidies
Hot rolling
International law
International trade
Privatization
Steel industry
Steel products
Studies
Subsidies
Trade disputes
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Analysis of the Appellate Body's (AB) treatment of a particular legal question often provides insight into issues of more general importance. In this article, examination of the AB's treatment of a particular subsidy issue is used to explore the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures' (SCM Agreement) definition of subsidy and to question the efficacy of the AB's reliance on texturalism. The legal question analyzed arose when European governments challenged the US's imposition of countervailing duties (CVDs) on steel manufactured by 'privatized' steel companies. The US claimed the CVDs were proper since subsidies provided prior to privatization had 'passed through' to the privatized companies. The AB, relying heavily on the meaning of words rather than on consideration of 'object and purpose', found that the US had violated its obligations under the SCM Agreement. An analysis of the AB's logic and the authorities cited demonstrates that neither justifies the AB's conclusion. A heuristic model of the definition of subsidy is used to show that the question raised by privatization implicates issues of causation, overlooked by the AB, that are important in correctly interpreting the SCM Agreement. The problems arising from AB texturalism are contrasted with the justifications given for that approach, suggesting that a change in approach may be warranted.
ISSN:1369-3034
1464-3758
DOI:10.1093/jiel/jgn026