Trade Law

By: Alan Yanovich¹

Views expressed by Alan Yanovich.¹

With the enactment of the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the announcement of the European Union (EU) Green Deal Industrial Plan, there is now a full-fledged subsidy war between the United States and the European Union. While these subsidies are meant to encourage green technologies, incentivizing firms to produce locally would seem to be an almost as important policy goal. And it is not limited to the U.S. and the EU. Global Trade Alert recently reported that, in 2022, production subsidies accounted for half of all trade-distorting measures, making it the mostly commonly used harmful trade policy measure.¹

At the end of last year, World Trade Organization (WTO) members agreed that the 13th Ministerial Conference (MC13) of the WTO will take place in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), in February 2024. There is no doubt that the WTO is facing headwinds and is in need of a vigorous push forward. The UAE’s success in transforming itself into a global trade and digital hub and a leader in services trade could serve to drive a successful outcome at MC13.

On December 21, 2022, the appeal arbitrators in the Colombia – Frozen Fries (DS591) World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute circulated their award (the “Award”). This was the second appeal conducted under Article 25 of the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) and the first appeal under the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA), a framework created by a group of WTO members to overcome the challenges posed by the non-operational Appellate Body.

International trade litigation requires patience. These disputes often span several years and involve multiple redeterminations by the agency whose action is subject to judicial review. The appeal can get even further complicated when the original proceeding becomes entangled with one or more subsequent administrative proceedings. And even if a party prevails on appeal, a victory may become hollow unless the appropriate agencies implement the redetermination in a timely fashion.

Invoking statutory authority not used in almost two decades, President Trump on April 20, 2017, directed the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) to conduct an investigation into the effects of steel imports on U.S. national security. Citing the more than 150 antidumping and countervailing orders currently in place on steel products imported from various countries, the Presidential Memorandum announcing the investigation claims that U.S. steel producers continue to be harmed by continued unfair trade practices, such as subsidies provided by foreign governments and excess production capacity in producing countries. These systemic trade abuses, according to the Presidential Memorandum, jeopardize long-term investment in the U.S. industry and weaken the pool of qualified workers for this strategic industry.

On April 1, 2015, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) issued its annual telecommunications report (the “1377 Review” or the “report”) providing an overview of the operation and effectiveness of telecommunications trade agreements under Section 1377 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. The 1377 Review traditionally highlights long-standing and emerging barriers to U.S. telecommunications services and equipment exports. Among the issues addressed in this year’s report, USTR highlighted concerns with two controversial Chinese regulations strongly opposed by U.S. information and communications technology (ICT) companies—the Guiding Opinions Regarding Application of Secure and Controllable Information Technologies to Strengthen Network Security and Information of the Banking Section (the “Banking Opinions”) and the draft Counterterrorism Law. Specifically, USTR indicated that the two regulations raise substantive concerns with respect to China’s obligations under several trade agreements.