The implementation system of the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body is an important component of the WTO dispute settlement procedure. Where there is any disagreement between disputing parties as to the existence or consistency with a covered agreement of measures taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings, a winning party may refer the matter to a compliance panel and the Appellate Body. If a losing party is found to have failed to comply with the recommendations and rulings, DSB may authorize the winning party to retaliate. This article analyzes the implementation system of the WTO dispute settlement procedure in comparison with other systems of ‘second-order’ compliance in international law. Also, attention will be directed to the relationship between the WTO retaliation and countermeasures in general international law. Countermeasures under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, in particular, have a legal nature akin to that of countermeasures under the law of State responsibility.
The debate on whether antidumping law should be integrated into competition law is a relatively new but very significant one. Building on prior scholarship, this paper attempts to contribute to the debate by reexamining the fundamental justification of antidumping law. An exploration into the economic theories of dumping and the evolution of antidumping law indicates that the current antidumping system neither serves the broad goal of preventing ‘unfair trade’ nor functions as a ‘quasi-safeguard’ mechanism. The only rationale for antidumping law is that it deals with international predatory dumping. Modern competition rules target the same predatory conduct but they are more meticulous than antidumping law and are less susceptible to protectionist abuse. In light of this, the paper advocates the substitution of antidumping law by competition law. To achieve this, the paper suggests a gradual approach. Substitution could first be achieved in bilateral and regional trade areas before being implemented at the level of WTO.
Global trading regimes are currently undergoing significant changes. It is most vividly shown in the recent spread of FTAs and the surge of protectionism. These fast changes pose new challenges to many countries in terms of formulating and implementing their respective trade policies. The increasing confrontation between the United States and China in trade sectors now operates as a multiplier and accelerator of this fast-changing global trade landscape. Recent disputes between the two have underscored fundamental differences in understandings of the legal framework of the WTO Agreements and the nature of the obligations as Members, thereby further raising questions about the reinvigoration of multilateralism. The two countries’ retaliatory initiation of trade disputes against each other also involves third countries because of legal requirements and other considerations. The Sino-US trade disputes are thus not merely confrontation between the two largest trading partners; instead they carry wider systemic implications for both other countries and global trading regimes in transition.
This article proposes the principle of human dignity as an indispensable requirement for sustainable regional economic integration, especially in East Asia. The contribution of free trade to economic growth and development is widely acknowledged. The economic survival of workers and farmers lacking international competitiveness has been, however, endangered, because of the expansion of trade liberalization and investment based on economic integration. Economic integration that ensures human dignity will promote successful and sustainable regional economic integration, by balancing economic prosperity and social integration. In this context, this article reviews the value and concept of human dignity as a goal and principle for regional economic integration. The author contends that neither sustainable prosperity nor a high level of economic development is itself a goal of economic integration, but merely a means by which to improve human dignity. Economic integration should, therefore, serve not only to maintain sustainable prosperity, but also to maximize human dignity.
The South China Sea is a semi-enclosed sea with a complex set of territorial claims by a number of Southeast Asian nations and China being the dominant claimant country. The United States is not a party to such claims. However, the US has great concerns pertaining to peace and stability of the region as far as freedom of navigation in the SCS is concerned, which has significant repercussions for its strategic interests. In addition to the utilization of the SCS as an important international trade route, the US is also committed to protect the interests of its allies in the region, as well as those of its companies involved in offshore hydrocarbon activities. In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attack, the dynamics of a new world order push the US to strengthen its presence in the region in order to combat any security threats against its interests. This article investigates China-US relations in the SCS and highlights the law of the sea prescriptions that facilitate the understanding of the legal nature of the tensions between China and the US.
China’s straight baseline regime deviates from the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in a number of ways. Such discrepancies are likely to induce legal and political conflicts between countries, and also the settlement of which would not be easy, in particular, among the East Asian countries. In consideration of this point, the legal issues surrounding China’s straight baselines and basepoints should be analyzed and evaluated not only from the perspectives of UNCLOS, but also through comparative analyses based on customary international law, State practices, and special circumstances. Many of China’s State practices and laws based on straight baselines are neither in accordance with international laws, nor generally recognized as being in accordance with the international law of the sea. This paper provides important legal insights into China’s straight baselines, which are unlawful from the perspectives of UNCLOS and State practices, and, in addition, suggest desirable ways to solve the problems in international laws.
China has made great achievements in space activities in recent years. While emphasizing the principle of self-independence, China also acknowledges the importance of space cooperation. As early as 2001, China indicated its interest in joining the International Space Station. However, no substantive progress has been made concerning China’s participation thus far. This may be a result of political and economic, rather than legal and technical, considerations. There is no doubt that China’s participation shall contribute to the sustainable development of the ISS. China’s participation could also offer an excellent opportunity to reexamine the 1998 framework and clarify or improve certain provisions that exist in the current regime. While technologically ready for participation, China should start considering possible legal issues that may arise from its participation in the ISS project. This article takes up the challenging task of identifying potential legal issues that may arise in the course of China’s participation in the ISS and offers suggestions for a future cooperative legal framework regarding the ISS.
It has been over two decades since the Japanese practice of enforced sexual slavery began to receive widespread attention. Yet despite numerous international efforts to urge Japan to squarely acknowledge its moral and legal responsibility, there has been no meaningful progress to resolve this matter. This work revisits the issue of enforced sexual slavery as it stands today. The Japanese practice of enforced sexual slavery was a clear violation of international law at the time. Therefore, individual victims have valid legal claims for reparation against the Japanese government. The first half of this article reconfirms the illegality of the practice of enforced sexual slavery. The remainder summarizes and vindicates the claims of the victims once again. This research suggests how to remedy the victims’ rights and discusses how to implement reparation. It also contends that Japan owes reparations and legitimate remedial measures to the victims that go beyond monetary compensation in line with the rules of contemporary international law.
The main purpose of this short essay is to mitigate harsh debate about ‘comfort women.’ Although it is not expected to be resolved in the foreseeable future, understanding the structure of the problem based on the fact-finding and legal analysis would enable the two peoples to seek a better solution. The author claims that: (1) although some of the historical facts remain unclear, and some people tend to focus too much attention on fact-finding, from the viewpoint of international law, sufficient evidence has been revealed to confirm Japan’s responsibility for its conduct in the Second World War, and Japan does not and should not deny the relevant historical facts; (2) Japan was absolved of its responsibility by the 1965 Agreement in a legal sense; and (3) having said that, this case reveals the limits of the positivistic legal approach, and the Asian Women’s Fund can be one legitimate way of dealing with this problem.