World Trade Review

World Trade Review (2004), 3:3:507-528 Cambridge University Press
Copyright © 2004 Kyle Bagwell and Alan O. Sykes
doi:10.1017/S1474745604002071

Dispute settlement corner

Chile – price band system and safeguard measures relating to certain agricultural products 1


KYLE BAGWELL a1 and ALAN O. SYKES a2 2
a1 Columbia University
a2 University of Chicago

Article author query
bagwell k   [Google Scholar] 
sykes ao   [Google Scholar] 
 

This paper addresses the dispute brought to the World Trade Organization (WTO) by Argentina concerning certain Chilean measures affecting the importation of wheat, wheat flour, oil seeds, edible vegetable oils and sugar. The complaint by Argentina challenged two types of policies – a ‘price band system’ that was applicable to four of those product categories, and safeguard measures that were applicable to three of them. The WTO panel ruled in favor of Argentina on both sets of measures. It found that the price band system violated Article IV of the Agriculture Agreement and Article II of GATT 1994. The safeguard measures, according to the panel, violated various provisions of the Safeguards Agreement, as well as Article XIX of GATT 1994. Chile elected not to appeal the panel ruling regarding the safeguard measures, but did appeal the adverse finding as to the price band system. The Appellate Body subsequently affirmed in substantial part the finding that the price band system violated Article 4 of the Agriculture Agreement, but reversed the finding of a violation under Article II of GATT 1994. Chile has since indicated an intention to comply with the ruling, and an arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU determined that the reasonable period of time for compliance would expire on December 23, 2003.

(Published Online December 22 2004)



Footnotes

1 Reproduced by kind permission of the American Law Institute and Cambridge University Press. This case analysis is included alongside others in The WTO Case Law of 2002: The American Law Institute Reporters' Studies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming. The authorized full printed text of this case is in DSR 2002, III, also from Cambridge University Press.

2 We wish to thank Alberto Martin for valuable assistance, and to thank the other reporters and conference participants of the American Law Institute for many useful ideas and suggestions.



null