|
> Disputes in the WTO
> Find disputes
cases
> Find disputes
documents
> Disputes chronologically
> Disputes by subject
> Disputes by country
SEE ALSO:
> Press
releases
> News
archives
> Pascal
Lamy’s speeches
NOTE:
This summary has been prepared by the WTO Secretariat’s Information and
Media Relations Division to help public understanding about developments
in WTO disputes. It is not a legal interpretation of the issues, and it is
not intended as a complete account of the issues. These can be found in
the reports themselves and in the minutes of the Dispute Settlement
Body’s meetings.
|
DS267:
US — Subsidies on upland cotton; recourse to Article 21.5 of the Dispute
Settlement Understanding
The DSB adopted the compliance Panel
and Appellate Body (AB) reports (WT/DS267/RW
and Corr.1 —
WT/DS267/AB/RW) on
the US cotton subsidies.
Brazil welcomed the reports and
stated it was the last stage where Brazil's arguments could be examined
after this prolonged period of litigation. Brazil hoped and expected the US
to fully and immediately comply with the rulings of the DSB. Referring to
the new US Farm Bill, Brazil declared it was a great concern for all cotton
producers around the world. Brazil hoped that the adoption of the compliance
Panel and AB reports would provide sufficient incentive for the US to amend
its legislation and ensure compliance with the ruling. Brazil added that
without full compliance, it would ask the DSB for authorisation to take
countermeasures.
The US said it was deeply
disappointed in the compliance Panel and AB reports and believed it had
brought the challenged measures into full compliance with the DSB
recommendations. The US disagreed with the reports' conclusions regarding
three legal issues namely jurisdiction under Article 21.5, export credit
guarantees and serious prejudice.
On the latter,
the US said that the reports' conclusions on the serious prejudice caused to
Brazil's interests by US payments was based on outdated data, given that
today's market conditions were not the same as two or three years ago.
Australia, Canada and the EC welcomed
the reports' conclusions. More specifically, Canada and Australia were
concerned about the 2008 Farm Bill. Canada said that the US had missed an
opportunity to make its farm programmes more market oriented. Australia
argued that the 2008 Farm Bill institutionalised the US trade distorting
support programmes. Replying to both countries, the US said that the 2008
Farm Bill was not included in the compliance procedure.
|
> Problems viewing this page?
Please contact webmaster@wto.org giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.
|
