Suchergebnisse

ABSTRACT
As China is increasingly 'going global', foreign direct investment under its Belt and Road Initiative is becoming heavily scrutinized. One of the concerns is that Chinese companies establishing themselves in third countries would be unfairly advantaged by the financing they receive under China's expansionist strategy. This financing gives rise to a situation that had long been described as 'unrealistic', in which a government subsidizes a firm outside of its territory. When such a firm's products are exported to third countries, could such financing be disciplined under the World Trade Organization Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures? Should such financing, which enhances development in the receiving countries, be disciplined at all? The authors shed light on these issues and provide a preliminary guidance on how to structure this problem under international trade law.

This paper, based on an analysis of the settlement of disputes by the DSB from 1993 to 2002, explains that the SCM Agreement, grounded on criteria of "specificity" and "serious prejudice" can only be interpretative. Also, the difficulty in settling commercial disputes related to this Agreement will drag on for the simple reason that the borders of an acceptable subsidy cannot be defined. Finally, the importance placed on "prejudice" to the domestic industry is overstated by not taking into account the interest of consumers. In short, it matters more to call for a repeal of national legislation on countervailing measures than to have an international agreement on subsidies. Adapted from the source document.