Leveling the playing field: Settling Pacific Basin disputes regarding unfair East Asian trade practices

The rules of GATT prescribe the circumstances under which it is unfair to act in a manner which is otherwise acceptable international trading behavior. The problem for the GATT system and for relations among its contracting parties is that states often do not comply with GATT rules and dispute settlement decisions. Since GATT neither monitors nor enforces GATT compliance, this study argues that when the US government unilaterally prosecutes East Asian unfair trading practices, it acts as an agent for all the contracting parties to the GATT and promotes more rule-oriented diplomacy.;The study is based on the evidence of 13 cases of disputes regarding unfair trading practices by Japan, China, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore initiated under US antidumping, countervailing duty, and Section 301 trade laws. The evidence of the cases tends to show that the implementation of American trade policy with respect to bilateral trade dispute with East Asian states is more strongly influenced by GATT rules and procedures than by domestic political and foreign policy considerations.;The study shows that American power is always present in bilateral trade dispute settlement. However, the US government generally employs its power to make East Asian trading practices more GATT compliant. The study finds that the settlements which ended the disputes typically made East Asian trading practice more GATT compliant.;In US-initiated disputes regarding unfair trading practices with East Asian states, settlement is found to depend upon four process variables: the ability of the US government to communicate its commitment to resolve the dispute, the ability of the US government to find "political cover" for the East Asian government, the credible commitment of US power, and the East Asian government's willingness to settlement the dispute. Agreement compliance is found to depend upon the quality of the agreement draft and the adequacy of the monitoring procedures.;The study includes description and analysis of the US antidumping, countervailing duty, and Section 301 processes and concludes with theoretical and policy implications of the study findings.