Analysis Of The Panel Report Of US-China Tire Case

The 2008 financial crisis greatly damaged the economy of America, consequently, consumer cut their expenses and divert their choices to tires of Chinese origin. It is under this background that American president declared to levy higher tariff on the imported Chinese tire. After the consultation between China and America failed, China sued to WTO, which resulted in China's failure. As the Transitional Product-Specific Safeguard Measure (TPSSM in short) performed by America is governed by Article 16 of Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China (Article 16 in short) under the framework of WTO, so this paper analyzes the panel report based on this article.This paper conducts a deep analysis on Article 16, including its relationship with Safeguard Agreement, the logic within this article and the meaning of the terms of it, so as to find whether the panel's report is reasonable.This paper consists of four parts:Part One:A brief introduction of the whole case, which includes the general fact, the formation of the TPSSM and the legal problems related to the case. And great emphasis is been put on the formation of TPSSMPart Two:Focus on one of the legal problems, which is whether the TPSSM can apply the Safeguard Agreement. The thorough analysis includes the reason why TPSSM came into being and the related articles.Part Three:This part is about whether the panel's determination of "increasing rapidly" is reasonable. This paper herein refers to the interpretation of "such increased quantities" in WTO dispute settlement practice under the Safeguard Agreement, combined with the characteristics of Article 16. Part Four:This part concentrates on the panel's determinations on "causal link" and "extent necessary". It first points out the main disputes on the two terms, then analyze each of the disputes respectively through the research on the interpretation of the two terms under the Safeguard Agreement and consideration of the own characteristics of Article 16.After all the analysis, this paper arrives at the conclusion that the panel's interpretation of Article 16 is not sufficient and complete, since "such period of time as may be necessary" in Article 16.6 and "the extent necessary" in 16.3 are not explained by the panel, which at the same time have direct impact on the legality of the investigation period chosen by America and the legality of the TPSSM enforced by America. In addition, as to the proof method of causal link and the non-attribution principle, although the panel's determination are reasonable, still the panel may adopt the fair principle and the basic mind underlying the WTO laws to interpret Article 16 to make it fair for China and also to facilitate the free trade among WTO members.