Kneeling and begging for WTO case study!!

The question is too big and too wide, the period is different, and the views are different.

Some people say that China's accession to the WTO has a bigger market, which is a good thing!

Some people also say that joining the WTO has handed over the domestic market to foreign countries, especially when domestic enterprises and companies are still so vulnerable, allowing foreign capital to control the national economy and people's livelihood, which is a big bad thing.

It's hard to say how you see your position, but my opinion is that the pros outweigh the disadvantages. The essence of this negotiation is a game of interests, exchanging the market for technology, labor for capital, and resources for development!

On May 16, 1995, the United States unilaterally announced that it would impose a $100 tariff on luxury cars from Japan under Sections 301 and 304 of the U.S. Act of 1974 (i.e., the "Section 301" of the Unilateral Retaliation System).

Japanese cars have a 1.4 share of the U.S. market, while U.S. cars only have a 1.5 share of the Japanese market. The U.S. has a deficit of $12.8 billion in auto parts** between the two sides. In July 1993, although Japan agreed to negotiate a solution to the issue of the opening of the automobile market, in fact refused to enter into the negotiation process with the United States.

Therefore, the United States has adopted such measures, requiring Japan to open its market to the world's automakers, and requiring that the Japanese market should be commensurate with transparency and competitiveness.

This involves a question of principle in the world: Is the unilaterality of the United States' retaliation under Section 301 compatible with the multilateralism of the dispute settlement system of the world's first organization? In short, does the United States have the right to unilaterally make sanctions decisions and impose sanctions pending a decision by the World Organization's dispute settlement body?

Out of dissatisfaction with the unilateral retaliation system of the United States, on November 25, 1998, the EU sued the United States in accordance with the provisions of the WTO, arguing that "Article 301" was inconsistent with the corresponding provisions of the WTO, causing the loss or damage of the interests of the EU, and also undermining the goals of the tariffs and GATT and the World Organization.

Verdict. The panel ultimately ruled that the United States could not unilaterally determine sanctions before the WTO Dispute Settlement Body made a decision, but that Section 301 did not violate the relevant provisions of the World Organization and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Tariffs. This ruling makes it possible for the United States to in fact still use Section 301 to impose sanctions and threats against other countries, especially unilateral sanctions against non-members of the WTO.

Comments. After China's accession to the WTO, although the disputes we will face in the future can be resolved under the multilateral framework of the world's leading organizations, we should also pay attention to the harm to us caused by unilateral sanctions such as the implementation of "Section 301" by the United States. When encountering such a situation, we should strive on the basis of reason, jointly file a complaint with other injured parties, and safeguard China's interests in accordance with the multilateral mechanism of dispute settlement organized by the World Organization.