US – OCTG (Korea): Legal Boundary of 'Political' Remedy

Abstract

The Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, created in 1992 and currently directed by Professor Brigid Laffan, aims to develop inter-disciplinary and comparative research on the major issues facing the process of European integration, European societies and Europe's place in 21 st century global politics.The Centre is home to a large post-doctoral programme and hosts major research programmes, projects and data sets, in addition to a range of working groups and ad hoc initiatives. The research agenda is organised around a set of core themes and is continuously evolving, reflecting the changing agenda of European integration, the expanding membership of the European Union, developments in Europe's neighbourhood and the wider world.For more information: http://eui.eu/rscasThe EUI and the RSCAS are not responsible for the opinion expressed by the author(s).The Global Governance Programme is one of the flagship programmes of the Robert Schuman Centre. It is a community of outstanding professors and scholars, that produces high quality research and engages with the world of practice through policy dialogue. Established and early-career scholars work on issues of global governance within and beyond academia, focusing on four broad and interdisciplinary areas: Global Economics, Europe in the World, Cultural Pluralism and Global Citizenship.The Programme also aims to contribute to the fostering of present and future generations of policy and decision makers through its executive training programme: the Academy of Global Governance, where theory and 'real world' experience meet and where leading academics, top-level officials, heads of international organisations and senior executives discuss on topical issues relating to global governance. For more information: http://globalgovernanceprogramme.eui.euThe European University Institute and the Robert Schuman Centre are not responsible for the opinions expressed by the author(s). AbstractThe US-OCTG panel decision concerned the latest in a long line of antidumping (AD) disputes about Oil Country Tubular Goods. It was notable for a broadly permissive approach by the panel; on all major legal issues but one, the panel sided with the United States over Korean objections. The case itself was also notable for the U.S. reversal of a negative preliminary determination, something that had occurred in fewer than 1 percent of prior cases. Finally, the case was notable for unusual behavior outside of the investigative process, including both vocal political complaints and a curious decision by Korea not to appeal. We discuss the legal determinations made by the panel and offer a new interpretation of how to think about whether AD practices are justifiable. We also describe the broader diplomatic context in which Korea and the United States interacted and consider the implications if political pressures play an increased role in determining dispute outcomes.