Abstract
Abstract Article 17.6(ii) of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement is a one-of-a-kind treaty norm that sets out a deferential standard of review for issues of law by requiring panels to accept any ‘permissible’ interpretation. The Appellate Body’s approach to analysis under Article 17.6(ii), which precluded a finding of two competing interpretations being permissible, has long remained a point of criticism by the USA, a frequent respondent in anti-dumping disputes. In the wake of the first arbitration award under the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Aarrangement (MPIA), which seeks to give more effect to the deferential standard of review, this article emphasizes the unprecedented character of Article 17.6(ii) in international law, argues that expectations of how it would operate arose from a misapprehension of Chevron deference in US law and that the whole issue may be another reason for having a separate dispute settlement track for trade remedies.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
