본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기
kiep logo

Contents

Citation

Citation
No Title

Abstract

In the consequence analyzing methods which are frequently used by the Canadian administrative tribunal, there are dualistic approximation method which uses the trend analysis and unitary approximation method which uses economic analysis. The disadvantage of the dualistic approximation method is that it cannot separate the effect out of dumping and the effect of dumping. In the contrary, the unitary approximation method includes methods like the countable partial equipoise model and computation model which could overcome the similar question. This thesis made comments on the advantages and disadvantages of the above two economic analysis by way of analyzing the Canadian case used in the damage arbitration process. And found that both the two methods could enhance the objectivity, transparency and fairness in the damage arbitration, meanwhile, the countable partial equipoise model is more practical under the restriction of time and resources. Especially, this thesis definitely brought forward the conjunction between the trade regulation and the economic analysis in the process of the damage arbitration of the Canadian administrative tribunal.

JEL classification: F1, F13, F14

Keywords

Anti Dumping, Duty Law, Canada

Language

Korean

References

  1. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 1991. Impact of Increased Offshore Imports on the Canadian Cattle and Beef Market. Unpublished document submitted to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) upon request by the CITT.
  2. Armington, P. S. 1969. "A Theory of Demand for Products Distinguished by Place of Production," IMF Staff Papers, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 159-178.
  3. Boltuck, R. D. 1993. "The Material Injury Determination in Unfair Trade Cases: The U.S. Experience with Competing Analytical Approaches." Presented at the international trade symposium sponsored by the Institute of Legal REsearch, National Autonomous University of Mexico, and the Secretary of Commerce and Industrial Development. Mexico City. October 27-29.
  4. Canadian International Trade Tribunal. 1995a. COMPAS Model Documentation. Unpublished document prepared by Simon Glance. Ottawa: Research Branch. January.
  5. Canadian International Trade Tribunal. 1995b. Refined Sugar, Staff Economic Report. Research Branch. Ottawa. Inquiry No. NQ-95-002, (Public). August.
  6. Finger, J. M. (ed.). 1993. Antidumping: How it Works and Who Gets Hurt. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
  7. Herman, L. L. 1997. Canadian Trade Remedy Law and Practice. Toronto, Canada: Emond Montgomery Publications Ltd.
  8. Huang, H., Krakar, E. and I. Uhm. 1993. "Injury-Causality Test under Canadian Trade Remedy Law-A Case study of subsidized boneless Manufacturing Beef from the EEC," Journal of World Trade, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 117-142.
  9. Huang, H. C., Huff, H. B. and I. Uhm. 1996. "Microeconometric Analysis for Determination of Injury-Recent Beef Trade Disputes Adjudicated by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal." Journal of World Trade, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 133-160.
  10. Kaplan, S. 1991. "Injury and Accusation in U.S. ITC Anti-Dumping Determinations: Five Recent Approaches." In Tharaken, P.K.H. (ed). Policy Implications of Anti-dumping Measures. North Holland: Amsterdam.
  11. Murray, T. and D. Rousslang. December 1989. "A Method for Estimating Injury Caused by Unfair Trade Practices." International Review of Law and Economics, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 149-164.
  12. United States International Trade Commission. June 1995. The Economic Effects of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders and Suspension Agreements. Investigation No. 332-344, Publication 2900. Washington, D.C.