International Law in Domestic Courts

On January 16, 2003, the WTO Appellate Body (AB) ruled that the U.S. Continued Dumping and Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA) (also referred to as the "Byrd Amendment") is inconsistent with the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT (the "Anti-Dumping (AD) Agreement") and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  (the "SCM Agreement"). [1]

British news headlines have recently been dominated by the General Election, which took place on 5 May 2005. Predictably, the Iraq war was one of the "hot topics" of the election, and received much air time from politicians of all persuasions. One comment, which sparked a flurry of press attention, may have been confusing both to lay observers in Britain and to watchers abroad. On 30 April 2005, Gordon Brown, the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated that, in future, Members of Parliament should be allowed to decide whether Britain goes to war.[1]

 

As was widely expected, on April 7, 2005, the WTO Appellate Body substantially reversed an earlier Panel decision condemning a US ban on internet gambling.[1]

 

On March 3, 2005, the WTO Appellate Body (AB) issued a landmark decision[1] interpreting key WTO provisions on agricultural subsidies and upholding a prior panel ruling finding various US cotton subsidies to be WTO illegal. In September 2004 the panel, in a challenge by Brazil, had ruled that various US agricultural programs constituted illegal subsidies under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, the Agreement on Agriculture and Article XVI of the GATT 1994.[2]