The WTO panel ruled yesterday that the United States adhered to international law when it issued a revised finding in late 2004 that Canadian softwood lumber imports threatened its mills, said a U.S. trade official, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
The confidential ruling, confirmed by Canadian officials, further complicates an already tangled web of legal decisions in the long-running trade feud.
Not that this accomplishes anything in terms of ending the matter: it gives the U.S. more bargaining power in negotiations, but it looks like we're well past that point anyway. It's only an interim ruling, even if it is expected to be upheld later. And while I'm not sure exactly how the WTO and NAFTA rules interrelate, I'd have to presume that compliance with one set of rules doesn't justify violation of the other.
Even assuming that the WTO finding will definitely give justification to the U.S.' 2004 trade ruling, the U.S. has gone out of its way to point out the difference between its 2002 and 2004 rulings. Now it's Canada's turn to draw the distinction: a valid ruling in 2004 couldn't possibly have justified tariffs in 2002-2003, so Canada should still have a claim to all money collected in that time.
It's a good thing we have all these international agreements to bring predictability and logic to trade, isn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment