Search results

The purpose of this paper is to analyze and assess the efficacy of one of India's path‐breaking and trendsetting enactments of recent origin, namely, the Right to Information Act, 2005 in promoting transparency, accountability and probity in governance process at the national and sub‐national level and how it is useful as a potent legal tool in fighting against and preventing maladministration, bad governance and venality in the governance process at different levels of administration in India.

The paper focuses purely on the doctrine study by tracing out the historical background of the Citizens' Right to Information and an overview of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It also comprehensively discusses the meaning of information and right to know under the Indian constitutional framework and how its boundaries have been further widened with the enactment and enforcement of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Further, the paper also deliberates on how the citizens are empowered to enjoy and exercise unhindered right to information under the Act on a par with the legislators.

The paper discloses that the Right to Information Act, 2005 has undoubtedly immense benefits for the Indian polity in the form of strengthening of democratic process and promoting good governance practices.

The study throws ample light on how the informed and empowered citizenry is imperative for a meaningful democracy and also in promoting good governance and further in exposing maladministration.

The study on the path‐breaking enactment of recent origin in a young democracy like India has paramount contemporary significance for young and transitional democracies across the world for strengthening democratic systems and promoting good governance.

This paper aims to create a new decision-making procedure that uses “Lot-by-Lot Acceptance Sampling Plan by Attributes” methodology in the production processes when any production interruption is observed in tobacco industry, which is a significant example of batch production.

Based on the fish bone diagram, the reasons of the production interruptions are categorized, then Lot-by-Lot Acceptance Sampling Plan by Attributes is studied to overcome the reasons of the production interruptions. Furthermore, managerial aspects of decision making are not ignored and hence, acceptance sampling models are determined by an Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) among the alternative acceptance sampling models.

A three-phased acceptance sampling model is generated for determination of the reasons of production interruptions. Hence, the necessary actions are provided according to the results of the proposed acceptance sampling model. Initially, 729 alternative acceptance sampling models are found and 38 of them are chosen by relaxation. Then, five acceptance sampling models are determined by AHP.

The current experience dependent decision mechanism is suggested to be replaced by the proposed acceptance sampling model which is based on both statistical and managerial decision-making procedure.

Acceptance sampling plans are considered as a decision-making procedure for various cases in production processes. However, to the best of our knowledge Lot-by-Lot Acceptance Sampling Plan by Attributes has not been considered as a decision-making procedure for batch production when any production interruption is investigated.

The purpose of this paper is to examine zeroing jurisprudence under the WTO’s Anti-Dumping Agreement and to see if the jurisprudence can still be applied to situations of targeted dumping where dumping takes place in a specific region, at specific timing, or for specific consumer groups.

This paper examines the prior decisions of the WTO panels and the Appellate Body relating to the zeroing practice. It categorizes the key elements of these prior decisions where the zeroing practice has been found WTO-inconsistent. While there has been no specific dispute addressing targeted dumping per se, this paper proves that core elements of the zeroing practice have been anatomized and dissected by the panels and the Appellate Body in prior proceedings. The paper then analyzes whether these key elements still exist in the specific context of targeted dumping and thus whether application of zeroing is still prohibited in targeted dumping situations.

The existing jurisprudence on zeroing from previous WTO disputes should apply to targeted dumping situations as well. Unbridled application of zeroing in the targeted dumping situations will effectively nullify the existing zeroing jurisprudence accumulated through a decade of WTO disputes. If unchecked, this calculation methodology in the context of targeted dumping may open the back door wide open for “zeroing” negative anti-dumping margins. The paper concludes that the existing jurisprudence on zeroing stands for the proposition that zeroing in targeted dumping should also be prohibited.

This paper examines the legality of the zeroing practice in targeted dumping situations, which has been one of the most controversial issues among WTO members for the past several years. The analyses and discussions contained in this paper will provide legal guideline to evaluate zeroing in targeted dumping within the WTO framework. The outcome of the research will provide a platform for continued research and discussion in this area.

The purpose of this paper is to review the use of zeroing in the weighted average-to-transaction (W-T) comparison methodology and targeted dumping under the anti-dumping agreement by reviewing the WTO appellate body’s rulings on the use of zeroing in the W-T comparison methodology in the USA – anti-dumping measures on large residential washers from Korea (DS464). Although the appellate body has ruled that the use of zeroing would not be allowed in the weighted-average-to-weighted-average comparison methodology nor in the transaction-to-transaction comparison methodology, it has not ruled on whether the use of zeroing is allowed in the W-T comparison methodology prior to the instant case.

This paper mainly analyzes the WTO appellate body report on the USA – anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from Korea’s rulings (DS464) and reviews other WTO appellate body reports on the use of zeroing in anti-dumping measures. This paper reviews the relevant provisions of the WTO anti-dumping agreement and the US Anti-Dumping Act, and also referred prior papers on the use of zeroing.

The appellate body upheld the panel’s finding that the USA’s use of zeroing in the W-T comparison methodology is inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the anti-dumping agreement. As zeroing inflates dumping margins, increases the amount of duty collected, and hinders the expansion of trade in goods. The use of zeroing should be prohibited or permitted only in very limited circumstances.

Zeroing, which has been the subject of many WTO disputes between the USA and foreign governments, causes dumped sales to be masked by fair value. The WTO appellate body has consistently condemned the US practice of zeroing over the past decade as an unfair commerce practice. The instant case and this paper will help to stop the practice of zeroing in anti-dumping measures.

The text of Article 2.4.2 does not clearly prohibit the use of zeroing. The paper reviews the WTO appellate body’s rulings on the use of zeroing in the W-T comparison methodology in the USA – anti-dumping measures on large residential washers from Korea (DS464). The appellate body report was very recently circulated, on September 9, 2016. The appellate body has not ruled on whether the use of zeroing is allowed in the W-T comparison methodology prior to the instant case. This paper, first, concludes that the W-T comparison methodology is inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the anti-dumping agreement.

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

In WTO proceedings The Dispute Settlement Body has generally adopted a standard of review that is less than deferential even in the Anti‐Dumping agreement which envisages a deferential standard of review. What should be the applicable standard of review in WTO proceedings? The purpose of this paper is to present an analysis of the concept of “deference as respect” as developed by David Dyzenhaus and discuss its application to the WTO. This paper argues that the WTO should apply a standard of “deference as respect” in the interest of preserving economic sovereignty and the legitimacy of the WTO.

The paper involves the analysis of relevant case law and also the analysis and application of the concept of “deference as respect” in WTO proceedings. It also uses a comparative methodology in that it highlights the application of domestic legal principles at the international level.

The main finding is that within the WTO there is need to balance the requirements of trade liberalisation which eschews protectionism and the requirements of sovereignty and legitimacy. This balance can partly be achieved when a standard of review akin to “deference as respect” is applied.

This paper is different from previous writings on WTO standard of review in that it applies the concept of “deference as respect”. This analysis and application will provide academics and members of the DSB with a new way of assessing the standard of review in the WTO.

When genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were put into the international trade, people in many countries, especially European countries, became skeptical of them. A perception developed that they are harmful to human, animal, plant life and health, and destructive to the environment. It is true that if there is no safe use of genetically modified living organisms (LMOs), other species might be affected causing loss to the environment. So as to ensure safe use of LMOs and GMOs, the Cartagena Protocol and the SPS Agreement were, respectively, made. The purpose of this paper is to critically examine both the legal instruments and to explore ways to make them co‐existent, so that human, animal, plant life and health, and the environment are protected without affecting the international trade in LMOs and GMOs.

This paper undertakes a critical examination of the issues surrounding GMOs and LMOs.

The Cartagena Protocol and the SPS Agreement serve two different purposes. It is for this reason that some of their provisions are not co‐extensive. But the conflict in them can be resolved. It is suggested that the provisions pertaining to the precautionary principle of the SPS Agreement should be brought in line with that of the Cartagena Protocol. It is also suggested that importing countries should conduct their own risk assessment preferably by following the CODEX procedure. In no case, risk assessment done by producing companies should be taken as conclusive.

If suggestions offered by the paper are followed, the two will then protect the human, animal and plant health and the environment in the best possible way.

For achieving its object, the paper presents a comparative assessment of the cases decided under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

This paper aims to examine changes in the jurisprudence of the World Trade Organization Appellate Body in three areas of law (judicial economy, the identification of the measure to be examined under Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and other duties and import charges), and concludes that the Appellate Body failed to acknowledge and cogently explain in each of these areas, the changes it made.

The paper asks two key questions: what has the Appellate Body done when its own rulings in past cases stood in the way of a legally sound ruling in a new case, and how should it handle such instances in the future?

The paper concludes that all changes in jurisprudence reduce predictability, but that predictability suffers even more when the changes are made in disguise because panels and Members then receive confused or conflicting normative signals.

The paper argues that the Appellate Body should seek consistency of jurisprudence wherever possible. It should handle changes in jurisprudence more transparently and adopt internal procedures that make the need for them less likely.

This paper aims to question the “conventional” privatization of State-owned enterprises (SOEs) and to propose the neutral position adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) to reconcile the divergent views within the World Trade Organization (WTO) regime.

China’s partially privatized SOEs have raised numerous attention in WTO disputes regarding whether China's way of social and economic reform is consistent with its accession commitments and with WTO rules, in particular subsidy rules. Instead of providing a definite legal standard applicable to the “public body” enquiry, the DSB adopts the neutral position to reconcile the divergent views between developed and developing countries on whether not fully privatized SOEs constitute “public body.”

Albeit with interpretative vagueness, the value of DSB’s neutral position lies in its adequacy: first, the adequacy to address the complexity of SOE privatizations in developing countries; second, the adequacy to engage relevant parties to maintain the multilateral trading system; and third, not to impose specific impact on justification of countervailing duties.

This paper captures the recent developments in “public body” enquiry and calls for a compromised approach to maintain the WTO-like multilateral trade regime and to allow for more policy spaces for developing countries that best fit their unique circumstances and needs. It sees new and significant information, in the sense that the paper aims to present why China’s partial privatization benefits from the WTO “neutrality” on the subject.

The essay studies the introduction and use of audio-visual media in contemporary Swedish courtroom praxis and how this affects social interaction and the constitution of judicial space. The background to the study is the increasing use of video technology in law courts during the last decennium, and in particular the reformed trial code regulating court proceedings introduced in Sweden in 2008. The reform is called A Modern Trial (En modernare rättegång, Proposition 2004/05:131). An important innovation is that testimonies in lower level court proceedings now are video recorded and, in case of an appeal trial, then are screened in the appellate court. The study of social interaction and the constitution of judicial space in the essay is based in part on an ethnographic study of the Stockholm appellate court (Svea hovrätt) conducted in the fall 2010; in part on a study of the preparatory works to the legal reform; and in part on research on how media technology affects social interaction and the constitution of space and place.