Analysis On US-China Tyres Case

The US-China Tyres case was final adjudicated by the Appellate Body on Sep.5th2011. The Transitional Product-Specific Safeguard Mechanism which the case depend on is from the article16of the Protocol which signed when China joined the WTO.The main idea of the clause is as below:In cases where products of Chinese origin are being imported into the territory of any WTO Member in such increased quantities or under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause market disruption to the domestic producers of like or directly competitive products, the WTO Member so affected may request consultations with China with a view to seeking a mutually satisfactory solution, including whether the affected WTO Member should pursue application of a measure under the Agreement on Safeguards. If, in the course of these bilateral consultations, it is agreed that imports of Chinese origin are such a cause and that action is necessary, China shall take such action as to prevent or remedy the market disruption. If consultations do not lead to an agreement between China and the WTO Member concerned within60days of the receipt of a request for consultations, the WTO Member affected shall be free, in respect of such products, to withdraw concessions or otherwise to limit imports only to the extent necessary to prevent or remedy such market disruption. In many scholars’s opinions, the clause is unfair.The important of the paper is the analysis on arguments of both sides focus on, they are as following:a)Whether the United States failed to evaluate properly the imports from China were in "increasing rapidly" as required in paragraphs16.4of the Protocol; b)Whether the US State implementing the causation standard of paragraph16;c)The United States failed to evaluate properly whether imports from China were a "significant cause" as required by paragraphs16.1and16.4of the Protocol; d)Whether the United States imposed a transitional safeguard measure that went beyond the "extent necessary" in paragraph16.3of the Protocol; e)Whether3-year period were beyond the "such period of time" that was "necessary" as in the paragraph16.3of the Protocol.According to the analysis on the US-China Tyres case, my opinions to cope with such cases in WTO are as below:Fist, we should perform the burden of proof positively and use data proof flexibility; second, we need to improve the laws on Rules of origin.