United States—Sections 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974
World Trade Organization Panel
WT/DS152/R (January 27, 2000)

- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
The European Communities (EC) (plaintiff) entered into trade agreements with the United States (defendants), known as the Uruguay Round Agreements, in Marrakech. Prior to entering into these agreements, the United States had adopted Sections 301 to 310 of the Trade Act, which provided for certain unilateral trade remedies against trading partners. Under the Trade Act, the United States was permitted to impose certain trade remedies and, under certain circumstances, was required to impose remedies like increased tariffs or quotas to retaliate against violations of United States rights. The EC claimed that continuing to enforce and apply the Trade Act violated the Uruguay Agreements, which the EC argued required that disputes be resolved by the Dispute Settlement Body. The EC argued that the Trade Act required the United States Trade Representative to determine whether a violation of an international trade agreement occurred prior to the determination of that question by the World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body. The United States argued that its regulations and interpretative guidance provided sufficient authority to establish that the United States would base all Trade Act decisions involving the EC on the findings of the Dispute Settlement Body.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.