30 Ying Bi
warrant remedial measures. Rather the unfairness of the practice appears to
have seemed self-evident to legislators and trade negotiators.1
With the proliferation of antidumping laws and actions around the world, the
antidumping rules increasing potential for protectionist abuse has been criticized in
almost all of the current literature.
Thousands of pages with various proposals have
been written, all of which contain the same purpose of reforming the antidumping
system. Most scholars are of the opinion that the misuse of antidumping is mainly
due to its arbitrary and biased rules and procedures, so continuous efforts must be
made to make them more stringent and transparent, less arbitrary and abusive.
However, years of efforts at WTO devoted to the Antidumping Agreement (ADA)
seem to suggest that there are no substantial improvements; many of the practices
that have been identified as leading to significant protectionist biases remain
Recently, an increasing number of scholars have started to question the
fundamental basis for the existence of the entire antidumping system. They have
pointed out that antidumping rules are established based on several false premises
without justification from the perspective of competition. In fact, those rules are
antidote to the abuses is competition policy. Efforts should be directed at integrating
antidumping with competition. This has become known as the substitution debate.
1 P. Ehrenhaft, Is Interface of Antidumping and Antitrust Laws Possible? 34 GEO. WASH. INT’L L. REV. 367 (2002).
2 B.LINDSEY & D. IKENSON, ANTIDUMPING EXPOSED : THE DEVILISH DETAILS OF UNFAIR TRADE LAW viii (2003).
3 A. Aggrawal, The WTO Antidumping Code: Issues for Review in Post-Doha Negotiations, 99 Working Paper (2003),
available at http://www.icrier.org/pdf/WP99.pdf (last visited on Apr. 5, 2013)
4 B. Hoekman & P. Mavroidis, Antitrust-Based Remedies and Dumping in International Trade, 1347 Policy Research
Working Paper (1994), available at http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1994/08/
01/000009265_3970716141633/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf (last visited on Apr. 5, 2013).
5 S. Waller, Bringing Globalism Home: Lessons from Antitrust and Beyond, 32 LOY. U. CHI. L. J. 113 (2000). See
also M.TAYLOR, INTERNATIONAL COMPE TITION LAW: A NEW DIM ENSION FOR THE WTO? 260-285 (2006); A. Knorr,
Antidumping Rules vs. Competition Rules, Institution for World Economics and International Management (2004),
available at http://www.iwim.uni-bremen.de/publikationen/pdf/W031.pdf (last visited on Apr. 5, 2013); J. Finger
& A. Zlate, Antidumping: Prospects for Discipline from Doha Negotiations, Working Papers in Economics (2005),
available at http://escholarship.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1184&context=econ_papers(last visited on
Apr. 5, 2013) ; I. Wooton & M. Zanardi, Trade and Competition Policy: Anti-Dumping versus Anti-Trust (2002),
available at http://homepages.strath.ac.uk/~hbs03116/Research/Trade%20and%20Competition%20Policy%20
Final.pdf(last visited on Apr. 5, 2013); G. Niels, What is Antidumping Policy Really About? 14 J. ECON. SURV. 485