It is always humbling when you fail to notice the proliferation of highly useful and informative blogs on the Internet. Today, I have stumbled upon an amazing blog for junkies of China-US economic relations written by those who should know much about it. Baker Hostetler is among the American law firms with a large presence in the international trade law arena. As such, you won't be surprised to know that their blog offering, China-US Trade Law, makes exhaustive analyses of the aforementioned economic relations. With its emerging emphasis on trade rows between the two nations, the firm's regular dealings with key US bodies dealing with trade matters (Department of Commerce, International Trade Commission, Consumer Product Safety Commission) makes for informed reading.
Topics are covered in considerable depth--almost too much depth for blog posts, I think. As expected, more detailed analyses also means that topics are covered some time after the fact. Nonetheless, it's a wonderful find overall. For instance, here's their explanation on why China perhaps wrongly prefers to contest trade disputes at the WTO while ignoring those in the US International Trade Court:
Topics are covered in considerable depth--almost too much depth for blog posts, I think. As expected, more detailed analyses also means that topics are covered some time after the fact. Nonetheless, it's a wonderful find overall. For instance, here's their explanation on why China perhaps wrongly prefers to contest trade disputes at the WTO while ignoring those in the US International Trade Court:
Since accession to the WTO, China has been participating in trade disputes according to the rules, but less than fully. Unlike other countries, China is not appearing before the ITC. It is not appealing adverse agency determinations in U.S. courts. It is not pursuing administrative reviews of countervailing duty orders, when final duties are determined and set for collection. It is not even answering questionnaires in administrative reviews in support of its own companies. Instead, China is counting on the WTO for trade vindication, a strategic choice almost certain to disappoint...If China doesn't roll with the punches Stateside, I shudder to think what its response will be if a growing majority of actions against it are not subject to WTO resort.
China is participating just enough in trade disputes arising in the United States to be informed and to complain, but not enough to prevail. Respondents to trade remedy petitions in the United States hope, but do not expect, to prevail at the ITC. They have little hope at Commerce except to build a record for appeal. Respondents, therefore, who do not appear at the ITC and do not appeal Commerce determinations do not expect ever to prevail. China’s choice of partial participation must be for some other reason.