About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline



1 [1] (November 18, 2019)

handle is hein.crs/govbbst0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 





-  ..........


                                                                                               November   18, 2019

Boeing-Airbus Subsidy Dispute: Recent Developments


On October  18, 2019, the United States imposed additional
tariffs on $7.5 billion worth of U.S. imports from the
European Union  (EU). The action, authorized by World
Trade Organization (WTO)  dispute settlement procedures,
followed an investigation by the U.S. Trade Representative
(USTR),  under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The
USTR  determined that the EU had denied U.S. rights under
WTO   agreements. Specifically, the USTR concluded that
the EU and certain member states had not complied with a
WTO   Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) ruling
recommending  the withdrawal of WTO-inconsistent
subsidies on the manufacture of large civil aircraft. In 2011,
the DSB confirmed that these subsidies breached the EU's
WTO   obligations under the 1994 General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the Agreement on Subsidies
and Countervailing Measures (SCM  Agreement).
The authorization to take countermeasures against the
EU-the   largest amount in the WTO's history-comes
after nearly 15 years of litigation at the WTO. The litigation
involves the world's two largest aerospace manufacturers,
U.S.-based Boeing and EU-based Airbus, which have
competed for years for dominance in the commercial airline
supply market. The United States successfully argued that
Airbus had received billions of dollars in illegal subsidies,
which resulted in a loss to Boeing of significant market
share throughout the world. The U.S. action to impose
tariffs, consistent with the WTO arbitrator's finding on the
appropriate level of countermeasures, aims to pressure the
EU  into either ending the subsidies or negotiating an
agreement with the United States. In a pending parallel
dispute case against the United States, the WTO is expected
to authorize the EU to seek remedies in the form of tariffs
on U.S. exports to the EU, after the WTO determined
earlier this year that the United States had also failed to
abide by WTO  subsidies rules in supporting Boeing.
Due to the magnitude of U.S.-EU trade (of which civilian
aircraft, engines, and parts are a major component) and
ongoing trade frictions, some Members of Congress are
closely monitoring developments in the WTO litigation and
in U.S.-EU negotiations.

   Bcgpround
The United States and the EU have long claimed that the
other either directly or indirectly subsidizes their domestic
civil aircraft industry. According to the United States, the
EU  and the governments of certain EU member states-
France, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom (UK)-
have provided, over the years, subsidies to their respective
Airbus-affiliated companies to aid in the development,
production, and marketing of large commercial aircraft
(e.g., through equity infusions, debt forgiveness, debt
rollovers, marketing assistance, and alleged political and
economic pressure on purchasing governments). The EU,
on the other hand, claims that Boeing benefits from U.S.
government  support, mainly in the form of research and
development funds from the National Aeronautics and


Space Administration (NASA), the U.S. Department of
Defense, and other agencies. Furthermore, the EU claims
that Boeing receives subsidies in the form of tax reductions
and exemptions, as well as infrastructure support to develop
and produce new aircraft.
During the 1970s and 1980s, the United States and the EU
engaged in bilateral and multilateral negotiations to address
their concerns. While these efforts ultimately failed, they
led to two major agreements still in place today: the 1979
GATT   Agreement on Trade and Civil Aircraft and the 1986
Civil Aircraft Sector Understanding (an annex to the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development's  Arrangement on Officially Supported
Export Credits). The United States also initiated dispute
settlement cases under the GATT's 1980 SCM Agreement.
The United States and the EU subsequently reached a
bilateral agreement in 1992: the U.S.-EU Agreement on
Large Civil Aircraft (LCA Agreement). The agreement
placed limits on government subsidies affecting large civil
aircraft manufactured by Airbus and Boeing, and it
included a ban on future production support, a cap on
development support, a ceiling on indirect support, and
conditions on repayment terms.
Dispute Settlement at the WTO
Citing dissatisfaction with EU compliance with the 1992
Agreement  and failure to negotiate a more comprehensive
deal on subsidies, the United States resorted to WTO
dispute settlement in 2004. It filed a case with the WTO
(WTO   case DS316) and withdrew from the LCA
Agreement. In response, the EU immediately announced
the initiation of a WTO dispute settlement case against the
United States (WTO case DS353)  and rejected the U.S.
termination of the 1992 Agreement. After intense
discussions in late 2004 and early 2005, both sides reached
an agreement on the terms of a new bilateral deal. They also
agreed not to request WTO panels relating to the pending
disputes and not to commit new government support for
aircraft development or production during negotiations for
the new deal. However, negotiations ultimately stalled and
both sides requested the establishment of WTO panels in
May  2005. After multiple phases of proceedings since the
WTO   first ruled in favor of the United States in 2010 (see
text box), on October 2, 2019, the WTO issued its final
ruling on the U.S. case against the EU, pursuant to Article
22 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (Compensation
and the Suspension of Concessions).

   Key  Developments in   the U.S.  Case since 2010
   June 2010. The WTO dispute settlement panel ruled in favor of the
   United States. It determined that some of the subsidies provided by
   the EU and certain member states for the manufacture of large civil
   aircraft violated the EU's WTO commitments and had caused harm
   to the interests of the United States. The EU appealed the panel's
   findings before the WTO Appellate Body (AB).


N
1 10
LI