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

LOG IN
LOG IN


11 J.L. & Com. 283 (1991-1992)
The Omnibus Trade Act of 1988, Section 301: A Permissible Enforcement Mechanism or a Violation of the United States' Obligations under International Law

handle is hein.journals/jlac11 and id is 289 raw text is: THE OMNIBUS TRADE ACT OF 1988, SECTION 301: A PERMISSIBLE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM OR A VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES' OBLIGATIONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW? The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, section 301, is designed to eliminate the acts, practices or policies of foreign governments which adversely affect United States' exports.' The Act directs the U.S. Trade Representative, on his own initiative or as a result of a petition filed by an interested party,' to investigate the acts, practices or policies of a foreign country.' If the Trade Representative determines that action is appropriate under the enumerated standards, he is permitted to suspend United States' obligations under trade agreements with that nation, imposing restrictions on the importation of goods from the nation, and enter into a binding agreement with the nation. The Act operates as an active enforcement mechanism and as a threat to create compliance with the legal rights of the United States and certain trade practice standards.' Although this Act appears to be beneficial in creating the ideal situation for United States' trade, several countries have questioned its validity. It has been criticized as protectionist and a potential viola- tion of international law.6 If this Act does not conform to interna- tional law, it may result in serious detriment to the United States, in- cluding retaliation by foreign countries and international tribunals as they increase in strength and function. Most fundamentally, if the act 1. Shirley A. Coffield, Using Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 as a Response to Foreign Government Trade Actions: When, Why and How, 6 NCJ INT'L L & COM. REG. 381 (1981); The Omnibus Trade Act of 1988, 19 U.S.C. §§ 2411-2422 (Supp. 1991). 2. 19 U.S.C. § 2412(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (Supp. 1991). Although the term interested persons is limited for parts of this act, it is not limited or defined concerning who may file a petition. See 19 U.S.C. § 241 l(d)(9). 3. See generally 19 U.S.C. § 2412. 4.. 19 U.S.C. §§ 2414, 2411(c). 5. S. REP. No. 1298, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 164 (1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7186, 7302. 6. Examples of foreign countries who have criticized the Omnibus Trade Act in this manner are Brazil, France, Korea, Japan, Australia, China and the European Community. For a description and sources of these criticisms, see Kenneth J. Ashman, The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988-The Section 301 Amendments: Insignificant Changes from Prior Law?, 7 B.U. INT'L LJ. 115 n.1 (1989).