Well, if you aren't familiar with my take(s) on the WTO, you needn't look more than a few pages into this forum to find lots about it.
However, as to the WTO Dispute Settlement Body process, it can be abused for a period of time. Since the DSB says "this law violates the WTO/GATT, so go fix it," you have ample room for abuse. Typically, the nation's legislature passes the law again in a new form, trying to accomplish the same protective goals in a way that doesn't offend the WTO/GATT.
For instance, the EU redefined "banana" four, yes FOUR, times in its efforts to keep out Central and South American banana imports. As well, the EU's hormone beef ban was rewritten a few times as well. So, the US going back to the board a time or three to rewrite these offensive measures is normal.
And, since each delay takes one legislative session followed by a new round of DSB proceedings, each step of this delay can take a year. That's a 3-4 year window, on average, for the protective measures to stay in place, even if they are finally struck down. In the steel industry instance, this provides enough time (possibly) for the industry to adjust and for business to turn around in that industry. So, nations will continue to use protective measures as "life support" in such instances, knowing good and well they won't last and offend the WTO/GATT.
Let me rail on the Boeing tax breaks for a bit. The EU directly subsidizes Airbus and other air carriers. In fact, when United was vying for the European air travel business, and had a market advantage, the UK reacted by directly subsidizing European airliners (Airbus, IIRC). The relatively small money injection from the UK was enough for Airbus to outprice United, which finally fled the market completely.
So, to complain about Boeing tax cuts is disingenuous at best. A tax break and a subsidy are the same thing. Why the WTO is okay with one and not the other is beyond me -- but likely the result of shortsighted treaty negotiations.
Anyway, the nations on both sides of the table (US/EU) are getting fed up with things and starting to just walk away from it altogether. Remember, with the WTO "Fine, my law is protectionist, apply some penalties" is an acceptable final resolution. In the bananas instance, the EU wouldn't give up on it, so the US was allowed to place "retaliatory" tarriffs on all manner of things from Ducati motorcycles to Teletubbies to Roblechon cheese.
This attitude was recently picked up and mocked outright by The Economist.
[edit] Skunk posted while I was busy typing. Good post, Skunk, thanks for the update.
Willingness to pursue a DSB-granted remedy is a factor in and of itself in these matters. Mexico won the Dolpin-safe Tuna case against the US, but never enforced it with retaliatory tarriffs. (Thank goodness, IMO, as I think this is another fine example of externalities the WTO fails to address, and should address -- I'm glad Dolphins didn't pay the price of free trade.)
On steel specifically, there wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem if the WTO had an anti-dumping provision.
[ 11-05-2003, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]