Subsidies and investment promotion reaching new heights in the aviation sector

The US - tax incentives dispute

Panagiotis Delimatsis, Kristy Buzard

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

This paper analyzes the most recent WTO Appellate Body (AB) report in a series of disputes between the US and the EU over government support to aircraft manufacturers Boeing and Airbus. The measures under dispute in US–Tax Incentives were investment promotion subsidies provided to Boeing by the State of Washington. The EU contended that the Washington State subsidies, which were conditioned on Boeing locating production of specific parts of its new 777X program within the state, were prohibited import substitution subsidies. The AB took this case as an opportunity to consolidate WTO case-law on import substitution subsidies. It confirmed a single legal standard for export promotion and import substitution subsidies but with a stricter requirement for a finding of a violation in the case of import substitution subsidies. We argue that the AB, in allowing the subsidies to Boeing, unnecessarily blurred the distinction between contingency in law and contingency in fact by ruling that identifying a condition requiring the use of domestic inputs would be a necessary element for a determination of a de facto contingency. This appears to be an unduly formalistic view that leaves little legal space for any de facto contingency claim in the future.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)327-351
Number of pages25
JournalWorld Trade Review
Volume18
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Fingerprint

air traffic
taxes
subsidy
promotion
import substitution
incentive
contingency
WTO
EU
export promotion
case law
Tax incentives
Subsidies
Dispute
Aviation
aircraft
Law
Contingency
Import substitution
Boeing

Cite this

@article{30b6b6e625954d34a08e9e4dee5b7a83,
title = "Subsidies and investment promotion reaching new heights in the aviation sector: The US - tax incentives dispute",
abstract = "This paper analyzes the most recent WTO Appellate Body (AB) report in a series of disputes between the US and the EU over government support to aircraft manufacturers Boeing and Airbus. The measures under dispute in US–Tax Incentives were investment promotion subsidies provided to Boeing by the State of Washington. The EU contended that the Washington State subsidies, which were conditioned on Boeing locating production of specific parts of its new 777X program within the state, were prohibited import substitution subsidies. The AB took this case as an opportunity to consolidate WTO case-law on import substitution subsidies. It confirmed a single legal standard for export promotion and import substitution subsidies but with a stricter requirement for a finding of a violation in the case of import substitution subsidies. We argue that the AB, in allowing the subsidies to Boeing, unnecessarily blurred the distinction between contingency in law and contingency in fact by ruling that identifying a condition requiring the use of domestic inputs would be a necessary element for a determination of a de facto contingency. This appears to be an unduly formalistic view that leaves little legal space for any de facto contingency claim in the future.",
author = "Panagiotis Delimatsis and Kristy Buzard",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.1017/S1474745619000107",
language = "English",
volume = "18",
pages = "327--351",
journal = "World Trade Review",
issn = "1474-7456",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "2",

}

Subsidies and investment promotion reaching new heights in the aviation sector : The US - tax incentives dispute. / Delimatsis, Panagiotis; Buzard, Kristy.

In: World Trade Review, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2019, p. 327-351.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Subsidies and investment promotion reaching new heights in the aviation sector

T2 - The US - tax incentives dispute

AU - Delimatsis, Panagiotis

AU - Buzard, Kristy

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - This paper analyzes the most recent WTO Appellate Body (AB) report in a series of disputes between the US and the EU over government support to aircraft manufacturers Boeing and Airbus. The measures under dispute in US–Tax Incentives were investment promotion subsidies provided to Boeing by the State of Washington. The EU contended that the Washington State subsidies, which were conditioned on Boeing locating production of specific parts of its new 777X program within the state, were prohibited import substitution subsidies. The AB took this case as an opportunity to consolidate WTO case-law on import substitution subsidies. It confirmed a single legal standard for export promotion and import substitution subsidies but with a stricter requirement for a finding of a violation in the case of import substitution subsidies. We argue that the AB, in allowing the subsidies to Boeing, unnecessarily blurred the distinction between contingency in law and contingency in fact by ruling that identifying a condition requiring the use of domestic inputs would be a necessary element for a determination of a de facto contingency. This appears to be an unduly formalistic view that leaves little legal space for any de facto contingency claim in the future.

AB - This paper analyzes the most recent WTO Appellate Body (AB) report in a series of disputes between the US and the EU over government support to aircraft manufacturers Boeing and Airbus. The measures under dispute in US–Tax Incentives were investment promotion subsidies provided to Boeing by the State of Washington. The EU contended that the Washington State subsidies, which were conditioned on Boeing locating production of specific parts of its new 777X program within the state, were prohibited import substitution subsidies. The AB took this case as an opportunity to consolidate WTO case-law on import substitution subsidies. It confirmed a single legal standard for export promotion and import substitution subsidies but with a stricter requirement for a finding of a violation in the case of import substitution subsidies. We argue that the AB, in allowing the subsidies to Boeing, unnecessarily blurred the distinction between contingency in law and contingency in fact by ruling that identifying a condition requiring the use of domestic inputs would be a necessary element for a determination of a de facto contingency. This appears to be an unduly formalistic view that leaves little legal space for any de facto contingency claim in the future.

U2 - 10.1017/S1474745619000107

DO - 10.1017/S1474745619000107

M3 - Article

VL - 18

SP - 327

EP - 351

JO - World Trade Review

JF - World Trade Review

SN - 1474-7456

IS - 2

ER -