日本EU学会年報
Online ISSN : 1884-2739
Print ISSN : 1884-3123
ISSN-L : 1884-3123
独立論文
EUによるアンチダンピング措置の最新動向の分析
―規律強化と積極利用の同時進行―
柴山 千里小林 友彦
著者情報
ジャーナル フリー

2011 年 2011 巻 31 号 p. 204-222

詳細
抄録

The use of anti-dumping (AD) measures against foreign imports has long been a major tool of external trade policy for the EU. For more than 40 years, the EU (including its predecessor EEC/EC) is one of the most frequent users of the AD measures.
Recently, however, there are a number of changes in trade environments, which include stricter regulations under the WTO Agreement, growing EU membership, the growing challenge of Chinese exports and the world financial crisis since September 2008. In response to these endogenous as well as exogenous changes, the EU modified its basic law, namely the AD Regulations, for several times. Also, in 2006, then Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson issued a green paper on trade defense instruments aiming for further modifications of AD laws in a manner more suitable to the increasing globalization in trade. Apparently, the current EU policy shows two conflicting directions: one for stricter regulation to prevent abuse of AD measures, and the other for further aggressive use thereof. Quo vadis, EU?
To address this question, this paper conducted positive analysis of EU’s official records on AD investigations (including reviews) and impositions of AD duties in the recent five years (2005-2009). First, we found China as increasingly the major target of AD investigations and duties. Also, the major target sectors have been slightly changing from chemical to steel industry, both of which being the major target sectors for decades. Secondly, we verified two presumptions found by previous studies that the number of AD investigations and AD duties positively correlates to the rise in exchange rates while it negatively correlates to the growth in the GDP.
Using negative binominal regression, we found no significant effects of these two economic factors on the number of AD investigations nor AD duties. On the other hand, by diachronic interpretation of scatter diagrams we found that the excess in the number of AD investigations in 2005-2006 and the scarcity in the number of AD duties in 2006-2007 are in some part attributable to the enlargement of EU. Also, the scarcity in the number of AD investigations in 2009 is in some part attributable to the EU’s restrained response to Lehman Shock.

著者関連情報
© 2011 日本EU学会
前の記事 次の記事
feedback
Top