The administration of the antidumping law requires the identification of the 'like product' in each case. Article 2.1 of the Antidumping Agreement provides that a product 'is to be considered as being dumped, that is, introduced into the commerce of another country at less than its normal value, if the export price of the product exported from one country to another is less than the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like product when destined for consumption in the exporting country' (emphasis added). The product that is compared to the 'like product' is known as the 'product under consideration' or the 'subject product'. The definitions of 'product under consideration' and 'like product' determine, among other elements, the individuals or companies that may be affected by the investigation, from whom and which information may be gathered, and to whom and to which products the imposition of an antidumping duty may be directed. An assessment of the importance of these definitions in antidumping investigations illustrates their significance in determining the scope of antidumping cases and, in turn, their value and effectiveness.

view, it would be interesting to hear the author's opinion on possible consequences of this practice of derogation from GATS requirements for eventual disputes brought within the WTO framework, even though, for pragmatic and political reasons, such RTAs are currently not being challenged. This opinion would be especially interesting in the context of the author's initial WTO-friendly position concerning the interpretation of RTAs (which, in his opinion, shall be interpreted in consistency with WTO case law). Chapters 5-7 contain a detailed analysis of provisions on market access, domestic regulation, and transparency. The author shows that there are certain differences between GATS and RTAs as well as between RTAs, but they are not crucial. Finally, Chapter 8 deals with exceptions in GATS and RTAs. The author concludes that, in general, GATS exceptions allow considerable regulatory autonomy, provided that there is no discrimination in application of these measures (p. 294) and submits that this remains relevant for the RTAs (p. 311). The overall impression from the book is that it is a valuable study of the EU's current approach towards regulatory autonomy as reflected in its GATS and RTA obligations on trade in services. It contains a systematic and detailed analysis of the GATS and the selected EU RTAs, has a clear structure, and is easy to read. As already mentioned, the author's approach is rather pragmatic. Although he recognizes certain weak points in the documents under consideration, he does not develop an extensive critique, but rather builds his analysis on the existing documents, explaining how these texts, imperfect but nevertheless real, might work in practice. The book can be useful for a wide circle of potential readers. Indeed, on the one hand, the book contains a clear and concise explanation of the basic provisions of the GATS and can been used even in the initial stage of learning the principles of trade in services. On the other hand, it is a thought-provoking academic publication, based on the enormous amount of work of the author, who analyzed and compared numerous provisions of the selected EU RTAs. That by itself is already a valuable contribution to academic research on the topic. The book can be recommended to specialists in international trade law and economics, both academics and practitioners, governmental officials dealing with international economic law issues, especially trade in services, as well as anybody interested in the regulation of international trade in services.

The first request for consultations under the dispute settlement mechanism of the World Trade Organization (WTO) was filed ten days after its establishment in 1995. Thus far, more than 423 cases have been initiated under this mechanism. In addition, since 1997, Members have been engaged in a review of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), identifying areas in which the system has problems or may be improved. However, there have been difficulties in agreeing on the nature and the extent of these reforms. In the meantime, panels and the Appellate Body have resolved many of the issues under discussion in the DSU review on an ad hoc basis. There is an element of pragmatism on this approach. However, sometimes the solutions vary from case to case, adding an element of uncertainty to the handling of procedural matters in the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. Certainly, the DSU review process is an opportunity to provide consistency on these issues and is key for the enhancement of the WTO system in general. Currently, it is at risk of being left behind if the Doha Round does not move forward. This paper identifies the areas in which the dispute settlement system is being reviewed. It also identifies other areas in which no proposals have been put forward in spite of the existence of non-codified practice on those issues. Finally, the paper also identifies areas where, if not clarified or improved, would render, in the view of the authors, the DSU review negotiations meaningless.

WTO Members may resolve their disputes in any of the WTO official languages: English, Spanish, or French. This article addresses the litigation of WTO disputes in Spanish and French. We provide a general overview of the WTO disputes that have been conducted in these languages and address the strategic considerations that should be made before choosing a language other than English for litigation. We conclude that the final decision on what language is more suitable for litigation will respond to each party’s individual needs, and thus, will inevitably vary from one party to another. GATT, WTO, dispute settlement, languages, Spanish, French, international litigation