Japan's policy on steel trade disputes with the United States: a comparative analysis

Abstract

This article examines interactions among the United States, Japan and the European Union over steel trade disputes with particular interest in Japan's reactions to the disputes. For this objective, this paper establishes an analytical framework that takes into account bilateral, international, and domestic factors in formulating a state's external policy and relations. It was found that the special relationship with the United States still impinged on Japan's reactions to steel trade disputes, but its influence has gradually declined. Moreover, growing familiarity with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and practices and collaboration with other countries enabled Tokyo to expand its policy options to handle steel trade conflicts with Washington. Significantly, Japan formally adopted seemingly bold measures to cope with the US steel safeguard action, but the measures' substantial influence on the US government was limited compared with those adopted by the European Union. Weak policy coordination among ministries prevented Japan from formulating strategic and effective measures in managing steel trade disputes with the United States.

Neither Reluctant nor Aggressive Legalism: East Asian Countries under the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Mechanism

“…They find the cause of this change in such social/cultural factors as overall changes in the legal culture in EACs or the accumulation of legal experience and resources (international socialization thesis). Aggressive legalism, the most widely known Trade-dominant industry thesis: interest-based explanation (Pekkanen 2008(Pekkanen , 2010Gao 2010Gao , 2011Yoshimatsu, 2007) Trade surplus/deficit or trade penetration to partner market (Yamane, 1998) (Peng, 2000;Zhang, 2006) International socialization perspective: socialization of legal norms (Harpaz, 2010) Lack of legal capacity/experience argument (Araki, 2004;Iida, 2006;Liyu and Gao, 2010) (Why EACs are getting more aggressive) (Why EACs are not aggressive) EACs, East Asian countries.…”