If a successful compromise is one that leaves everyone equally dissatisfied, the World Trade Organisation must be delighted with its handling of the US-brought case on Airbus subsidies.
When it issued a verdict in June, declaring that launch aid to the European airframer had broken international trade rules, the plaintiff jumped for joy. Here was a "landmark victory", said the Office of the US Trade Representative. Airbus, meanwhile, insisted that seven in 10 of US claims had been rejected, but it seemed undeniable that Boeing had landed a heavy blow. Certainly, it was no surprise when the European Union promptly contested the judgement.
More unexpected was the USA's decision to stop crowing about vindication and launch its own appeal. A long-running tit-for-tat degenerated into farce when Washington suddenly detected two flaws in its "landmark victory": broadly, not all Airbus launch aid had been deemed subsidy, and what subsidy there was did not form part of a grand scheme.
And so, for the WTO panel, groundhog day begins again. For the litigants, a question grows ever more pressing: why persevere with this, when the WTO can't force members to do anything? Who can win? There's only one answer. For trade lawyers, this intractable spat is the gift that keeps giving, however its participants' shareholders may view things.
Source: Flight International
