Author: Robert W. McGee, Seton Hall University
 
Antidumping laws have taken on added significance since the conclusion of the Uruguay Round of GATT. Prior to the Uruguay Round, only about 40 countries enforced antidumping laws. After the Uruguay Round, all 120+ signatories have agreed to incorporate antidumping laws into their trade policy.
 
Both the Uruguay Round and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) abolished or reduced tariffs and quotas, which have traditionally been the protectionist tools of choice. Now that these tools have been scaled back, antidumping laws have risen in importance, and are likely to become the most powerful and most often utilized tools of protectionism as domestic producers in more countries feel the pressure of international competition.
 
The USA has traditionally been one of the most aggressive users of antidumping laws and it is likely that this trend will continue, although other countries will likely increase their use of these laws in the future. This paper examines six recent cases where U.S. producers have invoked the antidumping laws to stifle competition from Latin American producers. The paper concludes that the use of antidumping laws will likely increase in the future as more countries adopt them and that this trend is likely to stifle, rather than enhance, international trade. The author calls for the abolition of all antidumping laws, the sooner the better.