ABSTRACT
The criticism most frequently aimed at Section 301—particularly Super 301—has been that it is a device for protectionism. This is a peculiar charge given that the aim of Section 301 is to open markets, not to close them. A more sophisticated criticism frequently raised against Section 301 is that it amounts to “aggressive unilateralism.” These critics characterize Section 301 as the United States’ attempt to act as “judge, jury, and executioner” in trade disputes that would be better handled multilaterally through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or now, presumably, the World Trade Organization. Section 301 was designed from the outset to work with the multilateral trade dispute settlement process. In fact, the United States used the time lines for action under Section 301 to negotiate the dispute settlement time limits in the Uruguay Round Agreement. A final criticism frequently leveled against Section 301 is that it risks prompting a major trade war.
