Material injury Clause Samples
Material injury. (A) In general
(B) Volume and consequent impact
(i) shall consider—
(I) the volume of imports of the subject merchandise,
(II) the effect of imports of that mer- chandise on prices in the United States for domestic like products, and
(III) the impact of imports of such merchandise on domestic producers of domestic like products, but only in the context of production operations within the United States; and
(ii) may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the determina- tion regarding whether there is material injury by reason of imports. In the notification required under section 1671d(d) or 1673d(d) of this title, as the case may be, the Commission shall explain its analysis of each factor considered under clause (i), and identify each factor consid- ered under clause (ii) and explain in full its relevance to the determination.
(C) Evaluation of relevant factors
Material injury anthropical and natural property Material injury concerns both the State’s territorial sovereignty and property. The former Westphalian concept par excellence aside,151 it is the latter that concerns this study. ISCMs have long recognised that States can sustain injury through their property, which has encompass general public property,152 culture’s tangible and the natural environment. As was seen and will be seen, public property, when civilian, includes culture’s tangible (general introduction, Part II, Chapter 1). Adjudications involving damage to general public property may accordingly prove useful when considering culture’s tangible. For example, during the Eritrea-Ethiopia armed conflict, the EECC awarded monetary compensation to Ethiopia for damage caused to “public buildings and infrastructure”, including “health institutions and educational institutions”; and to Eritrea for damage to buildings, including schools, Ministry of Agriculture facilities, hospitals and health stations.153 Even though culture’s tangible is not infrastructure, the 151 State sovereignty violations are Westphalian classics and can concern the geographic territory. See eg Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Denmark v Norway) (PCIJ) Judgment (5 April 1933) PCIJ Rep Series A/B No 53, pp 23 and 75; Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex (Switzerland v France) (PCIJ) Judgment (7 June 1932) Rep Series A/B No 46, pp 97, 164 and 172; and Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v Thailand) (ICJ) Merits Judgment (15 June 1962) ICJ Rep 1962, pp 14-15 and 36-37. They can also concern diplomatic and consular premises, wherein the ICJ has eg ordered the end of the “infringements of the inviolability of the premises, archives and diplomatic and consular staff of the United States Embassy”. See Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v Iran) (ICJ) Judgment (24 May 1980) ICJ Rep 1980, paras 14-19 and 69. 152 Attacks on diplomatic premises can also damage general public property. See eg ICJ’s reparations ruling against Iran for, inter alia, the takeover of premises, property, archives and documents in the United States Embassy and consulates. See Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v Iran), paras 14-19, 57 and 95. This is more current in non- adjudicatory diplomatic practice. See eg China’s reparations request for damage to its immovable and m...