The Relationship Between International Trade Law and the Law of the Sea in the WTO Dispute Settlement Practice

Author(s):  
Maria Irene Papa
2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 404-406
Author(s):  
WILLIAM J. DAVEY

John Jackson bestrode the world of international trade law like a Colossus. His 1969 treatise on World Trade and the Law of GATT was called the bible of GATT law. His 1977 casebook on Legal Problems of International Economic Relations created a new law school course and introduced thousands of students around the globe to international trade law. It was the leading international trade law casebook for decades, and his students went on to positions of responsibility throughout the world in governments, international organizations, and private practice. His analysis of GATT infirmities convinced certain influential governments to push for a new international trade organization, which eventually saw life as the World Trade Organization. It was a great honor for me to have been associated with John for over thirty years. Indeed, his 1985 invitation to join as a co-author of the casebook after my first year in law teaching undoubtedly saved me many years of drudgery as a corporate/securities law scholar. Thus, I am pleased to offer some thoughts on John's influence on dispute settlement under GATT and the WTO.


2019 ◽  
pp. 537-550
Author(s):  
Donald McRae

State-to-state dispute settlement (SSDS) in trade matters was transformed from the traditional model through the compulsory two-tier mechanism of the World Trade Organization (WTO). It now functions to contain unilateralism in trade adjudication and remedies, supplies workable interpretations and new jurisprudence on contested and evolving issues in a unified way for all states, and helps overcome impasses in WTO political bodies. The megaregional agreements, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), did not spur much further innovation over the WTO’s baseline and in fact stay closer to the weaker SSDS model of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The megaregionals continue the trend of bilateral and regional free trade agreements to include both SSDS and investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS), but do little to recalibrate the relationship and interactions between the two. It is therefore likely that ISDS cases arising under these agreements will largely resemble the dynamics of existing bilateral investment treaty (BIT)-based and United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) or International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)-ruled disputes, and that WTO dispute settlement will continue to hold sway in the field of trade for the vast number of obligations that are common to the WTO and the megaregionals.


2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 198-200
Author(s):  
Natalie Y. Morris-Sharma

These remarks approach the panel topic of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) at the crossroads, by reflecting on the ongoing discussions on ISDS reform that are taking place at the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). There are three sets of factors likely to inform how ISDS is being transformed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document