Comments on Defending the Rule-based Trading Regime: The Multilateral Trading System at Risk and Required Responses

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 88-92
2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 78-87
Author(s):  
Fukunari Kimura

The current trade turmoil is not limited to negative economic effects stemming from the series of recent trade measures erected by the United States as part of the escalating U.S.–China trade war. The more serious issue that will unfold in the middle to long term is the potential collapse of the rule-based trading regime. The weakening of the multilateral trading system centered by the World Trade Organization (WTO) seems to continue. East Asia has been one of the largest beneficiaries of the rule-based trading regime in its course of extending and deepening international production networks and must now take proactive moves to defend and preserve this stable economic environment. Two crucial tasks in the preservation of the WTO are efforts to maintain the functionality of the dispute settlement mechanism and the revival of the WTO as a forum for future trade negotiations. At the same time, East Asia must develop a network of mega–free trade agreements (FTAs) to partially supplement a possible loss of the multilateral framework.


2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
WOLFGANG ALSCHNER

AbstractEvery third dispute brought to the WTO and not withdrawn early is settled amicably through a mutually agreed solution (MAS). This includes high-profile and long-standing WTO disputes such as EC–Bananas or Softwood Lumber. By offering a negotiated solution to hard cases, MAS have added stability to the multilateral trading system. MAS, however, also raise concerns. Settlements favour the instant resolution of disputes, but may conflict with third party interests and collective stakes. Where WTO members use their MAS to contract out of WTO law (‘WTO+’/‘WTO–’MAS), the multilateral trading system may be at risk. In addition, new forms of bilateral (interim-)settlements not foreseen in the DSU have recently emerged which currently escape multilateral disciplines. This article assesses how well the DSU balances the competing interests involved in amicable settlements, preserving the contractual flexibility of disputants while safeguarding multilateral interests. Contributing to current DSU reform debates, the article rejects the need for greater MAS enforceability, endorses the strengthening of procedural and substantive safeguards protecting collective stakeholders in settlements, and calls for new DSU disciplines on interim-settlements.


2007 ◽  
Vol 42 (5) ◽  
pp. 236-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Woolcock ◽  
Claude Barfield ◽  
Donald MacLaren ◽  
Georg Koopmann

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document