The Settlement of Trade Disputes

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 207-248
Author(s):  
Makane Moïse Mbengue

This article examines the question of whether the wto enjoys a monopoly over the settlement of trade disputes by examining the historical context of the Dispute Settlement Understanding of the wto, including early dispute resolution under the gatt and the goal behind the transformation leading to the wto of curbing potential unilateralism within the trade regime. It argues that this culminated in the intention to create a centralized rule-based system for the settlement of disputes, rather than an intention to create a monopoly for the wto. The article examines potential threats to the so-called monopoly, in particular with the proliferation of Regional Trade Agreements (rtas) and the development of Mutually Agreed Solutions (mas). It also addresses relevant case law to demonstrate that the wto does not and was not intended to enjoy a monopoly over trade disputes. Rather, the wto pursues the objective of strengthening the multilateral trading system rather than encouraging unilateral trade action, which would not appear to be undermined by resort to the dispute settlement mechanisms of relevant rtas or other dispute settlement mechanisms.

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
MICHELLE Q. ZANG

AbstractInteraction between regional trade agreements (RTAs) and the multilateral trading system established by the World Trade Organization (WTO) is an issue of significance but nevertheless remains unsettled. This article aims to explore the influence RTAs have generated had on the WTO system, with particular focus on the approach adopted by the adjudicators when dealing with irreconcilable RTA–WTO conflicts. During the development of 20 years’ jurisprudence, WTO adjudicators offered responses to a number of critical questions. On the one hand, direct endorsement of RTA provisions with the effect of prevailing over the counterpart WTO rules appears to be very difficult, either through legal interpretation or application. On the other hand, unlike often being argued, a close review of WTO case law does not reveal a biased adjudicatory approach against regionalism, as compared to other sources of public international law. When dealing with RTA-related matters, the Appellate Body has been advocating an all-encompassing approach featured by the emphasis on the common intention during the interpretative exercise and the promotion for the WTO built-in mechanisms for valid modification. Such an approach is, to a certain extent, misleading in the RTA –WTO context and has led to certain ill-founded adjudicatory choice.


2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 304-319 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manfred Elsig

This article asks why the dispute settlement provisions of the multilateral trading system underwent significant reforms during the negotiations that led to the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. Why did the leading trading powers accept a highly legalized system that departed from established political–diplomatic forms of settling disputes? The contribution of this article is threefold. First, it complements existing accounts that exclusively focus on the United States with a novel explanation that takes account of contextual factors. Second, it offers an in-depth empirical case study based on interviews with negotiators who were involved and novel archival evidence on the creation of the new WTO dispute settlement system. Third, by unpacking the long-standing puzzle of why states designed a highly legalized system, it addresses selected blind spots of the legalization and the rational design literatures with the aim of providing a better understanding about potential paths leading toward significant changes in legalization.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen Hopewell

Abstract Under President Trump, the United States abdicated its traditional leadership role in the trading system, abandoning multilateralism for aggressive unilateralism and launching an active assault on the World Trade Organization (WTO). Most strikingly, the US blocked appointments to the Appellate Body, jeopardizing the WTO's dispute settlement mechanism. With the trade regime in crisis, a key question has been whether other states would have the will and capacity to lead system-preserving initiatives. While most attention has focused on whether China—widely seen as the chief hegemonic challenger to the US—would assume the mantle of leadership, there has been considerable scepticism about the European Union's capacity to exercise leadership amid the crisis. The EU has generally been seen as punching below its weight in terms of leadership at the WTO. In this article, however, I argue that it is the EU, rather than China, that has taken the lead in advancing concrete initiatives directed at defending and maintaining the multilateral trading system. The EU led the creation of an interim appeals arrangement to replace the defunct Appellate Body—in effect, creating an ‘Appellate Body minus the US’. Although the rules-based multilateral trading system remains under threat, it is the EU, not China, that is acting as a system-preserving power, leading efforts to defend the established order.


2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 539-569
Author(s):  
Maria Panezi

Abstract The proliferation of Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) and Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) has given rise to significant debate on the need to measure, understand and possibly regulate the impact these agreements have on the multilateral trading system under the umbrella of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This article will discuss the two Doha Transparency Mechanisms (legal transparency) regarding regional trade agreements, as they appear in two General Council decisions from 2006 and 2010. I will argue based on a closer look and a consistent interpretation of Paragraph 10 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration that there is another type of transparency that is relevant to the discussion on PTAs/RTAs, namely “internal transparency.” “Internal transparency stricto sensu” highlights the significance of trust in the WTO institutional processes, such as negotiations, decision-making, dispute settlement and trade monitoring that the representatives of developing member states should have in order for the WTO system to function productively. “Internal transparency lato sensu” is introduced in this article as an extension to include any decision-making deficits, exclusionary and asymmetrical outcomes specifically in the area of unchecked Preferential Trade Agreement proliferation. Instead of a conclusion, the article offers some proposals for more a meaningful progress in the WTO with respect to PTAs/RTAs The proposals aim at raising the profile of both legal and internal of transparency and posit that raising the profile of one will inevitably lead in improvements in the other.


2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yong-Shik Lee

AbstractThe current multilateral trading system under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO) displays a substantial development gap in the regulatory and institutional frameworks. The Doha Round negotiations, which was initiated to promote development interests under the Doha Development Agenda (DDA), have not been concluded for over 14 years, raising doubts about the ability of the WTO system to promote development interests effectively. While the Doha Round was sluggish for a number of years, regional trade agreements, which currently include every WTO Member, have been proliferated, creating significant implications for developing countries. This article examines the development of the Doha Round, analyzes the causes of its impasse, and explores its future prospects. The article also discusses the development gap in the current trading system and advances reform proposals to fill the gap in the system.


2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 563-585 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARC D. FROESE

AbstractThis article argues that the inclusion of provisions for the settlement of disputes in regional trade agreements enhances, rather than disrupts, the centrality of the World Trade Organization's dispute settlement system. Using a dataset that organizes exclusion clauses and special provisions for dispute settlement in regional trade agreements, the study develops a thematic typology that is used to examine the ways that disputes may be channelled between regional and multilateral dispute settlement institutions. This comparative empirical dimension offers a more accurate picture of the global contours of regionalization as they relate to the juridical aspects of trade governance, suggesting that the decentralization of dispute settlement inferred by the rapid development of regional bodies has been overstated.


Eudaimonia ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 137-146
Author(s):  
Monique Libardi ◽  
Patricia Glym

International trade law, followed by the development of legal mechanisms for regulation of multilateral trading system, from General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade – GATT (1948–94), Uruguay Round (1986–94) to World Trade Organization – WTO (1995) dispute settlement system is the current scenario of the world economy transactions. This paper aims to analyze whether Brazilian activism in the world trading system may be identified in the WTO Dispute Settlement dealing with the concept of direct effect on international law. Since 1995, Brazil has been an assiduous claimant at the WTO and at the South American Common Market (MERCOSUR) dispute mechanism. However, explaining Brazilian participation at the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) requires a collision between the Brazilian private sector and the political relevance that trade disputes have acquired.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Rohany-Tabatabai

<div>The number of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) has increased tremendously since 1990. The natural question to ask is why. PTAs are not only about lowering down tariffs further than the most favoured nation (MFN) tariff levels. There are many economic and non-economic policies other than border policies that are addressed in PTAs. Trade agreements dealing with border policies (tariffs) are referred to as “shallow”; and those that are dealing with a broader set of policies are referred to as “deep”. Therefore, PTAs are about something deeper. Parallel to the increase in the PTAs, trade in intermediate inputs has grown exponentially over past decades. Therefore, the first question that arises is whether trade in intermediate inputs generates the need for deep integration. In this dissertation, we show that the nature of trade in intermediate goods requires deep integration. The second question to be addressed is whether the deep trade agreements need to be preferential. With a three-country model, we show that the deep bilateral agreements are rarely chosen over the shallow agreements. Finally, by introducing the deep integration in the multilateral trading system, we conclude that although trade in intermediate inputs calls for deep integration, they do not call for deep PTAs. However, deep integration is better implied under multilateral agreements. Therefore, the deep integration in economic policies does not contribute to the increase in the number of PTAs.</div>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document