One Belt, One Road Initiative into a New Regional Trade Agreement: Implication to the WTO Dispute Settlement System

2018 ◽  
pp. 401-415
2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-49
Author(s):  
Yenkong Ngangjoh-Hodu

As of May 2018, over 650 notifications of RTAs had been received by the WTO Secretariat. Of these, 287 were in force. While the content of the WTO DSU has largely been replicated in most of the ‘regional trade courts’ adjudicatory bodies, emerging features of some of these RTAs are substantially out of line with the WTO DSU. While some RTAs cover aspects currently alien to the WTO, the degree of liberalisation contained within others seems remarkably deeper than under the WTO. Two distinct questions are therefore addressed in this article. The first is whether the proliferation of RTAs threatens in any way the existence of the WTO dispute settlement system, while the second concerns the extent to which this fragmented patchwork of ‘regional trade courts’ contributes to the development of international law. In order to tackle these issues, the article will first explore existing international rules relating to regional trade arrangements.


2019 ◽  
Vol 181 ◽  
pp. 436-487

Economics, trade and finance — World Trade Organization — General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade — Relationship with other international agreements — North American Free Trade Agreement — Measures allegedly taken contrary to GATT said to be countermeasures responding to violation of NAFTA — WTO dispute settlement mechanismInternational tribunals — Jurisdiction — Discretion not to exercise jurisdiction — Whether inherent power — WTO dispute settlement system — Whether Panel empowered to decline to exercise jurisdiction — Whether dispute between two States parties to NAFTA should be heard by arbitral tribunal under NAFTA rather than by panel under the WTO Dispute Settlement UnderstandingReprisals and countermeasures — Nature and scope — Relationship between countermeasures under international law and measures to secure compliance with laws and regulations within the WTO — Whether falling under GATT Article XX(d)Treaties — Interpretation — Effect — Interpretation of GATT Article XX(d) — Relationship between GATT and other international agreements


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document