Conclusions and De Lege Ferenda Observations Concerning Dispute Settlement Systems

2021 ◽  
pp. 607-608
Author(s):  
Rüdiger Wolfrum

This chapter explores the general question of how to establish that the regulation of a certain matter constitutes a matter of community-wide concern, which is the necessary step for the recognition of community obligation. The hypothesis is that such a qualification must, first, be well founded factually and, secondly, accepted as such in a legal or political legitimizing process. On this basis, the chapter suggests that the governance of spaces beyond national jurisdiction constitutes a community interest and has to be guided by the interests of the international community. Exploring this question with respect to key common spaces and particular issues, the chapter notes the difficulty of most of the dispute settlement systems, which, being bilateral, are not fully adequate to address questions related to the management of global commons as well as for the protection of the environment. To avoid this difficulty, the chapter suggests greater reliance on advisory opinions where available.


2008 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolaos Lavranos ◽  
Nicolas Vielliard

AbstractThe wider issues raised by the Brazilian Tyres case are discussed in this contribution. Regarding the institutional aspects, this case examines the difficulties between regional dispute settlement systems and the global WTO dispute settlement system. In particular, the WTO Appellate Body showed no deference towards the prior report of the MERCOSUR Arbitral Tribunal. Indeed, the WTO Appellate Body is espousing a supremacy of WTO law – not only vis-à-vis regional dispute settlement bodies, but also regarding WTO panels. It is argued that this attitude is not sustainable in the light of the increasing proliferation of international courts and tribunals, which inevitably results into disputes being adjudicated by different courts and tribunals at different levels. Regarding the substantive aspects, this case is a prime example of the difficulties of balancing non-trade interests and trade interests. At the end, trade interests superseded the nontrade interests. It is argued that the way Article XX GATT has been interpreted and applied by the WTO Appellate Body leaves states insufficient room to address urgent environmental and health problems by restricting trade. It is argued that in this case Brazil's non-trade interests should have been given preference over the trade interests of the EC and Uruguay.


2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 1339-1357
Author(s):  
Sergio Puig

Abstract A flourishing number of bodies evaluate the conduct of government officials against broad standards, decide complex questions of scientific probity and calculate the present value of past decisions. The effects of implicit biases (systematic patterns of deviation from rationality in judgment) impact the assessment of these issues, which are central to international economic law. Such effects are well understood by psychologists and increasingly confirmed by experiments involving legal actors, including judges. In this article, I provide three concrete examples of implicit biases affecting international tax, trade and investment adjudication, and I call for the incorporation of mechanisms to overcome such biases as well as their strategic exploitation by litigants. At a conceptual level, I propose a typology to think of ‘debiasing tools’ for international adjudication – mechanisms that can act as a centrepiece of coordination of information rather than mere inoculants of the habits of mind on adjudicators. At a normative level, I pose that biases may impact confidence in dispute settlement systems and that both concerns for sovereignty and a predilection for negotiated solutions make international economic law ripe for testing these interventions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document