WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism Without the Appellate Body: Some Observations on the US-China Trade Deal

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weihuan Zhou
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
China Trade ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Us ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

scholarly journals Why Developing Countries are at Disadvantage Position in WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 60-63
Author(s):  
Muhammad Waqas
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Trade Dispute ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
Specialized Institutions ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

The Dispute Settlement Board of WTO aims to solve the disputes of WTO members regarding international trade. Dispute settlement process involves the parties and third parties to a case, and it operates through the DSB panels, the Appellate Body, the WTO Secretariat, arbitrators, independent experts and several specialized institutions. Although the dispute settlement mechanism provides opportunities to the developing countries to seek remedies if they are aggrieved by any other country, yet there are certain challenges for the developing countries to participate effectively in DSM. The study finds out the challenges that caused the role of developing countries less significant in the WTO dispute settlement process. Moreover, several recommendations have also been made for making the role of developing countries more effective.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/ijssm.v1i2.10103 Int. J. Soc. Sci. Manage. Vol-1, issue-2: 60-63

Precedent in the WTO: Retrospective Reflections for a Prospective Dispute Settlement Mechanism

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 262-277
Author(s):  
Mariana Clara de Andrade
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
Wto Appellate Body ◽  
Legitimacy Crisis ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

Abstract Several factors triggered the legitimacy crisis which paralysed the WTO Appellate Body in December 2019. This article focuses on one of them: the criticism expressed by the United States that the ‘Appellate Body claims its reports are entitled to be treated as precedent’. This work describes the origins of the problem and examines the issue of the precedential value of adopted reports within the WTO dispute settlement. It argues that the problem cannot be addressed through textual attempts to better define the value of precedent, as some have suggested, but can be alleviated through the practice of adjudicators. Moreover, it argues that the criticisms regarding the precedential value of past reports is due to the inherent hierarchy ensuing from the existence of an appeals organ. Therefore, the demise of the Appellate Body may weaken the precedential value of past adopted reports.

Extraterritorial Shrimps, NGOs and the WTO Appellate Body

1999 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 199-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asif H. Qureshi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Market Access ◽  
The United States ◽  
Consultation Process ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Us ◽  
Wto Appellate Body ◽  
Dispute Settlement System

At the centre of the international trading order, under the framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO), lies a dispute-settlement system. This system offers a graduated conflict-resolution mechanism that begins with a consultation process; progresses to adjudication, through a panel system, and ends in an appellate process.1 Under this machinery, in October 1996 India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand (the complainants) requested joint consultations with the United States, regarding the US prohibition on the importation of certain shrimps and shrimp products caught with fishing technology considered by the United States adversely to affect the population of sea turtles—an endangered species under CITES.2 The US prohibition arose from section 609 of Public Law 101–1623 and associated regulations and judicial rulings (hereafter referred to as section 609). In a nutshell the complainants claimed denial of market access to their exports, and the United States justified this on grounds of conservation. However, as a consequence of the failure of the consultations, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body established a panel, around April 1997, to consider a joint complaint against the United States in relation to section 609. Australia, Ecuador, the European Communities, HongKong, China, Mexico and Nigeria joined the complainants as third parties. In May 1998 the panel's report was published, containing a decision in favour of the complainants. In July 1998 the United States appealed to the WTO Appellate Body, and in October 1998 the Appellate Body issued its report.4

The Legitimate Regulatory Distinction Test: Incomplete and Inadequate for the Particular Purposes of the TBT Agreement

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 543-562 ◽  
Author(s):  
JASON HOUSTON-MCMILLAN
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Technical Barriers To Trade ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Special Circumstances ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

AbstractPrior to 2011, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade had been somewhat neglected as a dispute-settlement mechanism, due in part to the lack of previous interpretation of the Agreement by WTO DSB Panels. In 2012, the Appellate Body adjudicated on three TBT disputes:US–Clove Cigarettes, US–Tuna II, andUS–COOL, aiming to officially interpret and clarify Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the Agreement by creating a distinct test for a measure's consistency with these Articles. This paper explores the relevant decisions of both the Panel and Appellate Body in the three disputes which led to the creation of the ‘legitimate regulatory distinction’ test. The substance behind this phrase, placed in context, is dissected along with the associated idea of ‘even-handedness’. The test attempts to simplify future interpretations regarding what will constitute unjustifiable discrimination, but at the cost of the necessary distinction between the GATT and the TBT Agreement being blurred. The result is a test which is incomplete and which fails to take account of the special circumstances surrounding the TBT Agreement.

scholarly journals When the hegemon goes rogue: leadership amid the US assault on the liberal trading order

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen Hopewell
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Leadership Role ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Trading System ◽  
Lead System ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
The Us ◽  
Multilateral Trading System ◽  
The Eu

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.

On the Legality of the United States Action of Terminating India’s GSP Status

2020 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-129
Author(s):  
R. Rajesh Babu
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
The United States ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Generalized System Of Preferences ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Us ◽  
Developmental Opportunities ◽  
Enabling Clause

Since the US Presidential Proclamation terminating India status as a Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) beneficiary with effect from 5 June 2019, questions are raised on the WTO legitimacy of such an action. The US measure, which appears to have a punitive element—a move precipitated by lack of reciprocity from India by not providing ‘equitable and reasonable access’ for US products in Indian markets—challenges the fundamentally premise of the GSP schemes. Since the GSP schemes are established to provide economic and developmental opportunities for developing countries, and once established must be administered as per the 1979 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Enabling Clause, meaning it must be on a ‘generalised’, ‘non-reciprocal’ and ‘non-discriminatory’ basis, can India raise a legitimate challenge against the US action at the WTO Dispute Settlement Body? Or can the GSP schemes, being voluntary and unilaterally administered, be structured by developed countries as trade policy tools with stringent trade and non-trade conditionalities? The decision of the Appellate Body in European Communities—Tariff Preferences, the contested nature of the Enabling Clause and the heterogeneous nature of developing countries at the WTO makes the interpretation knotty. In this context, this article provides a brief comment on the legal basis of the Enabling Clause in the WTO framework and the legitimacy of the US action of termination of India from the beneficiary status. Keeping aside the legal question, the author is also of the view that time is ripe for India to consider ‘graduating’ itself from such preferential arrangements and engage in binding obligations that are reciprocal and sustainable. JEL Codes: K33, O24

Exploring Aggressive Legalism: Is Now A Good Time to Promote This Approach in Greater Asia?

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi Lu
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
International Trade ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Good Time ◽  
Asian Countries ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Status ◽  
Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Asian Developing Countries

AbstractAggressive legalism, a trade policy-making strategy targeted at actively utilizing WTO rules to defend trade interests, has greatly benefited major Eastern Asian countries in past years. This paper examines whether this strategy should be promoted around greater Asia in this era. First, this paper updates the status of adoption of aggressive legalism in East Asian countries including Japan, Korea and China. Second, it looks into the current and possible future utilization of the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism by selected countries which are frequent “targets” of trade remedy measures, namely India, Thailand and Indonesia. Finally, it discusses the participation of Asian developing countries in the WTO. Relying upon case studies and statistical analysis, the author finds that Asian countries’ rising image in international trade signals a trend of adopting aggressive legalism in Great Asia. This trend will undoubtedly promote the energetic development of international trade globally. However, room for more progressive participation in the WTO still exists, especially in developing countries.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document