“Constitutionalization” and Dispute Settlement in the wto: National Security as an Issue of Competence

1999 ◽  
Vol 93 (2) ◽  
pp. 424-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannes L. Schloemann ◽  
Stefan Ohlhoff
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Uruguay Round ◽  
Significant Shift ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement System ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

The 1994 Uruguay Round revision of the dispute settlement mechanism under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade/World Trade Organization (GATT/WTO) has made it a forum both for traditional trade issues and for interests ranging from environmental protection to national security. The limits of GATT jurisdiction have become important issues of dispute settlement within the WTO, especially as the emergence of the WTO and its rule-based, quasi-obligatory dispute settlement system has spurred a significant shift toward legalism. Constitutional structures are developing much faster in international trade law than in any other area of international law and, in the aftermath of the Uruguay Round, are integrating ever more aspects of economic relations among states. Within the WTO regime the dispute settlement mechanism established by the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) plays a prominent role in enforcing its rules and reconciling a wide array of the members’ interests. The limits of the reach of the dispute settlement mechanism, given its obligatory character, are, to a certain degree, the limits of the constitutionalization of the organization as a whole.

scholarly journals Rule-based Dispute Settlement Mechanism for ASEAN Economic Community: Does ASEAN Have It?

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 182
Author(s):  
Koesrianti Koesrianti
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Economic Community ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Rule Based ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Political Security ◽  
Asean Economic Community ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

ASEAN Charter 2007 as ‘constitution’ of ASEAN aims to establish ASEAN Community (AC) in 2015 that ASEAN constitutes as a rule-based organization. ASEAN Community consists of three pillars, namely, ASEAN Political Security Community (APSC), ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), and ASEAN Socio Cultural Community (ASCC). AEC will posses as the lead for the Communities. The objective of AEC is to form a single market and production base with some priority sectors. Accordingly, many economic regional organizations provide Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) to resolve disputes that may arise among the member countries. The dispute mechanism aims to provide predictability and security in international trade by providing strict time-frames, and was designed to be mutually agreed by the disputing members, flexible and binding. ASEAN trade DSM is designed as a legalistic mechanism. This paper examines DSM in ASEAN, especially economic disputes in the context of international trade law. In doing so, this paper analyzes DSM provided in the ASEAN Charter by comparing to DSM in the WTO context.

scholarly journals Rule-based Dispute Settlement Mechanism for ASEAN Economic Community: Does ASEAN Have It?

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 182
Author(s):  
Koesrianti Koesrianti
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Economic Community ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Rule Based ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Political Security ◽  
Asean Economic Community ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

ASEAN Charter 2007 as ‘constitution’ of ASEAN aims to establish ASEAN Community (AC) in 2015 that ASEAN constitutes as a rule-based organization. ASEAN Community consists of three pillars, namely, ASEAN Political Security Community (APSC), ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), and ASEAN Socio Cultural Community (ASCC). AEC will posses as the lead for the Communities. The objective of AEC is to form a single market and production base with some priority sectors. Accordingly, many economic regional organizations provide Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) to resolve disputes that may arise among the member countries. The dispute mechanism aims to provide predictability and security in international trade by providing strict time-frames, and was designed to be mutually agreed by the disputing members, flexible and binding. ASEAN trade DSM is designed as a legalistic mechanism. This paper examines DSM in ASEAN, especially economic disputes in the context of international trade law. In doing so, this paper analyzes DSM provided in the ASEAN Charter by comparing to DSM in the WTO context.

EUROPEAN UNION IN WTO’S DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (XX) ◽  
pp. 33-49
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Czermińska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
World Trade Organisation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
Dispute Settlement System ◽  
Trade Conflicts ◽  
Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Descriptive Method

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) serves as a forum for co-operation, currently for as many as 164 countries, and in addition, it allows for the resolution, also amicably, of trade conflicts between parties, consequently, settling disputes between them. One of essential provisions of the Uruguay Round (UR) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) included the introduction of a new dispute settlement mechanism, that is to say, the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), which became effective on 1 January 1995. Member States of the European Union were not only actively involved in developing the rules of the international trade system, but they also influenced, to a large extent, the form of both such rules and of ongoing trade negotiations, as well as they assumed and still assume responsibility for the final arrangements. Hence, their role in the multilateral trade system is both active and passive. This paper aims to demonstrate the functioning of the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism and show the role which the European Union serves in this system. The Article employs an analytical and descriptive method. It draws on sources from the national and international literature and WTO’s databases.

Diffusion and Decentralized Bargaining in International Organizations: Evidence from Mercosur's Dispute Settlement Mechanism

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Lenz
Keyword(s):  
International Organizations ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Diffusion Processes ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Institutional Convergence ◽  
Dispute Settlement System ◽  
Decentralized Bargaining ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

Abstract How and with what effects do institutions diffuse between international organizations (IOs)? An emerging literature extends a key insight of the study of diffusion processes among states to the international level, establishing that the adoption of institutions in IOs is regularly conditioned by the choices of other IOs. Yet, this literature neglects a key contextual difference between the two settings: unlike in the hierarchically structured organizations that have dominated the literature on diffusion, institutional creation, and change in IOs are the result of decentralized bargaining among sovereign governments. This paper develops a heuristic model that shows how diffusion between IOs shapes decision-making within them through its impact on the institutional preferences of individual governments. The model establishes that, unlike in diffusion processes among states, convergence is an unlikely outcome of diffusion between IOs. By implication, studies that take institutional convergence as their starting point are likely to underestimate the pervasiveness of diffusion effects. I demonstrate these arguments with a case study of the establishment of a regional dispute settlement system in Mercosur, a regional organization in Latin America.

John Jackson and WTO Dispute Settlement

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 404-406
Author(s):  
WILLIAM J. DAVEY
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
World Trade ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law School ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
The Bible ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
The World

John Jackson bestrode the world of international trade law like a Colossus. His 1969 treatise on World Trade and the Law of GATT was called the bible of GATT law. His 1977 casebook on Legal Problems of International Economic Relations created a new law school course and introduced thousands of students around the globe to international trade law. It was the leading international trade law casebook for decades, and his students went on to positions of responsibility throughout the world in governments, international organizations, and private practice. His analysis of GATT infirmities convinced certain influential governments to push for a new international trade organization, which eventually saw life as the World Trade Organization. It was a great honor for me to have been associated with John for over thirty years. Indeed, his 1985 invitation to join as a co-author of the casebook after my first year in law teaching undoubtedly saved me many years of drudgery as a corporate/securities law scholar. Thus, I am pleased to offer some thoughts on John's influence on dispute settlement under GATT and the WTO.

scholarly journals The Reflection of WTO Brazilian Dispute Settlements on Domestic Law: A Place to Legal Pluralism?

Eudaimonia ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 137-146
Author(s):  
Monique Libardi ◽  
Patricia Glym
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trading System ◽  
Trade Disputes ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
The World ◽  
Current Scenario ◽  
Dispute Settlements ◽  
Dispute Settlement System

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.

Enforcing WTO Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonello Tancredi
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Dispute Settlement System ◽  
Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Wto Agreements ◽  
The Eu

This chapter provides a brief analysis of the enforcement tools foreseen in the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. It focuses in particular on some of the peculiarities which differentiate them from the EU legal system. As the analysis shows, the relevance of reciprocity and post-litigation negotiations between States influences the legal nature of the WTO dispute settlement system, which today remains to a large extent a mixed or hybrid system. This contrasts one of the mantras diffused in the legal scholarship immediately after the entry into force of the Uruguay Round Agreements. It also represents a vehicle for the potential fragmentation of the multilateral legal framework governing international trade, which contributes to undermining the idea of uniformity of the obligations arising under the WTO Agreements for all Members.

scholarly journals Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform: Reconsidering the Multilateral Investment Court in the Context of Disputes Involving Intellectual Property Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Selection Criteria ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement System

On January 18, 2019, the European Commission submitted a proposal to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law to establish a multilateral investment court for investor-state disputes. The European Commission’s proposal reflects growing discussions about the potential reform of the investor-state dispute settlement system. While the present work on reform options focuses on issues relating to the legitimacy of the investor-state dispute settlement system, the effects of the reform options on investor-state disputes that specifically involve intellectual property law remain to be examined. This Article argues that although the proposed multilateral court structure offers a comprehensive approach to addressing the concerns with the investor-state dispute settlement system, it does not address a number of issues that are specific to disputes involving intellectual property law. This Article analyzes issues that arise from the arbitral tribunal’s role in investor-state disputes that involve laws governing intellectual property at the international and domestic levels. In doing so, this Article shows that these issues are distinct from the ones that broadly relate to the legitimacy of the investor-state dispute settlement system. In light of these issues, this Article proposes additional considerations for the multilateral investment court structure. Specifically, this Article proposes including expertise in the relevant international agreements as a selection criteria for adjudicators and giving deference to the host state’s courts in disputes that involve issues of domestic intellectual property law.

John Jackson and the standard of review

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 398-400
Author(s):  
PIETER JAN KUIJPER
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law School ◽  
Legal Service ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
External Relations ◽  
Ann Arbor ◽  
Guest Lecturer ◽  
Dispute Settlement System

Among my dearest memories of John Jackson and his wife Joan are the four weeks spent in Ann Arbor as a guest lecturer at the Michigan Law School in the mid-nineties, briefly after the entry into force of the WTO package of agreements. It was great to be away for some weeks from the relentless pressure of work in the WTO group in the Legal Service of the European Commission, which I was heading at the time. I taught a seminar on EC external relations, but also sat in on John's lectures on international trade law and naturally our discussions centered on the WTO and how the new dispute settlement system was going to work.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document