scholarly journals Reforms for culmination of the deadlock in appellate body of WTO: An agenda of saving the multilateral trading system

Author(s):  
Asif Khan ◽  
Ximei Wu

The World Trade Organization's (WTO’s) dispute settlement mechanism, known as the "pearl in the crown," is stalled due to United States (U.S.) obstruction, which prevents appellate body members from being ordained. This situation continues, and the WTO’s dispute settlement function is paralyzed since 2019. The WTO has faced a crisis in recent years, and the trade legislation has stagnated. The dispute settlement body was also blocked due to U.S. interference, which led to the failure of the appellate body’s members to be selected. The data has been gathered for this descriptive study using secondary research method, including different newspaper articles and the internet, which were outlined and noted. This paper presents and evaluates several existing proposals on how to get out of the impasse. This paper points out whether the existing WTO members can choose to join or not participate in establishing a new appellate body. On this basis, it makes its own relatively unique proposal, namely, to establish a substantial dispute settlement mechanism outside the WTO, parallel to the existing dispute settlement mechanism, and it demonstrates the legal feasibility of the proposal. Immediately, the states should begin negotiations on the significant agreements required for this new appellate body. It will effectively solve the deadlock in the dispute settlement mechanism caused by the United States, blocking the appointment of members of the appellate body.

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 262-277
Author(s):  
Mariana Clara de Andrade

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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 792-819
Author(s):  
Yuka Fukunaga

Abstract The United States criticizes the Appellate Body for ‘making law’ by interpreting and applying the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements in disregard of the intention of WTO members. The criticism of the United States is not without legitimate basis in that Members have few tools with which they may weigh in on the interpretation of the WTO agreements, even if the Appellate Body makes an erroneous interpretation. As much as the Appellate Body’s contribution to the security and predictability of the multilateral trading system warrants praise, the dysfunction of legislative and political mechanisms to counterbalance the growing de facto ‘authority’ of the Appellate Body should be a cause for concern. Against this background, this article proposes a new mechanism that would allow Members to disagree with interpretations by the Appellate Body and pronounce their own interpretations of the WTO agreements. The mechanism would be built upon ‘interpretative declarations.’


Author(s):  
M. Iqbal Simatupang ◽  

The research explained comparatively the application of the first to file doctrine and the trademark dispute settlement mechanism in Indonesia and in the United States. The purpose of this research was to provide a broad explanation of the application of the first to file doctrine and provide an overview of the mechanism for settling the problem of infringement of trademark rights. This study used a normative juridical research method with a statutory approach (Statute Approach) accompanied by a Comparative Approach, the data used was secondary data. Based on the research results, it was known that the Trademark Law still recognizes and / or implements the first to file and first to use doctrine. In Indonesian law, which basically adheres to the first to file doctrine, it still provides room for the first user to claim ownership of a trademark. Meanwhile, The Lanham Act accommodates the doctrine of first to use and first to file simultaneously but is limited by the trademark rights protection space. The mechanisms for settling trademark rights infringement disputes in Indonesia and in the United States have similarities and differences. The similarity is in both country, trademark dispute settllement is done through the litigation and non-litigation mechanism. The difference is that in Indonesia the most common mechanism is litigation, while in the United States the non-litigation mechanism is preferred in settling disputes over trademark rights.


Author(s):  
Aaditya Mattoo ◽  
Robert W Staiger

Abstract How should economists interpret current trade wars and the recent U.S. trade actions that have initiated them? In this paper we offer an interpretation of current U.S. trade actions that is at once more charitable and less forgiving than that typically offered by economic commentators. More charitable, because we argue that it is possible to see a logic to these actions: the United States is initiating a change from “rules-based” to “power-based” tariff bargaining and is selecting countries with which it runs bilateral trade deficits as the most suitable targets of its bargaining tariffs. Less forgiving, because the main costs of these trade tactics cannot be avoided even if they happen to “work” and deliver lower tariffs. Rather, we show that the main costs will arise from the use of the tactics themselves, and from the damage done by those tactics to the rules-based multilateral trading system and the longer-term interests of the United States and the rest of the world.


2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 78-87
Author(s):  
Fukunari Kimura

The current trade turmoil is not limited to negative economic effects stemming from the series of recent trade measures erected by the United States as part of the escalating U.S.–China trade war. The more serious issue that will unfold in the middle to long term is the potential collapse of the rule-based trading regime. The weakening of the multilateral trading system centered by the World Trade Organization (WTO) seems to continue. East Asia has been one of the largest beneficiaries of the rule-based trading regime in its course of extending and deepening international production networks and must now take proactive moves to defend and preserve this stable economic environment. Two crucial tasks in the preservation of the WTO are efforts to maintain the functionality of the dispute settlement mechanism and the revival of the WTO as a forum for future trade negotiations. At the same time, East Asia must develop a network of mega–free trade agreements (FTAs) to partially supplement a possible loss of the multilateral framework.


2001 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 949-969 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas H. Oatley

Europe's postwar shift to multilateral trade and payments arrangements was complicated by three factors. Distributional problems and uncertainty about the state of the world made European governments reluctant to adopt multilateral arrangements without financial support from the United States. An enforcement problem made U.S. policymakers reluctant to finance a European multilateral trading system. The severity of these problems was reduced by institutional designs that combined flexibility, centralization, and particular decision rules. Centralization and flexibility reduced uncertainty and softened distributive conflict. Centralization and particular decision rules solved the enforcement problem that U.S. policymakers faced.


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-176
Author(s):  
Taro HAMADA ◽  
Yoshimichi ISHIKAWA

This study focuses on the dispute over Korea’s import bans and the additional testing and certification requirements for Japanese foods and analyses the relevant findings of the reports of the Panel and the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organisation’s dispute settlement mechanism (DSM). Although the Panel had found that Korea’s measures were inconsistent with the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), the Appellate Body reversed most of these findings. Korea notified that it had completed the implementation of the reports of the Panel and the Appellate Body. However, the DSM has failed to contribute in settling this dispute positively and meaningfully, since it remains uncertain whether Korea’s import bans are based on scientific principles. Furthermore, the Appellate Body failed to complete its legal analysis of the inconsistency of Korea’s measures based on fact-findings and the facts uncontested between both disputing parties.


2017 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Tarek Yahiaoui ◽  

The process of dispute settlement at WTO has been delegated to independent entities: private groups that consider cases as first instance structures, and the Appellate Body that hears appeals for special group summaries. For its part, the dispute settlement body (DSB), the political structure composed of all members of the Organization and its primary task is the general administration of the dispute settlement and decision-making system. The recommendations contained in the reports of the Special Groups and the Appellate Body are binding on the parties to the dispute only after the dispute settlement body has adopted them. However, this process of adoption is now almost automatic; in order not to adopt a resolution it is necessary for all members to agree unanimously, according to a technique known as the "reverse consensus" or "negative consensus", which we do not yet know a similar in the international law. The political control exercised by the dispute settlement body remains generally theoretical, because the reverse consensus technique imposed almost as a decision-making mechanism. As long as the complainant insists on his complaint, it is inconceivable that the parties to the dispute are not convinced of the outcome of the dispute and raise a consensus not to adopt a particular report. In fact, if members have not collectively endorsed the abstracts or solutions of special groups or the Appellate Body, they have not prevented the adoption of any report. The appeal procedure is without doubt the most prominent and authentic new addition to the Organization's dispute settlement mechanism established by the Marrakesh Accords. The parties to the dispute seen by the Special Group can only appeal to the Appellate Body within a specified period of the date of the distribution of its report to the members of the Organization. The designation given to this body raises the question: the appeal is aimed at amending or canceling a judgment of the first instance judge by second-tier judges and article 17 (13) of the memorandum of agreement goes in the same context, stating that: The Appellate Body may uphold, modify or reverse the legal findings and conclusions of the panel". Thus, the powers granted to the Appellate Body are not far from those granted to courts of appeal in national legal systems. However, this rapprochement is soon reaching its limit, because judicial practice in national systems gives the appellant the power to review first instance judgment in relation to facts and law. However, the situation is different at the level of the Organization. Article17 (6) defines the appeal “shall be limited to issues of law covered in the Panel report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel.” The Appellate Body, then, is a judge of law who considers violations of the rules of law by the Special Group. Its function is as close as possible to a court of appeal as is known in some national legal systems, such as the French system. We have the right to question the new system of the Appellate Body of the Dispute Settlement Mechanism of the World Trade Organization under the Marrakesh Accords, and the new features that distinguish it from the mechanisms of contemporary international justice, both procedural and functional.


2020 ◽  
pp. 003232172097834
Author(s):  
Sijeong Lim ◽  
Hyo Won Lee

The World Trade Organization’s dispute settlement mechanism is based on either bilateral bargaining or third-party rulings by a panel or the Appellate Body. When do countries utilize the multilateral procedure, and under what conditions do they opt for a bilateral agreement? Departing from previous studies emphasizing the role of the complainant in shaping the course of the dispute settlement mechanism, this article offers an explanation based on the strategic choices of respondents. This study suggests that the domestic political interests of respondent governments determine the use of the dispute settlement mechanism’s multilateral track. We argue that respondent governments choose the multilateral track to seek political cover for domestically unpopular concessions to a complainant. Such cover is required when (1) the dispute at stake has high public salience and (2) the respondent faces an upcoming election. Our hypotheses are tested using World Trade Organization’s dispute cases from 1995 to 2017.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document