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.

“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 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.

Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages (Complainant: United States of America)

2019 ◽  
Vol 181 ◽  
pp. 436-487
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Relationship ◽  
Dispute Settlement System ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

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

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document