Download Free The Interaction Between The Dispute Settlement Mechanisms Of The American Regional Trade Agreements And The Wto Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online The Interaction Between The Dispute Settlement Mechanisms Of The American Regional Trade Agreements And The Wto and write the review.

This volume contains a collection of studies examining trade-related issues negotiated in regional trade agreements (RTAs) and how RTAs are related to the WTO's rules. While previous work has focused on subsets of RTAs, these studies are based on what is probably the largest dataset used to date, and highlight key issues that have been negotiated in all RTAs notified to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). New rules within RTAs are compared to rules agreed upon by WTO members. The extent of their divergences and the potential implications for parties to RTAs, as well as for WTO members that are not parties to RTAs, are examined. This volume makes an important contribution to the current debate on the role of the WTO in regulating international trade and how WTO rules relate to new rules being developed by RTAs.
In the last several decades there has been an exponential growth in the number of Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs). In addition to creating a wide overlap of substantive rights and obligations with the World Trade Organization (WTO), many RTAs also incorporate legalized mechanisms to resolve trade disputes, operating in parallel to the compulsory, automatic and exclusive system of dispute settlement under the WTO. This thesis sought to examine the possibility of jurisdictional conflicts between the regional and multilateral mechanisms and address potential ways to respond to this negative phenomenon. To verify the possibility of jurisdictional conflicts, the thesis examined the key features of WTO and RTA dispute settlement, the constituting elements of a jurisdictional conflict, and the practice of jurisdictional interaction between the two systems. This analysis demonstrated that it may be possible for the regional and multilateral mechanisms to exercise jurisdiction simultaneously or consecutively over essentially the same disputes. Importantly, even though this problem has not actually materialized to a substantial extent, future jurisdictional conflicts would still be quite likely, especially when RTA mechanisms may become more established and active over time. It is thus important to think through possible solutions to enhance the compatible coexistence between the WTO and RTA dispute settlement systems.Having determined the possible occurrence of jurisdictional conflicts, the thesis then investigated whether there are norms that can assist a determination as to which forum should have jurisdiction and which one has to give way in cases of jurisdictional conflicts. In doing so, the thesis developed the relevant frameworks to assess the applicability of RTA jurisdiction clauses and common jurisdiction-regulating norms, such as res judicata, lis pendens, forum non conveniens, comity, and abuse of rights, in WTO disputes. The examination revealed that these norms might not be satisfactorily applied in WTO disputes to regulate WTO-RTA jurisdictional conflicts. In the context of WTO law, where the relationship between WTO and RTA dispute settlement is not explicitly regulated, the studied inapplicability of norms determining jurisdictional priority means that multiple proceedings over essentially the same disputes before the WTO and RTA fora might be an unavoidable phenomenon. On the basis of this finding, the thesis turned to a new frontier and investigated whether there may be rules of international law that can enable tribunals to achieve a reasonable level of consistency between them in adjudicating essentially the same disputes. This inquiry established that principles of treaty interpretation, particularly Articles 31(3)(c) and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), may facilitate the integration of WTO and RTA laws into each other in multiple proceedings, thereby reducing the risk of unreasonably inconsistent interpretations and findings over essentially the same disputes. In the absence of explicit WTO provisions regulating the jurisdictional interaction between WTO and RTA dispute settlement and effective rules to establish jurisdictional priority between the competing proceedings, the interpretative tools appear to provide a practical and promising way to mitigate some negative effects arising from conflicts of jurisdiction.
It was a tremendous pleasure to participate in a symposium that honored one of the giants of the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Appellate Body--Professor Yasuhei Taniguchi. Professor Taniguchi served as a distinguished member of the Appellate Body from 2000 to 2007, during which time he served on the division for twenty-one appeals, many of them addressing landmark issues. In tribute to him, this article focuses on an issue that was a key element in the last dispute on which Professor Taniguchi served as member of the Appellate Body. This dispute concerned Brazil's restrictions on imports of retreaded tires and raised important questions about the relationship between regional trade agreements and commitments to the WTO. The subject of this article--the relationship between the dispute settlement mechanisms of various free trade agreements, customs unions or regional trade agreements (RTAs) and the WTO's Dispute Settlement Understanding--is one that has already seen considerable debate among scholars. This debate is poised to become more relevant and more intense with the proliferation of free trade agreements and RTAs. This article outlines the most common types of dispute settlement mechanisms contained in RTAs and the problems that can arise from the overlap or conflict between these RTA dispute settlement provisions and the Dispute Settlement Understanding of the WTO. This article also discusses the most recent case in which such a conflict arose--the Appellate Body's report in Brazil Tyres. In Brazil Tyres, the Appellate Body examined Brazil's ban on the importation of used and retreaded tires and the exemption from that ban that Brazil adopted to implement an adverse ruling from a decision of an RTA dispute settlement tribunal. Brazil contended that the WTO panel was correct in finding that Brazil's exemption from the ban for certain retreaded tires was permissible because it was mandated by a Mercado Común del Sur (MERCOSUR) tribunal. The Appellate Body reversed the panel, finding that taking action to comply with a MERCOSUR dispute settlement panel did not necessarily provide sufficient justification for Brazil's action. Brazil was still required to meet the requirements of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and WTO covered agreements, particularly, in this case, the chapeau of Article XX. This article concludes that there are a number of problems that can arise--or have already arisen--due to the overlap in dispute settlement processes between the WTO and RTAs, and WTO members should take immediate action under the Doha Round mandate to address these conflicts and clarify the legal relationship between RTA and WTO dispute settlement provisions.
The GATT and WTO dispute settlement systems have become the most frequently used international mechanisms for the settlement of trade disputes among governments. The 1994 Agreement Establishing the WTO introduced a historically unprecedented new dispute settlement procedure for conflicts involving trade in goods and services, trade-related investment measures, and intellectual property rights. This procedure provided for the compulsory jurisdiction of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, WTO Panels, and the WTO Appellate Body. The first 18 months from the time the WTO Agreement came into force on 1 January 1995 witnessed more than 50 invocations of the new dispute settlement procedures by a large number of countries, including many from the developing world. This large response, and the proposals for further extending the scope of WTO law, suggest that the WTO dispute settlement system will continue to be the most frequently applied, worldwide systems for the legal settlement of trade disputes among governments. This book provides students, lawyers and diplomats a thought-provoking and practice-oriented analysis of the GATT/WTO dispute settlement rules, procedures, and problems. The Annexes include a useful collection of relevant texts and tables of past GATT and WTO case law.
Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) have proliferated at an unprecedented pace since the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Although the WTO legally recognizes countries' entitlement to form RTAs, neither the WTO nor parties to RTAs have an unequivocal understanding of the relationship between the WTO and RTAs. In other words, the legal controversies, the result of uncertainty regarding the application of the WTO/GATT laws, risk undermining the objectives of the multilateral trade system. This research tackles a phenomenon that is widely believed to be heavily economic and political. It highlights the economic and political aspects of regionalism, but largely concentrates on the legal dimension of regionalism. The main argument of the book is that the first step to achieving harmony between multilateralism and regionalism is the identification of the legal uncertainties that regionalism produces when countries form RTAs without taking into account the substantive and procedural aspect of the applicable WTO/ GATT laws. The book calls for the creation of a legal instrument (i.e. agreement on RTAs) that combines all of the applicable law on RTAs, and simultaneously clarifies the legal language used therein. Likewise, the WTO should have a proactive role, not merely as a coordinator of RTAs, but as a watchdog for the multilateral system that has the power to prosecute violating RTAs. The author is aware that political concerns are top priorities for governments and policy makers when dealing with the regionalism problematic. Hence, legal solutions or proposals are not sufficient to create a better international trade system without the good will of the WTO Members who are, in fact, the players who are striving to craft more regional trade arrangements.
This book offers a multidisciplinary approach to the Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) by bringing together contributions from legal scholars and political scientists. Most of the authors belong to a tightly knit legal epistemic community, trained at the University of São Paulo and at the top-ranked research and policy centers on WTO law in Europe. Presenting a novel and unique perspective on the DSM, it provides an analysis of current themes at the heart of the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism through the lenses of scholars with a “developing country” perspective. Focusing on assessment, substance, and process, it presents a three-fold approach to the analysis and offers a singular contribution to the scholarly literature on the WTO. The book discusses the topic from the viewpoint of individuals deeply involved in the scholarly production as well as the daily operation of the mechanism. The contributors include academics in the fields of international economic law and political science, diplomats, individuals engaged in legal private practice, and individuals affiliated with the WTO as well as WTO-related think tanks. The result is a balanced perspective on pressing issues that have arisen and that are likely to remain at the center of the scholarly and policy debate for years to come.
Based on the author's Ph.D. dissertation, University of Bern, 2013.
Addresses the process of dispute resolution and appeal under the DSU of the WTO. This book covers politics and disputes between sovereign nations; power inequities in access to the DSU; specific categories of disputes, such as in agriculture and in intellectual property; and issues pertaining to compliance, enforcement and remedies.