scholarly journals Kebijakan Developmental State Indonesia dalam Perdagangan Komoditas Hortikultura, Hewan, dan Produk Hewan

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 29
Author(s):  
Septian Nur Yekti
Keyword(s):  
World Trade Organization ◽  
World Trade ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Developmental State ◽  
State Theory ◽  
Trade Barriers ◽  
Trade Restriction ◽  
Animal Products ◽  
Trade Dispute ◽  
National Welfare

Indonesia insists to defend its regulation on trade of horticulture, animals, and animal products after its loss on New Zaeland’s indictment in Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of World Trade Organization (WTO). Indonesia appealed the DSB decision, despite previous findings in DSB panel which reports that Indonesia’s regulations contains trade restriction and various trade barriers. This paper analyzes the reason why Indonesia appealed the DSB Panel decision, despite the fact that Indonesia violates WTO principles which lead to free trade barriers. This paper uses law perspective to find out whether Indonesia really violates the law or not. Besides, this paper also uses developmental state theory to analyze the case. The theory takes root in the merchantilism which emphasizes on export, domestic production, and national welfare. Developmental state’s position lies between liberalization and centered-plan policy which means that the country that applying this policy joins the globalization and plays its role in international order to reach national welfare.Keywords: developmental state, trade dispute settlement, trade restriction

scholarly journals WTO: As an Instrument of Dispute Settlement in the International Trade

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2.11) ◽  
pp. 58
Author(s):  
Chitra Bajpai ◽  
Priyanka Malik ◽  
Chitra Krishnan ◽  
Seema Sahai ◽  
Richa Goel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
World Trade Organization ◽  
World Trade ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Research Paper ◽  
Trade Disputes ◽  
Common Features ◽  
Trade Dispute ◽  
The Third ◽  
The World

The World Trade Organization is a platform which is primarily responsible for the rules and regulation related to the world trade for the member nations. This research paper is an effort to measure the effectiveness of the WTO as a Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). In relation to that the first objective of the research paper is to understand the nature of the International Trade Dispute among the member nations. The second objective of the research paper is to analyze certain International Trade Disputes which were reported to the WTO. The third objective of the research paper is to find out some common features among the analyzed cases.   

How does the World Trade Organization know? The mobilization and staging of scientific expertise in the GMO trade dispute

2012 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christophe Bonneuil ◽  
Les Levidow
Keyword(s):  
World Trade Organization ◽  
World Trade ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Animal Health ◽  
Main Task ◽  
Trade Restrictions ◽  
Trade Dispute ◽  
The World ◽  
Scientific Expertise ◽  
Dispute Settlement Procedure

The World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement procedure is a key arena for establishing global legal norms for what counts as relevant knowledge. As a high-profile case, the WTO trade dispute on GMOs mobilized scientific expertise in somewhat novel ways. Early on, the Panel put the dispute under the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement through a new legal ontology; it classified transgenes as potential pests and limited all environmental issues to the ‘plant and animal health’ category. The selection of scientific experts sought a multi-party consensus through a fast adversarial process, reflecting a specific legal epistemology. For the SPS framing, focusing on the defendant’s regulatory procedures, the Panel staged scientific expertise in specific ways that set up how experts were questioned, the answers they would give, their specific role in the legal arena, and the way their statements would complement the Panel’s findings. In these ways, the dispute settlement procedure co-produced legal and scientific expertise within the Panel’s SPS framework. Moreover, the Panel operated a procedural turn in WTO jurisprudence by representing its findings as a purely legal-administrative judgement on whether the EC’s regulatory procedures violated the SPS Agreement, while keeping implicit its own judgements on substantive risk issues. As this case illustrates, the WTO settlement procedure mobilizes scientific expertise for sophisticated, multiple aims: it recruits a source of credibility from the scientific arena, thus reinforcing the standard narrative of ‘science-based trade discipline’, while also constructing new scientific expertise for the main task – namely, challenging trade restrictions for being unduly cautious.

The Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement of the World Trade Organization: Debunking Its Reliance on Scientific Evidence and Reluctance to Endorse Potential Biotechnology Risks

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Muhammad ISLAM
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
World Trade Organization ◽  
World Trade ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Scientific Uncertainty ◽  
The World ◽  
Precautionary Measures ◽  
Phytosanitary Measures ◽  
Biotech Products

The World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) relies on scientific evidence as a conclusive risk assessment criterion, which ignores the inherent limitations of science. This article highlights certain trade-restrictive effects of scientific evidence and comments on the Agreement’s aversions to precautionary measures and the consumer concern of the harmful effects of biotech products that may be necessary to protect public health and biosecurity in many WTO Member States. These measures and concerns have become pressing issues due to surging consumer awareness and vigilance concerning environmental protection and food safety. The Agreement is yet to overcome the weaknesses of its endorsed international standardising bodies, the problematic definition of scientific evidence and treatment of justification for scientific risk assessment methods and the implementation difficulties faced by most developing states. This article analyses these issues under the provisions of the Agreement and the interpretations of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body in disputes involving SPS matters, which fall short of addressing scientific uncertainty surrounding biotech products and their associated risks.

Living without the WTO Appellate Body – Procedural Developments in International Trade Dispute Settlement

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 166-190
Author(s):  
Andrea Hamann
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
World Trade ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
Trade Dispute ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Wto Appellate Body ◽  
Dispute Settlement System

Abstract The current column covers selected procedural and institutional developments in international trade dispute settlement in 2020. During the reporting period, World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement has been facing unprecedented challenges due to the collapse of the Appellate Body. While this calls for a systemic reflection in the WTO forum regarding the future not only of appellate review but of the entire dispute settlement system, the current unavailability of the Appellate Body has triggered WTO Members into improvising temporary solutions. At the same time, some of them have equally seemed to turn to free trade agreements (FTAs) or otherwise to pursue solutions outside of the multilateral forum.

scholarly journals Apparent Dichotomies, Covert Similarities: A Response to Joost Pauwelyn

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 109 ◽  
pp. 294-301
Author(s):  
Catherine A. Rogers
Keyword(s):  
World Trade Organization ◽  
World Trade ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade And Investment ◽  
Legal Training

In his thoughtful article, Joost Pauwelyn poses a perplexing question: How can it be that trade and investment are converging in their substantive “legal orders,” but diverging in terms of perceived legitimacy? Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), he argues, is in a “state of crisis” whereas World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement is generally regarded as “successful.” Pauwelyn’s provocative and counter-intuitive explanation for this paradox focuses on the apparent differences between the pool of decision-makers in each regime: WTO disputes are resolved by nameless, faceless, panel-inexperienced bureaucrats who often lack legal training, whereas “investment arbitrators are typically high-powered, elite jurists” with more expertise and experience than their WTO counterparts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document