The Old Sheriff and the Vigilante: World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement and Section 301 Investigations Into Intellectual Property Disputes

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zachary Harper
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
World Trade Organization ◽  
World Trade ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Section 301

Principles of International Law in The WTO Dispute Settlement Body

2001 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 248-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Cameron ◽  
Kevin R. Gray
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
World Trade Organization ◽  
International Law ◽  
World Trade ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Member States ◽  
Trade Regime ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
The World

Unlike the original 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and trade (GATT), the 1994 Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO Agreement)1 covers a much wider range of trade. It extends beyond goods and now embraces services, intellectual property, procurement, investment and agriculture. Moreover, the new trade regime is no longer a collection of ad hoc agreements, Panel reports and understandings of the parties. All trade obligations are subsumed under the umbrella of the WTO, of which all parties are members. Member States have to accept the obligations contained in all the WTO covered agreements: they cannot pick and choose.

General Principles for Integration

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan
Keyword(s):  
Conflict Resolution ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
World Trade ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
World Trade Organisation ◽  
Resolution Function ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
History Of ◽  
Prior Analysis

This chapter reviews the broader principles in the international intellectual property (IP) system that fulfil an indirect integration or conflict resolution function, with a focus on those emanating from and applicable to the Trade Related Aspects of International Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. In focusing on Articles 7 and 8 of TRIPS, the chapter builds on prior analysis about the role of these provisions in establishing an agreed, common object and purpose of the principal global IP treaty with relevance beyond TRIPS. In light of the origins and negotiation history of Articles 7 and 8 TRIPS, the chapter shows how these provisions can be applied to integrate ‘external’ objectives and interests via interpretation and implementation. Next, this chapter reviews their very poor record of application in the first twenty years of World Trade Organisation (WTO) dispute settlement. It concludes with suggestions for an appropriate recognition of external norms, objectives, and interests via Articles 7 and 8.

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.

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 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