scholarly journals The European Union Faces the Crisis of the WTO Dispute Settlement System: Tensions between Multilateralism and Unilateralism in International Trade Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandra Mignolli
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Trade ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
Dispute Settlement System

EUROPEAN UNION IN WTO’S DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (XX) ◽  
pp. 33-49
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Czermińska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
World Trade Organisation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
Dispute Settlement System ◽  
Trade Conflicts ◽  
Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Descriptive Method

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) serves as a forum for co-operation, currently for as many as 164 countries, and in addition, it allows for the resolution, also amicably, of trade conflicts between parties, consequently, settling disputes between them. One of essential provisions of the Uruguay Round (UR) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) included the introduction of a new dispute settlement mechanism, that is to say, the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), which became effective on 1 January 1995. Member States of the European Union were not only actively involved in developing the rules of the international trade system, but they also influenced, to a large extent, the form of both such rules and of ongoing trade negotiations, as well as they assumed and still assume responsibility for the final arrangements. Hence, their role in the multilateral trade system is both active and passive. This paper aims to demonstrate the functioning of the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism and show the role which the European Union serves in this system. The Article employs an analytical and descriptive method. It draws on sources from the national and international literature and WTO’s databases.

John Jackson and WTO Dispute Settlement

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 404-406
Author(s):  
WILLIAM J. DAVEY
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
World Trade ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law School ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
The Bible ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
The World

John Jackson bestrode the world of international trade law like a Colossus. His 1969 treatise on World Trade and the Law of GATT was called the bible of GATT law. His 1977 casebook on Legal Problems of International Economic Relations created a new law school course and introduced thousands of students around the globe to international trade law. It was the leading international trade law casebook for decades, and his students went on to positions of responsibility throughout the world in governments, international organizations, and private practice. His analysis of GATT infirmities convinced certain influential governments to push for a new international trade organization, which eventually saw life as the World Trade Organization. It was a great honor for me to have been associated with John for over thirty years. Indeed, his 1985 invitation to join as a co-author of the casebook after my first year in law teaching undoubtedly saved me many years of drudgery as a corporate/securities law scholar. Thus, I am pleased to offer some thoughts on John's influence on dispute settlement under GATT and the WTO.

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.

scholarly journals Animals and the Impact of Trade Law and Policy: A Global Animal Law Question

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-262
Author(s):  
Iyan Offor
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Trade ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Promising Alternative ◽  
Animal Law ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThere is a critical research gap regarding the trade and animal welfare interface: we do not know, empirically, what the impact of trade on animal welfare is. This gap exists, in part, as a result of the paternalism of international trade law and the underdevelopment of global animal law. This article addresses, firstly, the collision of dichotomous trade and animal welfare priorities in legal and political systems. It then explores attempts at reconciliation by the World Trade Organization and the European Union. This involves an investigation of the impact of trade on animal welfare. This impact is categorized into four component parts: (i) open markets, (ii) low animal-welfare havens, (iii) a chilling effect, and (iv) lack of labelling. Case studies from the European Union are examined. Thirdly, the article critiques trade law and policy as ill-suited primary drivers of global governance for animals. Global animal law is identified as a promising alternative, although its early development has been unduly affected by international trade law.

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.

scholarly journals Russia–Tariff Treatment: Identifying Systematic Violations of WTO Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-312
Author(s):  
KARA M. REYNOLDS ◽  
BORIS RIGOD
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Statistical Evidence ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
General Measure ◽  
Systematic Treatment ◽  
Dispute Settlement System ◽  
The Eu

AbstractIn October 2014, the European Union requested consultations with Russia under the WTO's dispute settlement system regarding Russia's tariff treatment of various agricultural and manufacturing products. Although most of the measures challenged by the EU were individual tariff lines, the final measure in its complaint was a ‘more general measure’ referred to as the systematic duty variation. A WTO Dispute Panel eventually ruled that the EU failed to establish the systematic nature of the duty treatment afforded by Russia to certain products. In this paper, we explore the Dispute Panel's ruling, as well as how claims of systematic non-compliance are treated in other legal settings. We conclude by exploring whether future WTO Panels should instead consider statistical evidence of systematic treatment to promote compliance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document