Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T22:59:40.543Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Procedural Approach to the Legitimacy of International Adjudication: Developing Standards of Participation in WTO Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Michael Ioannidis

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Lawmaking by judicial institutions requires legitimation. As international courts gradually play an ever more significant part in the shaping of international law, they share with any other lawmaker the need for a convincing basis of legitimacy. In the case of international courts, however, this need has to be addressed by taking into account their special function: that is, to review decisions made by other lawmakers (mainly domestic). The question of the legitimacy of judicial institutions is thus crucially connected with the standard they apply in reviewing such decisions.

Type
II. Judicial Lawmaking for Economic Governance: The ICSID and the WTO
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 12 , Issue 5: Beyond Dispute: International Judicial Institutions as Lawmakers , 01 May 2011 , pp. 1175 - 1202
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Participation in the process of international lawmaking can take two forms. First, international adjudicators may exercise discretion in specifying a general rule of international law when applying it to a specific dispute. The part of the final decision that is left to their discretion constitutes lawmaking. Second, pronouncements of international adjudicators do not confine to the settlement of specific disputes, but may also exert normative influence beyond the disputing parties. For the normative effects of judicial decisions beyond the settlement of specific disputes, see Armin von Bogdandy & Ingo Venzke, Beyond Dispute: International Judicial Institutions as Lawmakers, in this issue 986-989; Marc Jacob, Precedents: Lawmaking Through International Adjudication, in this issue 1014-1018; Ingo Venzke, Making General Exceptions: The Spell of Precedents in Developing Article XX GATT into Standards for Domestic Regulatory Policy, in this issue 1124.Google Scholar

2 See von Bogdandy & Venzke (note 1), 992. On the exercise of authority by international organizations, see Armin von Bogdandy, Philipp Dann & Matthias Goldmann, Developing the Publicness of Public International Law: Towards a Legal Framework for Global Governance Activities, 9 German Law Journal 1375 (2008).Google Scholar

3 Tribe, Laurence, The Puzzling Persistence of Process-Based Constitutional Theories, 89 Yale Law Journal 1063, 1064 (1980).Google Scholar

4 Persons, but also collectively organized interests, like those represented by states.Google Scholar

5 See Bogdandy, Armin von, Legitimacy of International Economic Governance: Interpretative Approaches to WTO Law and the Prospects of its Proceduralization, in: International Economic Governance and Non-Economic Concerns, 103, 126 (Stefan Griller ed., 2003).Google Scholar

6 As of 23 July 2010, see http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm.Google Scholar

7 Bogdandy, Armin von, Law and Politics in the WTO – Strategies to Cope with a Deficient Relationship, 5 Max Planck United Nations Yearbook 609, 617 (2001).Google Scholar

8 Defining is here of course the analysis of Kelsen, according to whom “[a]pplication of law is at the same time creation of law,” Hans Kelsen, Pure Theory of Law 234–37 (1960, transl. by Max Knight, 1967). In the words of Lauterpacht, “judicial law-making is a permanent feature of administration of justice in every society,” Hersch Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law by the International Court 155 (1982). To that extent, the question of courts as lawmakers centres around the linguistic truism that there is a creative moment inherent in any form of interpretation.Google Scholar

9 Shapiro, Martin, Judicial Delegation Doctrines: The US, Britain and France, 25 West European Politics 173, 175 (2002).Google Scholar

10 Hart, Herbert L.A., The Concept of Law 125 (1961).Google Scholar

11 Holmes, Oliver W., Collected Legal Papers 239 (1920). Hart also refers to “choice,” Hart (note 10), 124.Google Scholar

12 As they actually defer to the adjudicator the assessment on proportionality, the question of which lies in the heart of the concept of justice, Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, in: 19 Aristotle in 23 Volumes, 1131a (transl. by Harris Rackham, 1934).Google Scholar

13 Regarding lawmaking at the level of constitutional adjudication, see from different perspectives Jürgen Habermas, Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des Demokratischen Rechtsstaats 293 & 295 (1994); Bickel, Alexander M., The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the bar of Politics 16–18 & 23 (1986); Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Staat, Verfassung, Demokratie 189 et seq. (1991); Perry, Michael J., Morality, Politics, and Law 149 (1988).Google Scholar

14 Aristotle, , Politics, in: 21 Aristotle in 23 Volumes, 6.1317b (transl. by Harris Rackham, 1944).Google Scholar

15 To that extent Bickel's remark that “[constitutional] review is a deviant institution in American democracy” is apt, Bickel (note 13), 16–18.Google Scholar

16 Habermas (note 13), 321.Google Scholar

17 Furthermore, such a procedure is considered more effective when it allows for the reason-responsive exchange of normative arguments, Jürgen Habermas, Law and Morality, in: 8 The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, 219 & 243 (Sterling M. McMurrin ed., 1988).Google Scholar

18 Dahl, Robert A., Democracy and its Critics 127 (1989).Google Scholar

19 Id., 122 & 127.Google Scholar

20 The most prominent example in Western-type democracies is the legitimacy chain based on regular elections.Google Scholar

21 This can be for example a decision with external environmental or security repercussions.Google Scholar

22 Dahl (note 18), 188 & 191. Very influential to this “participation-oriented, representation reinforcing approach to judicial review” has been Ely's theory, John H. Ely, Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review (1980). Although arguing for an “antitrust approach” to constitutional adjudication, which “intervenes only when the … political market is systematically malfunctioning” (id., 87), rather than from a deliberative point of view, Ely's theory meets many of the concerns regarding the establishment of constitutional adjudication.Google Scholar

23 From another perspective argue Michael J. Perry, The Constitution, the Courts, and Human Rights: An Inquiry into the Legitimacy of Constitutional Policymaking by the Judiciary 101 (1982); and Dworkin, Ronald, Freedom's Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution 344 (1996) (disconnecting “matters of principle” from “ordinary politics” and assigning them to courts “whose decisions are meant to turn on principle, not on the weight of numbers or the balance of political influence”).Google Scholar

24 See Waldron, Jeremy, Judges as moral reasoners, 7 International Journal of Constitutional Law 2 (2009) (investigating the question of whether judges have superior skills when it comes to addressing moral issues).Google Scholar

25 The analogy of courts (especially constitutional or international) enjoying the power to overrule majoritarian decisions on the basis of superior moral qualities with the platonic institution of guardianship is often made, see Learned Hand, The Bill of Rights 73–74 (1958).Google Scholar

26 See the contributions in this issue referred to above (note 1). For the stabilization of normative expectations as a central function of law, see Niklas Luhmann, Das Recht der Gesellschaft 151 (1995) and for the application of this concept in addressing the lawmaking function of international courts, see von Bogdandy & Venzke (note 1), 987 & 998.Google Scholar

27 Zurn, Christopher F., Deliberative Democracy and the Institutions of Judicial Review 249 (2007).Google Scholar

28 See Habermas (note 13), 340.Google Scholar

29 Including all rights necessary for the free, informed and effective participation of the individual, see Dahl (note 18), 178.Google Scholar

30 According to Habermas, “[t]he democratic procedure for the production of law evidently forms the only postmetaphysical source of legitimacy. But what provides this procedure with its legitimizing force? … [D]emocratic procedure makes it possible for issues and contributions, information and reasons to float freely; it secures a discursive character for political will-formation; and it thereby grounds the fallibilist assumption that results issuing from proper procedure are more or less reasonable,” Jürgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms 448 (1997).Google Scholar

31 Dahl (note 18), 182.Google Scholar

32 An approach with a history going back to the creation of the International Trade Organization (ITO), see Seymour J. Rubin, The Judicial Review Problem in the International Trade Organization, 63 Harvard Law Review 78, 97 (1949). From the literature adopting this perspective analyzing WTO law, path breaking is the work of Richard Stewart, see Richard B. Stewart, U.S. Administrative Law: A Model for Global Administrative Law? 68 Law and Contemporary Problems 63 (2005); Stewart, Richard B. & Michelle Ratton Sanchez Badin, The World Trade Organization and Global Administrative Law, New York University School of Law, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Papers Series No. 09–71, 1 (2009). Regarding participation rights in particular, an important part of the recent literature addresses legitimacy concerns focusing on their function, see, e.g., Yves Bonzon, Institutionalizing Public Participation in WTO Decision Making: Some Conceptual Hurdles and Avenues, 11 Journal of International Economic Law 751 (2008).Google Scholar

33 See Pierce, Richard J., Sidney A. Shapiro & Paul R. Verkuil, Administrative Law and Process 35 et seq. (2009).Google Scholar

34 See Stewart, Richard B., The Reformation of American Administrative Law, 88 Harvard Law Review 1667, 1676 (1975).Google Scholar

35 See Shapiro (note 9), 175 (“… when the legislature as principal chooses to police its delegation of law making authority to its administrative agent through the institution of judicial review, unavoidably it has also chosen to delegate law making authority to courts. And so it must confront the problem of policing them as well.”). For a comparative approach of the problem, see Mauro Cappelletti, The Judicial Process in Comparative Perspective 19– 21 (1989). For only an introduction to the discussion in the U.S., see Pierce, Shapiro & Verkuil (note 33), 364 et seq. Google Scholar

36 In the sense that they restrict the freedom of their addressee as the decision-maker thinks expedient, Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan ch. XVII, para. 13 (Edwin Curley ed., 1994).Google Scholar

37 See the seminal analysis of Stewart (note 34); martin shapiro, who guards the guardians?: judicial control of administration (1998); Seidenfeld, Mark, A Civic Republican Justification for the Bureaucratic State, 105 Harvard Law Review 1511 (1992).Google Scholar

38 See Stewart (note 34), 1723 (explaining the role of hearing rights to the transformation of U.S. administrative law into a model of interest representation); Shapiro (note 37), 128.Google Scholar

39 Stewart (note 34), 1670.Google Scholar

40 Id. See also Shapiro (note 37).Google Scholar

41 See Merrick B. Garland, Deregulation and Judicial Review, 98 Harvard Law Review 505, 529 (1985).Google Scholar

42 An especially important role to this direction played the judges sitting on the bench of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (DC Circuit), which reviews more administrative rules and orders that any other federal court, see Michael Asimow, Delegated Legislation: United States and United Kingdom, 3 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 253, 256 (1983); Scalia, Antonin, Vermont Yankee: The APA, the D.C. Circuit, and the Supreme Court, 1978 The Supreme Court Review 345, 348 (1978).Google Scholar

43 Asimow (note 42), 256; Shapiro (note 9), 182-183.Google Scholar

44 See Scalia (note 42), 348 (“The history of the APA's informal rulemaking provisions, at least since the mid-1960s, has been characterized by the imposition of additional procedural requirements mandated neither by statute nor by the Constitution, but crafted by the courts, with greater or lesser reliance upon the substantive statutes involved.”).Google Scholar

45 See Garland (note 41), 525.Google Scholar

46 Stewart (note 34), 1712.Google Scholar

47 For an overview of some of the literature on the deliberative qualities of administrative decision-making, see Seidenfeld (note 37); David Barron, Note, Civic Republican Administrative Theory: Bureaucrats as Deliberative Democrats, 107 Harvard Law Review 1401 (1994).Google Scholar

48 From the rich relevant discussion in the context of U.S. administrative law, see the development of the so-called Chevron doctrine and United States v. Mead Corp, 533 U.S. 218, 230 (2001) (courts should accord deference to the statutory interpretations given by administrative agencies when the relevant statute “provides for a relatively formal administrative procedure tending to foster … fairness and deliberation”).Google Scholar

49 See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v Natural Resources Defense Council, 435 U.S. 519 (1978).Google Scholar

50 In the context of U.S. administrative law, see Stewart (note 34), 1779; Jerry Mashaw, Due Process in the Administrative State 23 (1985).Google Scholar

51 See Esty, Daniel C., Good Governance at the Supranational Scale, 115 Yale Law Journal 1490, 1494 (2006); Charnovitz, Steve, Transparency and Participation in the World Trade Organization, 56 Rutgers Law Review 927, 942 (2003–04).Google Scholar

52 See Held, David, The Transformation of Political Community: Rethinking Democracy in the Context of Globalization, in: Democracy's Edges, 84, 104 (Ian Shapiro & Casiano Hacker-Cordón eds, 2001); DAHL (note 18), 319 et seq.; Stewart (note 32), 75. For only an example of the discussion at the European level, see Renaud Dehousse, Beyond Representative Democracy: Constitutionalism in a Polycentric Policy, in: European Constitutionalism Beyond the State, 135 (Joseph H.H. Weiler & Marlene Wind eds, 2003).Google Scholar

53 On the role of the WTO adjudicating bodies in creating new normativity in world trade law, see Venzke (note 1).Google Scholar

54 Stewart & Ratton Sanchez Badin (note 32), 1.Google Scholar

55 By efficient legislator I mean here a body that is competent to make decisions of a general and abstract nature responding to the evolving needs of a collectivity.Google Scholar

56 Although it is debatable whether the WTO has a general lawmaking power, the WTO Agreement does confer to the Ministerial Conference the competence to adopt amendments (Art. X:1 WTO Agreement) and authoritative interpretations (Art. IX:2 WTO Agreement) on the basis of majority voting. Both procedures, however, have not evolved to functional instruments for the promulgation of general international rules on trade. Moreover, amendments to the WTO Agreement that alter the rights and obligations of the members either require a decision of the Ministerial Conference taken by consensus or produce results only for the members that have accepted them (Art. X:1 read together with :4 and Art. X:3 and :5 WTO Agreement). Beyond these instruments, waivers, although indeed utilized as general lawmaking instruments, are also adopted on the basis of consensus and have not yet been elevated at the level of a legislative surrogate. On the function and potential of waiver as a means of lawmaking within WTO, see Isabel Feichtner, The Waiver Power of the WTO: Opening the WTO for Political Debate on the Reconciliation of Competing Interests, 20 European Journal of International Law 615 (2009).Google Scholar

57 The WTO does indeed dispose of an administrative infrastructure which carries out significant functions, like consulting member states and offering a forum for information exchange and the dissemination of technical knowledge. On the function of the WTO administrative law bodies, see Andrew Lang & Joanne Scott, The Hidden World of WTO Governance, 20 European Journal of International Law 575 (2009).Google Scholar

58 As it is the case with the delegated legislation of domestic administrative agencies or the secondary rules promulgated by organs of other international organizations. But see also the tendencies towards a more “legislative like” decision-making on the example of the “equivalence decision” of the SPS Committee (Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Decision on the Implementation of Article 4 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, WTO Doc. G/SPS/19/Rev. 2, 23 July 2004); Lang & Scott (note 57), 599. Particularly interesting are here the findings in Panel Report, United States – Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry from China, WT/DS392/R, 25 October 2010, paras 7.134–7.136. The Panel, called to interpret Art. 4 SPS Agreement, referred to the above mentioned “equivalence decision” of the SPS Committee, noting that “while this decision (sic) is not binding and does not determine the scope of Art. 4, we do consider that this Decision expands on the Members’ own understanding of how Art. 4 relates to the rest of the SPS Agreement and how it is to be implemented.”Google Scholar

59 As well as regarding the establishment of a panel and the recourse to the Appellate Body, Arts 1, 16.4, 17.4 and 23 DSU. On the exclusive character of the WTO DSM, see Panel Report, US - Section 301 Trade Act, WT/DS152/R, 27 January 2000, para. 7.43.Google Scholar

60 See Cass arguing in a similar vein that “the only power possessed by the central body is the power of treaty interpretation vested in the WTO central adjudicatory system,” Deborah Z. Cass, The “Constitutionalization“ of International Trade Law: Judicial Norm-Generation as the Engine of Constitutional Development in International Trade, 12 European Journal of International Law 39, 56 (2001). As Cass further explains, the Appellate Body resorted to this lawmaking potential to redefine the limits of its competence and the boundaries of the WTO regime in general, id., 51 & 57 et seq. Google Scholar

61 See also Steinberg, Richard H., Judicial Lawmaking at the WTO: Discursive, Constitutional, and Political Constrains, 98 American Journal of International Law 247, 252 (2004).Google Scholar

62 The wording of these provisions makes the application of the cornerstones of the world trade regime, namely the MFN and the National Treatment principles, contingent upon the establishment of the “likeness” of the relevant products, see also Art. II and XVII GATS. The phrase “like product” appears in many different provisions of the covered agreements, for example, in Arts I:1, II:2, III:2, III:4, VI:1, IX:1, XI:2(c), XIII:1, XVI:4 and XIX:1 of the GATT 1994, see Appellate Body Report, European Communities - Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, WT/DS135/AB/R, 5 April 2001, para. 88. The Appellate Body made furthermore clear that “there can be no one precise and absolute definition of what is ‘like.’ The concept of ‘likeness’ is a relative one that evokes the image of an accordion. The accordion of ‘likeness’ stretches and squeezes indifferent places as different provisions of the WTO Agreement are applied,” Appellate Body Report, Japan - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, 1 November 1996, 21.Google Scholar

63 See Arts XX (a), (c), (d) and XXI (b) GATT, 2.2, 5.6 SPS Agreement, 2.2, 2.5 TBT Agreement and XIV, VI:4 GATS.Google Scholar

64 Chapeau of Art. XX GATT.Google Scholar

65 See Desmedt, Axel, Proportionality in WTO Law, 4 Journal of International Economic Law 441 (2001); Kapterian, Gisele, A Critique of the WTO Jurisprudence on “Necessity,” 59 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 89 (2010); Howse, Robert & Türk, Elisabeth, The WTO Impact on Internal Regulations: A Case Study of the Canada-EC Asbestos Dispute, in: The EU and the WTO: Legal and Constitutional Issues, 283 (Gráinne de Búrca & Joanne Scott eds, 2001). Beyond the balancing of environmental, health, public morals protection vis á vis the distortion of the free movement of goods and services, proportionality assessments might inhere in all cases where the adjudicating mechanism is concerned with the relationship between a regulatory aim and the means to its attainment, see Mads Andenas & Stefan Zleptnig, The Rule of Law and Proportionality in WTO Law, in: Redefining Sovereignty in International Economic Law, 180 (Wenhua Shan, Penelope Simons & Dalvinder Singh eds, 2008).Google Scholar

66 See Arts 2.2 TBT Agreement and 5.6 SPS Agreement.Google Scholar

67 The tertium comparationis in the case of the “less restrictive means” test would be the capability to achieve a particular objective (e.g., protection of human health) taking into account the effects on trade. Against this composite denominator are the potential alternatives to be assessed.Google Scholar

68 In the case of “likeness,” see Appellate Body Report, European Communities - Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/R and WT/DS48/R, 16 January 1998, para. 101; and Appellate Body Report, Japan - Alcoholic Beverages (note 62), para. 114.Google Scholar

69 This power is in turn not confined to the generation of individual norms settling a particular dispute, although this would be already sufficient for the affirmation of its nature as an instance of authority. For the reasons described above, and developed by other authors in this issue, the substantive lawmaking potential of the DSM stretches well beyond the particular disputes at issue and plays an important role in stabilizing the normative expectations of parties other than the disputing ones. See Venzke (note 1); Raj Bhala, The Precedent Setters: De Facto Stare Decisis in WTO Adjudication (Part Two of a Trilogy), 9 Journal of Transnational Law & Policy 1 (1999).Google Scholar

70 Cass (note 60), 74.Google Scholar

71 The “single undertaking” approach, adopted after the Uruguay Round, makes compulsory the adoption as a whole of a body of law which incorporates twenty-nine Agreements and Understandings and extends to almost 25,000 pages. Furthermore, as the progress of the Doha Development Round of negotiations demonstrates, a “correction” of a potentially unsatisfactory judicial interpretation through treaty-change is a Sisyphean task to undertake.Google Scholar

72 Ginsburg, Tom, International Judicial Lawmaking, University of Illinois Law and Economics Working Paper No. 26, 51–53 (2005). For the case of the European Union, see Joseph H.H. Weiler, The Constitution of Europe 18 et seq. (1999).Google Scholar

73 Classic remains here the analysis of Albert O. Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States (1970). For the application of this concept in the context of WTO, see Joost Pauwelyn, The Transformation of World Trade, 104 Michigan Law Review 1 (2005).Google Scholar

74 This limited option to withdraw is reinforced by the development of the WTO dispute settlement process in a way that has effectively diminished “selective” exit options. After the Uruguay Round changes, diplomatic safeguards to the enforcement of WTO law are not any more available, see Pauwelyn (note 73), 24.Google Scholar

75 Beyond its ineffectiveness in the case of WTO, the general deficiencies of a diplomacy-based “legislative” structure are well explored. It suffices here to refer to the inherent gaps and discontinuities of the chain connecting individuals to international rules. See von Bogdandy (note 7), 617; Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, Constitutionalism and International Organizations, 17 Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 398, 408 (1996–97) (discussing in extent the problems connected with the exercise of discretion at the field of foreign policy); Robert O. Keohane & Joseph S. Nye Jr., The Club Model of Multilateral Cooperation and the World Trade Organization: Problems of Democratic Legitimacy, in: Efficiency, Equity, and Legitimacy: The Multilateral Trading System at the Millennium, 264, 276 (Roger B. Porter, Pierre Sauvé, Arvind Subramanian & Americo Beviglia Zampetti eds, 2001).Google Scholar

76 The concept of effectiveness is here used in the sense of Kelsen, Kelsen (note 8), 46.Google Scholar

77 And international in the occasions that this is relevant, see the case of international standards infra section D.I.1.Google Scholar

78 On cases thus where WTO law imposes specific participatory standards to be met by domestic law as a response to the externalities that national regulation can produce. Comparable procedural-deliberative requirements can however also be relevant to WTO decision-making processes themselves as well as to other international bodies producing WTO-relevant law, like the Codex Alimentarius Commission.Google Scholar

79 Appellate Body Report, United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, 6 November 1998; Panel Report, United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products. Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Malaysia, WT/DS58/RW, 15 June 2001; and Appellate Body Report, United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products. Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Malaysia, WT/DS58/AB/RW, 21 November 2001.Google Scholar

80 Arts 6.1, 6.2, and 6.11 Anti-Dumping Agreement. The Appellate Body understands these provisions as guaranteeing “fundamental due process rights” to all “interested parties”, see Appellate Body Report, United States - Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, WT/DS268/AB/R, 17 December 2004, para. 250.Google Scholar

81 Arts 12 and 13 SCM Agreement.Google Scholar

82 Arts 2.9.4 TBT Agreement and 5(d) Annex B SPS Agreement. See also Arts 2.10.3 TBT Agreement and 6(c) Annex B SPS Agreement. “One stop” access to relevant documents and records is possible through the SPS and TBT Information Management Systems (SPS IMS and TBT IMS), see http://spsims.wto.org and http://tbtims.wto.org.Google Scholar

83 See Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Recommended Procedures for Implementing the Transparency Obligations of the SPS Agreement (Article 7), WTO Doc. G/SPS/7/Rev. 3, 20 June 2008; and Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade, Decisions and Recommendations Adopted by the Committee since 1 January 1995, Note by the Secretariat, WTO Doc. G/TBT/1/Rev. 9, 8 September 2008.Google Scholar

84 See Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Recommended Procedures for Implementing the Transparency Obligations of the SPS Agreement (Article 7) (note 83), 5.Google Scholar

85 Arts L and N of Annex 3 to the TBT Agreement.Google Scholar

86 Arts 3 and 12.3 Safeguards Agreement.Google Scholar

87 Arts XXII and VII 4(b) GATS.Google Scholar

88 See Art. 2.4 TBT Agreement, Arts 3.1, 3.2 SPS Agreement, Art. 3 of the Annex A thereof, and Art. 2.4 PSI Agreement.Google Scholar

89 See, e.g., Art. 3.2 SPS Agreement (measures that are in conformity with standards promulgated by specific international organizations are presumed to be consistent with WTO law).Google Scholar

90 Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade, Decisions and Recommendations Adopted by the Committee since 1 January 1995, Note by the Secretariat (note 83), 38. The Decision extends to international bodies the standards developed for domestic authorities in Annex 3 to the TBT Agreement.Google Scholar

91 Art. 2.2 TBT Agreement.Google Scholar

92 Stewart & Ratton Sanchez Badin (note 32), 23–25.Google Scholar

93 On the development of a general principle of participation at the international level utilizing insights from administrative law, see Giacinto Della Cananea, Al di là dei Confini Statuali: Principi Generali del Diritto Pubblico Globale 37 et seq. (2009). The Director-General of WTO, Pascal Lamy has also recently referred to procedural fairness as a “fundamental principle” of WTO law, Symposium on the Agreement on Government Procurement, Geneva 11 February 2010, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl147_e.html.Google Scholar

94 Della Cananea locates the source of the principles pronounced by the Appellate Body in U.S. - Shrimp in the national legal orders from which the Appellate Body “subsumed … some general or ‘global’ principles of administrative law,” Giacinto della Cananea, Beyond the State: The Europeanization and Globalization of Procedural Administrative Law, 9 European Public Law 563, 575 (2003).Google Scholar

95 Section 609 of U.S. Public Law 101–62, 16 United States Code 1537 (21 November 1989) and associate guidelines and judicial rulings. For a full description of the relevant domestic law and practice, see Appellate Body Report, U.S. - Shrimp (note 79), paras 2 et seq. Google Scholar

96 The U.S. measure was prima facie WTO-law inconsistent as contrary to the prohibition of quantitative import restrictions, Art. XI GATT.Google Scholar

97 Appellate Body Report, U.S. - Shrimp (note 79), part C.Google Scholar

98 Stewart & Ratton Sanchez Badin (note 32), 15.Google Scholar

99 Appellate Body Report, U.S. - Shrimp (note 79), para. 181.Google Scholar

100 Id., para. 180.Google Scholar

101 Id. Google Scholar

102 Id., para. 181, emphasis added.Google Scholar

103 Id., para. 177.Google Scholar

104 These guidelines were directed to change the practice of U.S. authorities found to be incompatible with WTO law without amending the text of the relevant import prohibition as such, U.S. Department of State, 64 Federal Register No. 130 (8 July 1999), Public Notice 3086, 36946–36952. The 1999 Revised Guidelines are also attached to the Panel Report, U.S. - Shrimp (Article 21.5) (note 79).Google Scholar

105 II.B of the 1999 Revised Guidelines.Google Scholar

106 E.g., where only artisan means of harvesting are used, id., II.A.Google Scholar

107 Because shrimps are harvested in an aquaculture facility, TED devices are used, the retrieval of fishing nets do not involve mechanical devices or shrimp is harvested in any other manner not posing threat to the incidental taking of sea turtles, id. I.B.Google Scholar

108 Id., II.A, para. 26.Google Scholar

109 Id., II.A, para. 27.Google Scholar

110 Id., II.A, para. 28. See also I.E. para. 12.Google Scholar

111 Id., I.E., para. 13 (“[t]he Department … will also take into consideration information on the same subjects that may be available from other sources, including but not limited to academic and scientific organizations, intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations with recognized expertise in the subject matter.”).Google Scholar

112 Id., II.A., para. 29.Google Scholar

113 Id., II.A., para. 30.Google Scholar

114 As set out in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).Google Scholar

115 Panel Report, U.S. - Shrimp (Article 21.5) (note 79), para. 6.1, see, in particular, paras 5.121-5.137.Google Scholar

116 Id., para. 5.104.Google Scholar

117 Id., para. 5.136.Google Scholar

118 Even if they should not be any more interpreted as recognizing a self-standing duty to negotiate before the enactment of a domestic measure affecting foreign state-represented interests, after the clarifications the Appellate Body offered in U.S. - Shrimp (Article 21.5) (note 79). Google Scholar

119 Andrew Guzman refers to this problem as being “inherent in the system of interdependent nation states,” Andrew T. Guzman, Global Governance and the WTO, UC Berkeley Public Law and Legal Theory Research Papers No. 89, 74–75 (2002). To address this question is a postulate of the “very idea of democratic constitutionalism,” see Christian Joerges & Jürgen Neyer, Transforming Strategic Interaction into Deliberative Problem-Solving: European Comitology in the Foodstuffs Sector, 4 Journal of European Public Policy 609, 611 (1997).Google Scholar

120 For the arguments advocating for a model of coordinated interdependence regarding the understanding of the nature and objectives of WTO law, see von Bogdandy (note 7), 647.Google Scholar

121 See Arts 2.4 TBT Agreement, 3(d) Annex A to the SPS Agreement, and 2.4 PSI Agreement.Google Scholar

122 See Bonzon (note 32), 775; Michael A. Livermore, Authority and Legitimacy in Global Governance: Deliberation, Institutional Differentiation, and the Codex Alimentarius, 81 New York University Law Review 766, 790; Stewart & Ratton Sanchez Badin (note 32), 23–24.Google Scholar

123 As is the case with Arts 3.1 SPS Agreement and 3(a), (b), (c) Annex A to the SPS Agreement.Google Scholar

124 The role judicial standards of review play in this allocation is well known in domestic administrative and constitutional settings, see Pierce, Shapiro & Verkuil (note 33), 55 et seq. Compare the famous footnote 4 in United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938) and the case Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726, 732 (1962) declaring that “whether the legislature takes for its textbook Adam Smith, Herbert Spencer, Lord Keynes or some other is no concern of us,” which signified the rise of administrative law as the proper domain of economic regulation rather than a constitutional “superlegislature” weighting “the wisdom of legislation.”Google Scholar

125 Stewart (note 32), 75.Google Scholar

126 For certain procedural elements of the concept of “fair and equitable treatment,” see Stephan Schill, Fair and Equitable Treatment, the Rule of Law, and Comparative Public Law, in: International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law, 151, 158 & 171 (Stephan Schill ed., 2010).Google Scholar

127 See Metalclad Corp v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1 (NAFTA), Award of 30 August 2000, paras 92 & 99; Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed S.A. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2, Award of 29 May 2003, para. 162.Google Scholar

128 See Menon, Anand & Weatherill, Stephen, Democratic Politics in a Globalising World: Supranationalism and Legitimacy in the European Union, LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Paper No. 13, 9 (2007). Ultimately, this is an understanding orientated to the identification of the “appropriate locus for the articulation of the democratic political good,” Held (note 52), 100; see also Dahl (note 18), 4.Google Scholar