Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:30:22.767Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Future of Amicus Participation at the WTO: Implications of the Sardines Decision and Suggestions for Further Developments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2019

Joseph Keller
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In today's increasingly interdependent global society, international institutions formerly committed to operating as insular systems recognizing only states as legitimate participants have come under pressure to open their processes to public view and participation. The World Trade Organization (WTO) in particular has been widely criticized for its lack of transparency and democratic participation. Nowhere has this criticism been more prevalent than in the arena of dispute settlement. The controversy over the acceptance of amicus briefs at the WTO reflects the tensions among WTO members and non-members concerning greater public access to dispute settlement proceedings. This battle has been fought primarily through the Appellate Body and its important series of decisions on amicus briefs.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Legal Information , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , Winter 2005 , pp. 449 - 470
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 by the International Association of Law Libraries 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Steve Charnovitz, WTO Cosmopolitics, 34 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol. 299 at 348 (2002); Robert Howse, Membership and its Privileges: The WTO, Civil Society, and the Amicus Brief Controversy, Outline/Incomplete Draft; John A. Ragosta, Unmasking the WTO—Access to the DSB System: Can the WTO DSB Live up to the Moniker “World Trade Court”?, 31 Law & Pol'y Int'l Bus. 739, 756 (2000); Michael Laidhold, Private Party Access to the WTO: Do Recent Developments in International Trade Dispute Resolution Really Give Private Organizations a Voice in the WTO?.Google Scholar

2 Id.; See also Andrea Kupfer Schneider, Institutional Concerns of an Expanded Trade Regime: Where Should Global Social and Regulatory Policy be Made?: Unfriendly Actions: The Amicus Brief Battle at the WTO, 7 Wid. L. Symp. J. 87 at 91 (2001).Google Scholar

3 See Donald McRae, Trade and the Environment: Competition, Cooperation or Confusion?, 41 Alberta L. Rev. 745; Kim Van der Borght, The Review of the WTO Understanding on Dispute Settlement: Some Reflections on the Current Debate, 14 Am. U. Int'l L. Rev. 1223; Duncan B. Hollis, GLOBALIZATION & THE EROSION OF SOVEREIGNTY IN HONOR OF PROFESSOR LICHTENSTEIN: Private Actors in Public International Law: Amicus Curiae and the Case for the Retention of State Sovereignty, 25 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 235.Google Scholar

4 Appellate Body Report, United States-Import Prohibitions of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products (“Shrimp-Turtle”), WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 12 October 1998; Appellate Body Report, European Communities-Trade Description of Sardines (“Sardines”), WT/DS231/AB/R, adopted 26 September 2002.Google Scholar

5 See www.wto.org for a complete summary of the dispute settlement system at the WTO as described in the introduction of this article.Google Scholar

6 Appellate Body Report, European Communities-Trade Description of Sardines (“Sardines”), WT/DS231/AB/R, adopted 26 September 2002.Google Scholar

7 Appellate Body Report, United States-Import Prohibitions of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products (“Shrimp-Turtle”), WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 12 October 1998.Google Scholar

8 Id. at ¶89.Google Scholar

9 Art. 13.Google Scholar

10 Shrimp-Turtle at ¶108.Google Scholar

11 For a critique of this decision and its method of interpretation, See Josh Robbins, False Friends: Amicus Curiae and Procedural Discretion in WTO Appeals under the Hot-Rolled Lead/Asbestos Doctrine, 44 Harv. Int'l L.J. 317 (2003).Google Scholar

12 Appellate Body Report, United States-Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom (“Carbon Steel”), WT/DS138/AB/R, adopted 10 May 2000.Google Scholar

13 Id. at ¶39.Google Scholar

14 Id. at ¶9.Google Scholar

15 Appellate Body Report, European Communities-Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos Containing Products (“Asbestos”), WT/DS135/AB/R, adopted 12 March 2001.Google Scholar

16 Id. at ¶52.Google Scholar

17 Id. at ¶56.Google Scholar

18 See Howse, supra note 1 at 15.Google Scholar

19 See Dispute Settlement Body, Minutes of the Meeting, WTO Doc. WT/DSB/M/83 (June 7, 2000). See also Decision by the Appellate Body Concerning Amicus Briefs, Statement by Uruguay at the General Council, WTO Doc. WT/GC/38, at 3 (Nov. 22, 2000).Google Scholar

20 Steve Charnovitz, WTO Cosmopolitics, 34 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol. 299 at 348 (2002). (Citing WTO General Council, Minutes of Meeting Held in the Centre William Rappard on 22 November 2000, WT/GC/M/60, para. 1 (Jan. 23, 2001).Google Scholar

21 Sardines, supra note 1.Google Scholar

22 Id. at ¶154.Google Scholar

23 Id. at. ¶161.Google Scholar

24 Id. at. ¶157; ¶164.Google Scholar

25 Id. at ¶163.Google Scholar

26 Id. at ¶164.Google Scholar

27 US Lead and Bismuth II, WT/DS138/AB/R, adopted 7 June 2000.Google Scholar

28 For an opposing view, see Robbins, supra note 9.Google Scholar

29 Sardines, supra note 1 at ¶167.Google Scholar

30 Sardines at ¶166.Google Scholar

31 DSU 3.2.Google Scholar

32 Robert Howse, Membership and its Privileges: The WTO, Civil Society, and the Amicus Brief Controversy, Outline/Incomplete Draft.Google Scholar

33 Contribution of the European Communities and its Member States to the Improvement of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding: Communication from the European Communities, TN/DS/W/1, 13 March 2002.Google Scholar

34 Id. at ¶2Google Scholar

35 See McRae, supra note 3.Google Scholar

36 See John A. Ragosta, Unmasking the WTO—Access to the DSB System: Can the WTO DSB Live up to the Moniker “World Trade Court? “, 31 Law & Pol'y Int'l Bus. 739, 756 (2000).Google Scholar

37 See Michael Laidhold, Private Party Access to the WTO: Do Recent Developments in International Trade Dispute Resolution Really Give Private Organizations a Voice in the WTO?, 12 Transnational Law 427, 443 (1999). Laidhold discusses the negative effects of private parties lobbying WTO members to join in disputes as a third party.Google Scholar

38 See Maura Blue Jeffords, TURNING THE PROTESTER INTO A PARTNER FOR DEVELOPMENT: THE NEED FOR EFFECTIVE CONSULTATION BETWEEN THE WTO & NGOs, 28 Brooklyn J. Int'l L. 937; David J. Bederman, National Security: Globalization, International Law and United States Foreign Policy, 50 Emory L.J. 717 (2001).Google Scholar

39 Maki Tanaka, Bridging the Gap Between Northern NGOs and Souther Sovereigns in the Trade-Environment Debate: The Pursuit of Democratic Dispute Settlements in the WTO Under the Rio Principles, 30 Ecology L.Q. 113 (2003).Google Scholar

40 Andrew T. Guzman, Global Governannce and the WTO, 45 Harv. Int'l L.J. 303 (2004).Google Scholar

41 Lori M. Wallach, Accountable Governance in the Era of Globalization: The WTO, NAFTA, and International Harmonization of Standards, 50 Kan. L. Rev. 823 (2002).Google Scholar

42 Michael Laidhold, Private Party Access to the WTO: Do Recent Developments in International Trade Dispute Resolution Really Give Private Organizations a Voice in the WTO? 12 Transnat'l Law 427 (1999).Google Scholar

43 See Dispute Settlement Body, Minutes of the Meeting, WTO Doc. WT/DSB/M/83 (June 7, 2000). See also Decision by the Appellate Body Concerning Amicus Briefs, Statement by Uruguay at the General Council, WTO Doc. WT/GC/38, at 3 (Nov. 22, 2000).Google Scholar

44 Jeffrey L. Dunoff, International Law Weekend Proceedings: Civil Society at the WTO: The Illusion of Inclusion?, 7 ILSA J Int'l & Comp L 275 at 281 (2001).Google Scholar

45 Id. at 282.Google Scholar

46 Jeffrey L. Dunoff, The Misguided Debate Over NGO Participation at the WTO, 1 J. of Int'l Econ. L. 433 (1998).Google Scholar

47 Charnovitz, supra note 9 at 324.Google Scholar

48 Steve Charnovitz, Opening the WTO to Nongovernmental Interests, 24 Fordham Int'l L.J. 173, 205-206 (2000).Google Scholar

49 Id. Google Scholar

50 See the Preamble to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, which contains references to “raising standards of living, ensuring full employment and a large and steadily growing volume of real income and effective demand.”Google Scholar

51 Report of the Panel, United States—Sections 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974 (“S. 301 “), WT/DS152/R at ¶7.73, 22 December 1999.Google Scholar

52 Id. at ¶7.74-7.75.Google Scholar

53 Id. at ¶7.76, (quoting DSU art. 3.2).Google Scholar

54 Id. at ¶7.77-7.78.Google Scholar

55 See Howse, supra note 16.Google Scholar

56 See S. 301, supra note 28.Google Scholar

57 Appellate Body Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, adopted 16 January 1998.Google Scholar

58 See Eric Stein, International Integration and Democracy: No Love at First Sight, 95 A.J.I.L. 489 (2001).Google Scholar

59 Andrea Kupfer Schneider, Institutional Concerns of an Expanded Trade Regime: Where Should Global Social and Regulatory Policy be Made?: Unfriendly Actions: The Amicus Brief Battle at the WTO, 7 Wid. L. Symp. J. 87 at 91 (2001).Google Scholar

60 Id. at 102.Google Scholar

61 See Jacqueline Peel, Giving the Public a Voice in the Protection of the Global Environment: Avenues for Participation by NGO ‘s in Dispute Resolution at the European Court of Justice and World Trade Organization, 12 Colo. J. Int'l Envtl. L. & Pol'y 47 (2001).Google Scholar

62 See Bederman, supra note 37.Google Scholar

63 See Charnovitz, supra note 9.Google Scholar

64 Id. at 301, (quoting Kant).Google Scholar

65 Kal Raustiala, AEI Conference Trends in Global Governance: Do They Threaten American Sovereignty? Article and Response: Sovereignty and Multilateralism, 1 Chi. J. Int'l L. 401 at 413 (2000).Google Scholar

66 Charnovitz, supra note 9 at 303.Google Scholar

67 That is, they should participate in the WTO dispute settlement process where no express provision exists denying access for prospective amicus participantsGoogle Scholar

68 See Tanaka, supra note 38.Google Scholar

69 Communication from the European Communities, supra note 17.Google Scholar

70 Id. at ¶1.Google Scholar

71 Id. at ¶3.Google Scholar

72 Gabriele Marceau & Matthew Still well, Practical Suggestions for “Amicus Curiae” Briefs Before WTO Adjudicating Bodies, 4 J. Int'l Econ. L. 155 at 179 (2001).Google Scholar

73 Communication from the European Communities, supra note 17 at ¶3(c).Google Scholar

74 Petros C. Mavroidis, Amicus Curiae Briefs Before the WTO: Much Ado About Nothing, Jean Monnet Working Paper at 12 (Feb. 2001), at http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/01/010201.html.Google Scholar

75 See Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, Improvements of the WTO Dispute Settlement System, Conference Report. Petersmann's Report summarizes the main arguments made in the discussions of eight papers presented at the conference on Improvements and Clarifications of the Dispute Settlement Understanding of the World Trade Organization-WTO Negotiators Meet Academics, at European University Institute in Florence from 13-14 September 2002.Google Scholar

76 Mavroidis, supra note 39.Google Scholar

77 Howse, supra note 16.Google Scholar

78 Communication from the European Communities, supra note XYZ at ¶5.Google Scholar

79 Id. at ¶7.Google Scholar

80 Id. at ¶3.Google Scholar

81 Gabriele Marceau & Matthew Stillwell, Practical Suggestions for “Amicus Curiae” Briefs Before WTO Adjudicating Bodies, 4 J. Int'l Econ. L. 155 at 182-183 (2001).Google Scholar

82 Id. Google Scholar

83 Upton Sinclar, The Jungle (1906).Google Scholar

84 See Kal Raustiala, supra note 34 at 415.Google Scholar

85 See Jeffrey L. Dunoff, supra note 21 at 280 for discussion of this development.Google Scholar

86 Robert Howse, Lecture Comments on 9/26/02. (Accompanied by guest speaker Petros Mavroidis).Google Scholar

87 Appellate Body Report, European Communities-Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos Containing Products (“Asbestos”), WT/DS135/AB/R, adopted 12 March 2001.Google Scholar

88 Id. Google Scholar

89 Award of Arbitrator, Australia-Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, WT/DS18/9, 23 February 1999.Google Scholar

90 Petros C. Mavroidis, Amicus Curiae Briefs Before the WTO: Much Ado About Nothing, Jean Monnet Working Papers, available at http://www.worldtradelaw.net/articles/mavroidisamicus.pdf.Google Scholar

91 Carbon Steel, supra note 11.Google Scholar

92 Sardines, supra note 4.Google Scholar

93 Communication from the European Communities, supra note XYZ.Google Scholar