Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:06:23.599Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Future of WTO Dispute Settlement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Andrew W. Shoyer*
Affiliation:
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy LLP, Washington, DC

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
WTO Dispute Settlement: Three Years in Review
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1998

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 DSU Article 3.7 provides, in part, that “[a] solution mutually acceptable to the parties to a dispute and consistent with the covered agreements is clearly to be preferred [over the use of panel procedures].”

2 See, e.g., KoreaMeasures Concerning the Shelf-Life of ProductsNotification of Mutually Agreed Solution—Revision, WT/DS5/5/Add. 1 (Apr. 22, 1996); Annual Report at 11 (1997) (regarding the U.S. complaint concerning EC tariff concessions on grains).

3 DSU Article 3.5.

4 WT/AB/WP/3, circulated Feb. 28, 1997.

5 See Appellate Body Report on EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), circulated Jan. 16, 1998, (WT/DS26/AB/R & WT/DS48/AB/R) at para. 99.

6 Uruguay Round Agreements Act § 127(d), 19 U.S.C. § 3537(d) (1994).