Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T12:51:45.566Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Remarks by Cherise Valles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2022

Cherise Valles
Cherise Valles*
Affiliation:
Deputy Director, Advisory Centre on WTO Law (ACWL), Geneva, Switzerland. The views expressed in this Article are the personal views of the author and should not be attributed to the ACWL or to ACWL Members.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The dispute settlement system of the World Trade Organization (WTO) had long been viewed as the “crown jewel” of the multilateral trading system. In just over twenty-five years, in various proceedings under the dispute settlement understanding (DSU), the WTO dispute settlement system was prolific and thorough. There have been nearly four hundred adopted panel and Appellate Body reports (including compliance panel proceeding under DSU Article 21.5), twenty-five decisions notified under arbitrations on determining the amount of retaliation under DSU Article 22.6, thirty-eight awards to determine the implementation period under DSU Article 21.3(c), and one stand-alone arbitral award under DSU Article 25. This output has attracted attention in other international tribunals, notably the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In the 2007 Pulp Mills case before the ICJ, the WTO was commended as having contributed the most to the development of “best practices” in the evaluation of evidence submitted during the course of dispute settlement proceedings.

Type
International Trade Dispute Settlement 2.0
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 115 , 2021 , pp. 179 - 182
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The American Society of International Law.

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 See https://www.worldtradelaw.net/static.php?type=dsc&page=stats.

2 International Court of Justice, Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay). See Joint Dissenting Opinion by Judges Al-Khasawneh and Simma at https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/135/judgments.

3 See U.S. Notices of Appeal in United States – Countervailing Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India (WT/DS436/21); United States – Countervailing Measures on Softwood Lumber from Canada (WT/DS533/5); United States – Tariff Measures on Certain Goods From China (WT/DS543/10), and United States – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products and the Use of Facts Available (WT/DS538/9).

4 In addition, in two cases, there were Notices of Other Appeal filed that contained explanations of their appeals. See Saudi Arabia – Intellectual Property Rights, where Qatar filed a detailed Notice of Other Appeal and Indonesia – Chicken (Article 21.5), where Brazil filed a detailed Notice of Other Appeal.

5 Korea's Notice of Appeal, Korea – Sunset Review of Anti-dumping Duties on Stainless Steel Bars, WT/DS553/6.

6 Since this ASIL session, Canada and Australia have notified their mutually agreed solution to the WTO. See WT/DS537/18.

7 Communication from India and South Africa, Waiver from Certain Provisions of the TRIPS Agreement for the Prevention, Containment and Treatment of COVID-19, IP/C/W/669 (Oct. 2, 2020).