1 Page 1 The System: Objectives - Procedures - Experience Workshop at the Model WTO 2003 Thomas A. Zimmermann St. Gallen (Switzerland), [updated in September 2003] Thomas A. Zimmermann The Swiss Institute for International Economics and Applied Economic Research (SIAW-HSG) University of St. Gallen Dufourstr. 48 CH-9000 St. Gallen (Switzerland) Phone: or or Fax: Internet:
2 Page 2 Program 1. The Need for a Dispute Settlement Mechanism 2. Objectives of 3. Dispute Settlement Procedures in the WTO 4. between 1995 and Current Reform Efforts: The DSU Review 6. Outlook
3 Page 3 1. The Need for a Dispute Settlement Mechanism Overview Despite the basic economic insight that free trade is the best policy in the interest of a country, the political process and constitutional deficits leads to protectionist policies. International agreements are a possibility to overcome the political-economy logic of protectionism. Despite international agreements, protectionist pressures from import-competing sectors remain. A dispute settlement mechanism which is combined with efficient retaliatory threats can induce compliance with the provisions in international trade agreements.
4 Page 4 1. The Need for a Dispute Settlement Mechanism Functions Provide a limited enforcement device Deter from violations of provisions included in trade agreements Provide multilateral interpretations of trade rules Provide a multilateral forum for orderly re-negotiation of commitments respecting countries sovereignty Deter powerful countries from engaging in unilateral retaliatory practices (e.g. Section 301 in the U.S.) instead of choosing the multilateral avenue for enforcement
5 Page 5 Program 1. The Need for a Dispute Settlement Mechanism 2. Objectives of 3. Dispute Settlement Procedures in the WTO 4. between 1995 and Current Reform Efforts: The DSU Review 6. Outlook
6 Page 6 2. Objectives of Basic provision: Art. 3 DSU (Paras. 2, 3, 4) 2. The dispute settlement system of the WTO is a central element in providing security and predictability to the multilateral trading system. The Members recognize that it serves to preserve the rights and obligations of Members under the covered agreements, and to clarify the existing provisions of those agreements in accordance with customary rules of interpretation of public international law. Recommendations and rulings of the DSB cannot add to or diminish the rights and obligations provided in the covered agreements. 3. The prompt settlement (...) is essential to the effective functioning of the WTO and the maintenance of a proper balance between the rights and obligations of Members. 4. Recommendations or rulings made by the DSB shall be aimed at achieving a satisfactory settlement of the matter in accordance with the rights and obligations under this Understanding and under the covered agreements.
7 Page 7 2. Objectives of Basic provision: Art. 3 DSU (Paras. 7 and 9) 7. Before bringing a case, a Member shall exercise its judgement as to whether action under these procedures would be fruitful. The aim of the dispute settlement mechanism is to secure a positive solution to a dispute. A solution mutually acceptable to the parties to a dispute and consistent with the covered agreements is clearly to be preferred. In the absence of a mutually agreed solution, the first objective of the dispute settlement mechanism is usually to secure the withdrawal of the measures concerned if these are found to be inconsistent with the provisions of any of the covered agreements. 9. The provisions of this Understanding are without prejudice to the rights of Members to seek authoritative interpretation of provisions (...) under the WTO Agreement or a covered agreement which is a Plurilateral Trade Agreement.
8 Page 8 Program 1. The Need for a Dispute Settlement Mechanism 2. Objectives of 3. The Dispute Settlement Procedure 4. between 1995 and Current Reform Efforts: The DSU Review 6. Outlook
9 Page 9 3. The Dispute Settlement Procedure The Stages of 1. Dispute Initiation on the National Level 2. Consultations 3. The Panel Procedure 4. Appellate Review 5. Implementation 6. The Issue of Non-Compliance 7. Disputed Compliance and the Sequencing Issue 8. Simplified Graphic Summary
10 Page The Dispute Settlement Procedure Dispute Initiation on the National Level Issues: When should which case be brought against whom? The initiation of a dispute is governed by national legal and/or political mechanisms Only few countries have transparent and publicly known procedures with regard to dispute initiation (e.g.: U.S. [Section 301], the EU [Trade Barriers Regulation]) National initiation procedures vary with regard to * the relative weight of political and legal elements; * participation of the private sector; * the extent of government control and judicial supervision. Despite legal elements, even the most rule-oriented procedure (Section 301 in the U.S.) remains largely driven by politics and is subject to limited legal control.
11 Page The Dispute Settlement Procedure Consultations First multilateral stage of dispute settlement The complainant country (C) has the right to ask the defendant country (D) to enter into consultations regarding D s trade measures. D has to answer the consultation request within 10 days and shall enter into consultations within 30 days. Consultations are confidential If a mutually acceptable solution has been found, it shall be notified to the Dispute Settlement Body (General Council meeting in dispute settlement mode ) If D has not entered into consultations or if no mutually acceptable solution has been found within 60 days, C may ask the DSB for the establishment of a panel. Consultations are the most political element in the DSU. They can be characterised as bargaining in the shadow of the law.
12 Page The Dispute Settlement Procedure The Panel Procedure Terms of reference: Panels shall examine, in the light of the relevant legal provisions, the matter referred to the DSB, and make such findings that will assist the DSB in giving rulings. Panels consist of three trade experts. They are composed ad hoc. Nationals of disputing parties cannot serve as panelists. Panel procedures include written submissions and oral hearings Panels are established by the DSB on request of C unless the DSB decides by consensus not to establish a panel. Factually, agenda control rests with C unlike under GATT 1947 Panels shall submit their reports within 6 months. This period may be extended if parties continue consultations during the panel stage. The DSB shall adopt panel reports within 60 days after the circulation, unless at least one party appeals or DSB decides by consensus not to adopt the report. Further rules deal with third party participation, the panel s right to seek information, confidentiality of proceedings, and interim review.
13 Page The Dispute Settlement Procedure Appellate Review A standing Appellate Body (AB) comprised of seven jurists shall hear appeals from panel cases. Three members shall serve on any one case. Appeals are limited to issues of law and legal interpretations. In other terms, the AB shall not re-engage in fact finding. Proceedings shall normally not exceed 60 days. Appellate Body proceedings are confidential. The AB may i.) uphold, ii.) modify, or iii.) reverse panel findings. The AB report shall be adopted by the DSB within 30 days unless the DSB decides by consensus not to adopt it.
14 Page The Dispute Settlement Procedure Implementation At a DSB meeting held 30 days after adoption of the reports, D shall inform the DSB of its intentions in respect of implementation. Countries should implement recommendations immediately. If immediate implementation is impracticable, D shall have a reasonable period of time (RPT) to do so. The RPT may be proposed by D, may be agreed between the parties to a dispute within 45 days, or may be determined through binding arbitration within 90 days. The RPT should not exceed 15 months. Six months after the establishment of the RPT, the issue of implementation is placed on the DSB agenda where it remains until the issue is resolved. D must provide written status reports. Compensation or suspension of concessions are temporary measures if recommendations are not implemented in time.
15 Page The Dispute Settlement Procedure The Issue of Non-Compliance In case rulings are not implemented within the RPT, D shall enter into negotiations with C on mutually acceptable compensation. If no such compensation has been agreed upon within 20 days after expiry of the RPT, C may seek authorisation from the DSB to suspend concessions or obligations vis-à-vis D. The suspension of concessions should take place preferrably i.) in the same sector; or ii.) in a different sector under the same agreement if i.) is impracticable; or iii.) under other agreement if ii.) is impracticable The level of suspension shall be equivalent to the level of nullification and impairment; if D objects to the level of suspension proposed, binding arbitration shall be carried out by the arbitrator (original panel or to be appointed by Director General).
16 Page The Dispute Settlement Procedure Disputed Compliance and the Sequencing Issue If C doubts whether D has correctly implemented the DSB recommendations, C may have recourse to the panel procedure to challenge the implementing measure. Recourse should be made to the original panel, and this compliance panel should circulate its report within 90 days. The DSU has some ambiguities and gaps with regard to the sequencing of steps in the implementation stage (e.g.: Must C await the compliance report before it may ask the DSB for the authorisation to suspend concessions? May compliance panel report be appealed from?) In the application of these provisions, parties have developed a practice to fill these gaps through bilateral agreements (e.g. FSC Case).
17 Page The Dispute Settlement Procedure Simplified Graphic Summary In practice: bilaterally agreed procedures at this stage Consultations Establishment of a Panel Panel Report Appellate Body Report Supervised Implementation during Reasonable Period of Time Compliance Panel Procedure Negotiations on Compensation Authorised SCOO (possibly with arbitration) Settlement Settlement Settlement (D wins, no appeal) D wins No challenge to implementation; settlement Compensation; new balance of rights and obligations; settlement SCOO; new balance of rights and obligations; settlement
18 Page 18 Program 1. The Need for a Dispute Settlement Mechanism 2. Objectives of 3. Dispute Settlement Procedures in the WTO 4. between 1995 and Current Reform Efforts: The DSU Review 6. Outlook
19 Page 19 Between 1995 and 2002 Use of the Dispute Settlement Mechanism I % 50 80% Number % 40% Appeal Ratio 10 20% % Complaints Circulated Appellate Body Reports Ratio of Panel Reports Appealed Circulated Panel Reports Art Complaints Data Source: Dispute Settlement Commentary (http://www.worldtradelaw.net)
20 Page 20 Between 1995 and 2002 Use of the Dispute Settlement Mechanism II Number of Complaints U.S. EU Brazil Canada India Japan Korea Complainant Defendant Data Source: Dispute Settlement Commentary (http://www.worldtradelaw.net)
21 Page 21 Between 1995 and 2002 Use of the Dispute Settlement Mechanism III GATT SC M A griculture AD L icen sin g Safeguards TBT TRIPS SP S TRIM s ATC GATS Custom s GPA R u le s o f O rig in N um ber of C om plaints Data Source: Dispute Settlement Commentary (http://www.worldtradelaw.net)
22 Page 22 Between 1995 and 2002 Use of the Dispute Settlement Mechanism IV Source: Park and Panizzon, 2002
23 Page 23 Between 1995 and 2002 Results of Analytical Studies I The increase in the number of disputes and the changes brought by the 1994 DSU have been overstated in literature. While the Uruguay Round mid-term harvest of 1989 did much to increase the number of disputes, the 1994 DSU did not raise the likelihood of disputes among developed countries. The increase in the number of disputes is in line with the increase in the number of member countries. Dispute initiation is subject to positive feedback (probability of a counter-complaint by D against C in the same year rises by 55 times) and bandwagon effects. Members of regional trade agreements (RTAs) are seven times less likely to file disputes against one another than other states. Empirical data suggests that the GATT dispute settlement system was more accessible for developing countries than the WTO system.
24 Page 24 Between 1995 and 2002 Results of Analytical Studies II The probability that D will make concessions are greatest after a panel has been installed and before it has issued its ruling. Once a ruling is available, the likeliness of concessions being made drops (possible explanation: normative force of rulings). Highly democratic countries are more likely to settle cooperatively at the consultations stage. More open economies are less likely to settle early. Democracies are less likely to comply with adverse rulings. Retaliatory power of C is a key factor in inducing compliance by D.
25 Page 25 Program 1. The Need for a Dispute Settlement Mechanism 2. Objectives of 3. Dispute Settlement Procedures in the WTO 4. between 1995 and Current Reform Efforts: The DSU Review 6. Outlook
26 Page Current Reform Efforts: The DSU Review A History of Missed Deadlines A 1994 Ministerial Declaration called for a review of the DSU and a Ministerial Decision to continue, modify, or terminate the DSU within four years after entry into force (1 January 1995) The original December 1998 deadline lapsed, as did an extension until mid The Seattle Ministerial Conference in December 1999 failed to take the required decision. The DSU Review remained in limbo during 2000 and 2001 It was included again in the agenda of the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations (see Ministerial Declaration of November 2001). Negotiations should have been completed by 31 May 2003 and should have yielded an early harvest. However, the deadline was missed again. A new deadline has been set for 31 May 2004 by the General Council on 24/25 July For the time being, the DSU will continue to apply as before.
27 Page Current Reform Efforts: The DSU Review Key Proposals and Their Sponsors (I) Panel Composition: Should ad-hoc panels be replaced by a Permanent Panel Body (EU)? Amicus Curiae Briefs: Should panels and the Appellate Body be allowed to consider information (so-called Amicus Curiae Briefs) submitted by non-governmental actors such as NGOs, firms, industry associations etc. (pro: EU, US; against: most developing countries). Transparency: Should hearings and submissions be made public (U.S., EU, Canada; against: most developing countries)? Should the Appellate Body be given remand authority to remand issues to a panel if it is unable to decide on an issue due to insufficient factual findings in the panel report?
28 Page Current Reform Efforts: The DSU Review Key Proposals and their Sponsors (II) Sequencing Issue: Is a compliance panel necessary before C may request authorisation from the DSB to suspend concessions (EU, Japan and many other countries)? Should remedies against non-compliance be made more effective (e.g. collective retaliation, monetary and retroactive compensation)? Should carousel retaliation be banned (EU and others)?
29 Page Current Reform Efforts: The DSU Review Key Proposals and their Sponsors (III) Third Party Rights: Should the rights of third parties be strengthened (Costa Rica and other small and medium-sized countries)? Should more flexibility be brought into the system (e.g. Should parties have the right to adopt panel and Appellate Body reports only in part? Should the Appellate Body issue confidential interim reports, and should countries be able to suspend Appellate Body procedures for further negotiations?) Should adjudicative bodies given guidance by Members (US)? Should developing countries be treated more favourable and provisions on special and differential treatment (S&D) be expanded (legal assistance, longer time-frames, limit of cases brought against developing countries etc.) (most developing countries).
30 Page 30 Program 1. The Need for a Dispute Settlement Mechanism 2. Objectives of 3. Dispute Settlement Procedures in the WTO 4. between 1995 and Current Reform Efforts: The DSU Review 6. Outlook
31 Page Outlook Since the establishment of the GATT in 1947, the dispute settlement mechanism has gradually and pragmatically evolved from a diplomatic towards a more rule-oriented system. Despite its flaws, it is considered as one of the most successful elements of the WTO. However, there is a danger that the strong imbalance between (effective) rule-oriented dispute settlement and (ineffective) political decision making creates increasing tensions in the WTO. Political mechanisms are in dire need of strengthening. The current deadlock of the DSU Review and the many proposals going into diametrically opposed directions (more flexibility, negotiations and power-orientation vs. more rule-orientation) are an expression of parties uncertainty with regard to the future course that WTO dispute settlement in particular and the WTO in general should take. Reforming a system in use is an extremely difficult task. Thank you for your attention!
Jayant Raghu Ram Research Fellow (Legal) Centre for WTO Studies Indian Institute of Foreign Trade OUTLINE I. Origins of WTO Dispute Settlement-GATT Days II. Objectives of the WTO Dispute Settlement System
This article appeared as a contribution to a Forum on The WTO after Cancún, in: INTERECONOMICS Review of European Economic Policy, Volume 38, Number 5, September/October 2003, pp. 241-245. Heinz Hauser
CHAPTER 19 REVIEW OF THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT UNDERSTANDING 1. General background The 1994 Marrakesh Ministerial Decision called for the Dispute Settlement Understanding ( DSU ) review to be completed by
Page 353 ANNEX 2 UNDERSTANDING ON RULES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES Members hereby agree as follows: Article 1 Coverage and Application 1. The rules and procedures of this Understanding
TEXTUAL PROPOSAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT General Notes: 1. Articles are numbered from 1 for ease of reading, especially when an Article cross-refers to another provision of the Dispute Settlement chapter. The
WTO s Dispute Settlement System Presentation at the Training Programme at Indian Institute of Foreign Trade New Delhi, September 2008 Anuradha R.V. Partner, Clarus Law Associates firstname.lastname@example.org
CHAPTER 19 DISPUTE SETTLEMENT Article 19.1 : Objectives 1. The objective of this Chapter is to provide an effective, efficient and transparent process for consultations and the settlement of disputes arising
DISPUTE SETTLEMENT 200 UNDERSTANDING REGARDING NOTIFICATION, CONSULTATION, DISPUTE SETTLEMENT AND SURVEILLANCE Adopted on 28 November 979 (L/4907). The CONTRACTING PARTIES reaffirm their adherence to the
Journal of International Economic Law 14(1), 191 201 doi:10.1093/jiel/jgr007. WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT 1995 2010 A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Kara Leitner and Simon Lester* In each of the last few years, we have
WORKING PAPER NO. 117 DISPUTE SETTLEMENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE WTO: NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT AND CLARIFICATION S. NARAYANAN DECEMBER 2003 INDIAN COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH ON INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS Core-6A,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW School of Business, Economics and Law Göteborg University The Current and Future WTO Dispute Settlement System - Practical problems discussing Article 21.5 and Article 22 of the DSU Master
The WTO Appellate Body: What Lessons Can Be Learned? Valerie Hughes Director Appellate Body Secretariat World Trade Organization, Geneva Prepared for The Second Conference of the British Institute of International
Annex 14 Annex on the Tripartite Dispute Settlement Mechanism Under Article 39 (5) of the Agreement.Article 1 Objective This Annex provides the procedures under Article 39 (5) of the Tripartite Agreement
The global practice in dispute settlement in different regional free trade agreements and other RTAs dealing with dispute settlement Thomas Mathew, Economic Affairs Officer, UNCTAD Mina Mashayekhi, Head,
WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures Introduction Dispute Settlement in the WTO: Aims Securing compliance with the covered Agreements Preserving the rights and obligations of Members under the covered agreements
Article 1 1. For the purposes of this Appendix, APPENDIX D MOTOR VEHICLE TRADE UNITED STATES Appendix Party means either Japan or the United States, as the case may be; motor vehicle(s) means any good(s)
386 REGULATIONS FOR THE POSTGRADUATE DIPLOMA IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AND DISPUTE SETTLEMENT (PDipArb) (See also General Regulations) Admission requirements LL75 To be eligible for admission to the
Original: English Trade-Related Agenda, Development and Equity (TRADE) Analysis Series THE WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM: ISSUES TO CONSIDER IN THE DSU NEGOTIATIONS SYNOPSIS This TRADE Analysis discusses
Chapter 2 NATIONAL TREATMENT PRINCIPLE 1. OVERVIEW OF RULES National treatment (GATT Article III) stands alongside MFN treatment as one of the central principles of the WTO Agreement. Under the national
CHAPTER - III DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM 3.1. Introduction 3.2. Historical Development of Dispute Settlement System under GATT and WTO 3.3. Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) 3.4. Dispute Settlement
JAPAN, WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT & THE MILLENNIUM ROUND William J. Davey Edwin M. Adams Professor of Law University of Illinois College of Law Draft, September 10, 2000 The new WTO dispute settlement system
Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization (WTO): An Overview Jeanne J. Grimmett Legislative Attorney April 8, 2010 Congressional Research Service CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and
Page 1 of 18 Canada, and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation (the EFTA States ), hereinafter collectively referred to as the Parties,
Introduction to WTO and ICT Maria-Alejandra Alvarez (email@example.com) World Bank Training on Trade in Information and Communications Services Geneva, Switzerland 23-27 April, 2007 What is
CHAPTER NINE DISPUTES SETTLEMENT ARTICLE 187 Scope of the Chapter The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the Treaty, including:
EU initiative on the Access to the EU Public Procurement markets A Tool to Regain Leverage Anders C. Jessen Head of Unit, Public Procurement and Intellectual Property, DG Trade, European Commission Content
Volume 14 Number 2 2013/p. 118-132 esteyjournal.com The Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy Retaliation under the WTO Agreement: The Sequencing Problem Sergei Gorbylev LL.B., Saratov
Side-by-side Comparison of the 2014 and 2015 TPA Bills ***Prepared by Ways and Means Committee Democratic Staff*** A comparison of the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014 (Baucus-Hatch-Camp)
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE STATES OF THE EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION (ICELAND, LIECHTENSTEIN, NORWAY AND SWITZERLAND) Canada, and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein,
State Aid, Subsidy and Tax Incentives under EU and WTO Law Claire Micheau 0 Wolters Kluwer Law & Business Summary of Contents About the Author Table of Contents List of Abbreviations Acknowledgements vii
Align Technology Data Protection Binding Corporate Rules Processor Policy Confidential Contents INTRODUCTION TO THIS POLICY 3 PART I: BACKGROUND AND ACTIONS 4 PART II: PROCESSOR OBLIGATIONS 6 PART III:
WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MANAGING THE AGENDA AFTER SEATTLE Paper for presentation to the Fifth Annual Conference on International Trade Education and Research of the Australia APEC Study Centre Melbourne,
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT IMPROVING THE RESOLUTION OF TAX TREATY DISPUTES (Report adopted by the Committee on Fiscal Affairs on 30 January 2007) February 2007 CENTRE FOR TAX
Chapter Sixteen Labor Article 16.1: Statement of Shared Commitment 1. The Parties reaffirm their obligations as members of the International Labor Organization (ILO) and their commitments under the ILO
Civil Procedure Code 7 Part : Arbitration Title : General Provisions Art. 5 Scope of application The provisions of this Part apply to the proceedings before arbitral tribunals based in Switzerland, unless
Rules of Procedure DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN DATA PROTECTION SUPERVISOR of 17 December 2012 on the adoption of Rules of Procedure THE EUROPEAN DATA PROTECTION SUPERVISOR, Having regard to Regulation (EC)
Investment provisions in the EU-Canada free trade agreement (CETA) CETA confirms all the innovations of the EU's new approach on investment and its dispute settlement mechanism thus meeting the high expectations
Audit Procedures For Notification Of Sanitary And Phytosanitary Measures* *Document prepared by Juan Maximiliano Moreno at the request of the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA)
Page 273 AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS Members, Having in mind the overall objective of the Members to improve and strengthen the international trading system based on GATT 1994; Recognizing the need to clarify
2009 Analyse the World Trade Organization s Dispute Settlement Understanding (WTO s Julius Che Dispute Settlement 31 P a g e GENERAL INTRODUCTION The World Trade Organisation (WTO) regulates trade amongst
PROTOCOL ON THE ACCESSION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA Preamble The World Trade Organization ("WTO"), pursuant to the approval of the Ministerial Conference of the WTO accorded under Article XII of
India at Dispute Settlement Understanding Trade Law Simple TRADE LAW BRIEF Making CUTS Centre for International Trade, Economics & Environment No.2/2010 Any judicial law enforcement system benefits the
Chapter I.versicherung Eligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy (ERDRP) 1. This policy has been adopted by all accredited Domain Name Registrars for Domain Names ending in.versicherung. 2. The
GLOBAL ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE PROGRAMME I. INTRODUCTION One of the most noteworthy achievements of the establishment of the WTO in 1995 was the introduction of its binding dispute settlement system. Building
Chapter 3 SETTLING DISPUTES The priority is to settle disputes, not to pass judgement 1. A unique contribution Dispute settlement is the central pillar of the multilateral trading system, and the WTO s
ii Dispute Settlement N O T E The Course on Dispute Settlement in International Trade, Investment and Intellectual Property consists of forty modules. This Module has been prepared by Mr. P. Van den Bossche
Factsheet on Investor-State Dispute Settlement 3 October 2013 1. What is Investor-State Dispute Settlement ('ISDS')? ISDS is a procedural mechanism provided for in international agreements on investment.
SECTION 301 AND THE NEW WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT UNDERSTANDING Susana Herndndez Puente I. INTRODUCTION... 213 II. THE NEW DISPUTE SETTLEMENT U NDERSTANDING... 215 A. In General: The New Integrated Nature
INVOLVEMENT OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN THE WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT PROCESS: PARTICIPATION OF THE SWAZILAND SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE EC SUGAR SUBSIDIES CASE by Michael S Matsebula (Dr), Chief Executive Officer,
InBrief No. 6G - July 2004 Comparing EU free trade agreements Dispute Settlement Stefan Szepesi The aim of this InBrief series is to provide a synthesis of various chapters of the ten free trade agreements
Approved: by the General Meeting of Georgian Securities Central Depository October 25, 1999 RULES OF THE GEORGIAN SECURITIES CENTRAL SECURITIES DEPOSITORY ON SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES TBILISI 1999 Introduction
Brazil s and Canada s WTO Cases Against U.S. Agricultural Direct Payments Randy Schnepf Specialist in Agricultural Policy January 27, 2010 Congressional Research Service CRS Report for Congress Prepared
THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT UNDERSTANDING DR. LAHSEN ABABOUCH DR. WILLIAM EMERSON FAO 8-10 November2011 Istanbul, Turkey OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATION Dispute Settlement Understanding Dispute settlements relating
November 10, 2015 TABC Position Statement on European Commission s Draft Text on Investment Protection and an Investment Court System in TTIP On 16 September, the European Commission introduced a draft
CHAPTER 5. CONSULTATION, GOOD OFFICE, CONCILIATION AND MEDIATION IN WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM 5. 1. Consultation 5. 1. 1. Introduction The aim of the WTO dispute settlement system is to secure a positive
Page 117 AGREEMENT ON TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE Members, Having regard to the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations; Desiring to further the objectives of GATT 1994; Recognizing the important
The World Trade Organization......In brief, the World Trade Organization (WTO) is the only international organization dealing with the global rules of trade between nations. Its main function is to ensure
@ Background Paper 4c Engaging Armed Groups the practical challenges: negotiation support David Gorman, Andre le Sage HD Centre 1. Introduction This paper outlines the reasons why mediators might provide
STATUTE OF THE COMMONWEALTH SECRETARIAT ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL Adopted by Commonwealth Governments on 1 July 1995 and amended by them on 24 June 1999, 18 February 2004, 14 May 2005, 16 May 2007 and 28 May 2015.
Rules of the Court of Arbitration of the Central Securities Depository of Poland (KDPW) I. General provisions 1. Jurisdiction and organisation of the Court of Arbitration of the Central Securities Depository
DISCIPLINARY POLICY AND PROCEDURE Date: 5 May 2015 Approved: 3 June 2015 Review date: 22 April 2018 1 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 2. NOTES OF GUIDANCE Counselling General Principles Investigation Minor Matters
Michigan State University Office of Institutional Equity COMPLAINT PROCEDURES The Office of Institutional Equity ( OIE ) is responsible for ensuring the University s compliance with federal and state laws
Appendix D - Rules for Dispute Resolution 1. Jurisdiction 1.1 These Rules for Dispute Resolution apply to all disputes referred to under articles I-12 and I- 13 of the Rules. 1.2 The Dispute Resolution
The Reform of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding: A Closer Look at the Mexican Proposal Mateo Diego-Fernandez and Roberto Rios Herran * ABSTRACT The Doha declaration (para. 30) indicated that a review
THE GENERAL INSURANCE OMBUDSERVICE Terms of Reference for Dispute Resolution The General Insurance OmbudService (GIO) is an independent not-for-profit corporation, created in 2002, with the sole purpose
Chapter 6 DEVELOPING COUNTRIES How the WTO deals with the special needs of an increasingly important group 1. Overview About two thirds of the WTO s around 150 members are developing countries. They play
Questions and answers 1- What is the purpose of The Initiative? Why are we doing this? The purpose of the Supply Chain Initiative is to promote fair business practices in the food supply chain as a basis
Consultation on the draft International Student Contract Dispute Resolution Scheme Rules Summary of written submissions Consultation Period: 28 July 31 August 2015 Contents Executive Summary... 4 Abbreviations...
PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION OPTIONAL RULES FOR ARBITRATING DISPUTES BETWEEN TWO STATES 39 OPTIONAL ARBITRATION RULES TWO STATES CONTENTS Introduction 43 Section I. Introductory Rules 45 Scope of Application
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES AND HONG KONG, CHINA PREAMBLE Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway, the Swiss Confederation (hereinafter referred to as the EFTA
Statutes 1. Scope ECA STATUTES (1) The EHF Court of Arbitration shall have competence whenever disputes arise between the EHF and National Federations, between or among National Federations, between National
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PRODUCT SAFETY CASES IN THE WTO WTO Research Center of AGU William J. Davey * I. Introduction A. The World Trade Organization - Background - result of Uruguay Round negotiations 1986-1994
Chapter 1 MOST-FAVOURED-NATION TREATMENT PRINCIPLE OVERVIEW OF RULES Most-Favoured-Nation ( MFN ) treatment requires Members to accord the most favourable tariff and regulatory treatment given to the product
ANNUAL 2008 SESSION OF THE PARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE ON THE WTO Geneva, 11-12 September 2008 Organized jointly by the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the European Parliament Item 3(a) PC-WTO/2008/3(a)-R.2
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004-2595 g p202 624-2500 g f202 628-5116 An Appellate Mechanism for Investor-State Dispute Settlement: A Perspective Based on the WTO Appellate Body Experience
Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft Master s of International and Development Economics Why did the Doha Round fail? Prospects of a Development-friendly Solution Workshop Trade Policies in International
Public Discussion Draft BEPS ACTION 14: MAKE DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS MORE EFFECTIVE 18 December 2014 16 January 2015 PROPOSED DISCUSSION DRAFT ON ACTION 14: MAKE DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS MORE
Rules of Alternative Trading System organised by the BondSpot S.A. text according to legal condition at 1 January 2013 Only the Polish version of these documents is legally binding. This translation is
9 Investment The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) levels the playing field for American workers and American businesses, leading to more Made-in-America exports and more higher-paying American jobs here
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.