Advertisement

Interpretative Authority of the Appellate Body: Replies to the Criticism by the United States

  • Yuka FukunagaEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The United States has been blocking consensus of the Members of the World Trade Organization on the appointment and reappointment of Appellate Body members by raising several concerns with the practice of the Appellate Body. At several recent meetings of the Dispute Settlement Body, the United States has outlined in detail its specific concerns, one of which pertains to the interpretative authority of the Appellate Body. More specifically, the United States criticizes the Appellate Body for treating its previous interpretations as “binding and controlling” and for insisting that they must serve as precedent “absent cogent reasons.” This chapter analyzes the criticism and points out seven specific errors in it. It also argues that the United States wrongly or deliberately alters what the Appellate Body in fact stated in the past decisions with a view to discrediting the Appellate Body. Finally, it warns that the Appellate Body impasse would not be broken, as long as the United States maintains its erroneous views.

Keywords

Appellate Body Exclusive authority to adopt authoritative interpretations Precedent Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) 

References

  1. Commission JP (2007a) Precedent in investment treaty arbitration: a citation analysis of a developing jurisprudence. 24 J Int Arbitr 129:150–151Google Scholar
  2. Commission JP (2007b) Table A: precedent in ICSID arbitration 1972–2006. Transnatl Disput Manag 4Google Scholar
  3. Duxbury N (2008) The nature and authority of precedent. Cambridge University Press, EnglandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fukunaga Y (2018) The Appellate Body’s power to interpret the WTO agreement and WTO members’ power to disagree with the Appellate Body. In: Society of International Economic Law (SIEL), Sixth Biennial global conference. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3209915
  5. Gardiner R (2015) Treaty interpretation. Oxford University Press, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  6. Lauterpacht E (ed) (1975) International law: being the collected papers of Hersch Lauterpacht, vol II. Cambridge University Press, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  7. Lundmark T (2012) Charting the divide between common and civil law. Oxford University Press, EnglandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Siems M (2018) Comparative law. Cambridge University Press, EnglandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Statements by the United States at the Meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, 18 Dec 2018. https://geneva.usmission.gov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/290/Dec18.DSB_.Stmt_.asdeliv.fin_.public.pdf
  10. Statements by the United States at the Meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, 22 June 2018. https://geneva.usmission.gov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/290/Jun22.DSB.Stmt.asdelivered.fin.public.rev.pdf
  11. Statements by the United States at the Meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, 27 Aug 2018. https://geneva.usmission.gov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/290/Aug27.DSB.Stmt_.asdelivered.fin_.rev_.public.pdf
  12. Statements by the United States at the Meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, 28 Feb 2018. https://geneva.usmission.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/290/Feb28.DSB_.Stmt_.as-delivered.fin_.public-1.pdf
  13. Statements by the United States at the Meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, 28 Oct 2018. https://geneva.usmission.gov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/290/Oct29.DSB.Stmt_.asdelivered.fin_.rev_.public.pdf
  14. Statements by the United States at the Meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, 31 Aug 2017. https://geneva.usmission.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/290/Aug31.DSB.Stmt.as-delivered.fin.public.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Waseda UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations