Advertisement

Judicial Economy and Advisory Opinions of the Appellate Body–Potential Reform of Article 17.12 of the DSU

  • Tsai-fang ChenEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The current blockage of Appellate Body appointments by the United States has created a crisis for the World Trade Organization dispute settlement system. The United States has raised several issues with regard to the Appellate Body practices. One of the main United States concerns is that the Appellate Body has repeatedly issued findings, from the perspectives of the United States, that were not necessary for the resolution of the dispute. In addition, the United States has also raised complaint regarding the difficulty of the Appellate Body to observe the 90-day requirement provided for under Article 17.5 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding. This chapter reviews the relationship between Article 17.12 and the relevant concerns raised by the United States, and analyzes the limit of the European Union proposal. This chapter suggests an alternative, narrower, version of the amendment that would further address the concerns over the advisory opinions stated in the report by the Appellate Body.

Keywords

Appellate Body Dispute settlement Judicial economy Advisory opinions AB crisis AB reform 

References

  1. Alvarez-Jiménez A (2009) The WTO Appellate Body’s exercise of judicial economy. J Int Econ Law 12(2):393–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bacchus J et al (2005) WTO Appellate Body roundtable. In: Helfer LR, Lindsay R (eds) New world order or a new world disorder? Testing the limits of international law: proceedings of the ninety-ninth annual meeting of the American society of international law. The American Society of International Law, Washington, DC, pp 175–188Google Scholar
  3. Davey WJ (2005) Has the WTO dispute settlement system exceeded its authority? A consideration of deference shown by the system to member government decisions and its use of issue-avoidance techniques. In: Mavroidis PC, Sykes AO (eds) The WTO and international trade law/dispute settlement. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 162–177Google Scholar
  4. Gao H (2018) Dictum on dicta: obiter dicta in wto disputes. World Trade Rev. 17(3):509–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hughes V (2008) The strengths, weaknesses, and future of wto appellate review. In: Janow ME et al (eds) WTO: governance, dispute settlement & developing countries. Juris Publishing, New York, pp 471–504Google Scholar
  6. Karttunen MB, Moore MO (2018) India—solar cells: trade rules, climate policy, and sustainable development goals. World Trade Rev 17(2):215–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. McRae DM (1998) The emerging appellate jurisdiction in international trade law. In: Cameron J, Campbell K (eds) Dispute settlement in the WTO. Cameron May, London, pp 98–110Google Scholar
  8. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) (2018) The president’s trade policy agenda. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Press/Reports/2018/AR/2018%20Annual%20Report%20I.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2019
  9. United States Mission to International Organizations in Geneva (2017a) Statements by the United States at the meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, pp 7–8 (on DS 442), https://geneva.usmission.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/290/Sept29.DSB_.Stmt_.as-delivered.fin_.public.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2019
  10. United States Mission to International Organizations in Geneva (2017b) Statements by the United States at the meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, pp 10–12 (on DS 447/DS 448), https://geneva.usmission.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/290/Nov22.DSB_.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2019
  11. United States Mission to International Organizations in Geneva (2018a) Statements by the United States at the meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, p 18 (on DS 486), https://geneva.usmission.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/290/May28.DSB_.Stmt_.as-eliv.fin.public.Rev.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2019
  12. United States Mission to International Organizations in Geneva (2018b) Statements by the United States at the meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, pp 19–20, https://geneva.usmission.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/290/Jun22.DSB_.Stmt_.as-delivered.fin_.public.rev_.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2019
  13. Walter C (2006) Article 17 DSU. In: Wolfrum R et al (eds) Dispute settlement in the World Trade Organization. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 445–472Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Chiao Tung UniversityHsinchuTaiwan, ROC

Personalised recommendations