Advertisement

The AB Crisis as Symptomatic of the WTO’s Foundational Defects or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the AB

  • Colin B. PickerEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The Appellate Body (AB) of the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body is in crisis as a result of attacks on the AB’s processes, decisions and approaches. These attacks are predominantly, but not entirely, being brought by the United States. The crisis is being brought to a head by the refusal of the US to agree to the appointment of new AB members. If the US approach is not countered or reversed, this will result in the AB being unable to operate, effectively permitting WTO rule breaking to go unchecked. The very rule of law character of the WTO is consequently under threat. Most critically, it is not inconceivable that the demise of the AB could quickly and all too easily lead to the death or death-like stagnation of the WTO. This chapter’s fundamental thesis is, however, that the current concerns about the AB and the WTO more generally reflect deeper fundamental flaws and disconnects within the WTO and therefore suggests that proposed AB reforms by some WTO members are too superficial and hence likely irrelevant to the real, inevitable and likely fatal challenges to the WTO. This chapter argues that the crisis therefore is not really the fault of the AB, neither in its structure, function or outputs, but rather a result of deeper fundamental faults within the WTO. This chapter further argues that for the most part the AB structure, function and outputs are generally without serious fault, and instead represent acceptable and effective approaches to the resolution of trade disputes between sovereign states in the context of the WTO. Critically, the chapter also notes that the AB’s behaviours and approaches are entirely consistent with what one would expect from a rule of law Dispute Settlement Body—be it international or domestic.

Keywords

Trade law Dispute settlement Comparative constitutional law International law International organisations 

References

  1. 2019 trade policy agenda and 2018 annual report of the president of the United States on the trade agreements program. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2019_Trade_Policy_Agenda_and_2018_Annual_Report.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2019
  2. Brand O (2007) Conceptual comparisons: towards a coherent methodology of comparative legal studies. Brook J Int Law 32(2):405–466Google Scholar
  3. Gantz DA (2018) An existential threat to WTO dispute settlement: blocking appointment of Appellate Body members by the United States. Arizona Legal Stud Discussion Paper No 18–26Google Scholar
  4. González RC (2016) From jurisprudence constante to stare decisis: the migration of the doctrine of precedent to civil law constitutionalism. Transnatl Legal Theory 7(2):257–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Howse R (2016) The World Trade Organization 20 years on: global governance by judiciary. Eur J Int Law 27(1):9–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Panels established to rule on US, Turkish tariff measures. https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news19_e/dsb_28jan19_e.htm. Accessed 30 May 2019
  7. Picker CB (2010) A framework for comparative analyses of international law and its institutions: using the example of the World Trade Organization. Comp Law Hybrid Legal SystGoogle Scholar
  8. Picker CB (2014a) Comparative legal cultural analyses of international economic law: insights, lessons and approaches. Indian J Int Econ Law 6:54–83Google Scholar
  9. Picker CB (2014b) An Introduction to comparative analyses of international organizations. In: Solenik D (ed) Comparative law & international organizations: cooperation, competition and connections. Swiss Institute of Comparative Law, pp 11–38Google Scholar
  10. Picker CB (2017) The coherent fragmentation of international economic law: lessons from the transpacific partnership agreement. In: Lo CF (ed) The paradigm shift in the rule-making of international economic law: TPP as a new model for trade agreements? SpringerGoogle Scholar
  11. Statement by the United States at the meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (2016). https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/us_statment_dsbmay16e.pdf
  12. The place of the WTO in the international legal order. https://www.wto.org/engish/news_e/sppl_e/sppl94_e.htm. Accessed 30 May 2019
  13. WTO Dispute Settlement Body developments in 2012. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/bashir_13_e.htm. Accessed 30 May 2019

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations