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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
United States Mission to International Organizations in Geneva (2018b).
- 3.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) (2018).
- 4.
Id. at 26.
- 5.
Id. at 27.
- 6.
Id. at 26.
- 7.
Id. at 25.
- 8.
Gao (2018, pp. 523–532).
- 9.
Appellate Body Report, United State—Final Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel from Mexico, para 161, WT/DS344/AB/R (30 Apr 2008).
- 10.
Id. at para 160.
- 11.
Appellate Body report, United States—Measures Affecting Imports of Woven-Wool Shirts and Blouses from India, 18–19, WT/DS33/AB/R (25 Apr 1997).
- 12.
Alvarez-Jiménez (2009, p. 399).
- 13.
Davey (2005, p. 177) (“For me, the Appellate Body could appropriately deal with more issues on the basis of judicial economy”).
- 14.
Alvarez-Jiménez, supra note 12, at 394.
- 15.
Bacchus et al. (2005, p. 179).
- 16.
See comments by Mitsuo Matsushita, id. at p. 187.
- 17.
Davey, supra note 13.
- 18.
McRae (1998, p. 107).
- 19.
Id.
- 20.
Appellate Body Report, United States—Subsidies on Upland Cotton, para 510, WT/DS267/AB/R (3 Mar 2005).
- 21.
Id. at para 511.
- 22.
Id. at para 747.
- 23.
Karttunen and Moore (2018, pp. 222–223).
- 24.
Appellate Body Report, India—Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and Solar Modules, paras 5.152–5.155, WT/DS456/AB/R (16 Sept 2016).
- 25.
Id. at para 5.155.
- 26.
Id. at para 5.157.
- 27.
Id. at para 5.158.
- 28.
Id.
- 29.
Id.
- 30.
Id. at para 5.161.
- 31.
Id. at para 5.158.
- 32.
Id.
- 33.
Id. at para 5.160.
- 34.
Hughes (2008, p. 477).
- 35.
Walter (2006, p. 459).
References
Alvarez-Jiménez A (2009) The WTO Appellate Body’s exercise of judicial economy. J Int Econ Law 12(2):393–415
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 175–188
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 162–177
Gao H (2018) Dictum on dicta: obiter dicta in wto disputes. World Trade Rev. 17(3):509–533
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 471–504
Karttunen MB, Moore MO (2018) India—solar cells: trade rules, climate policy, and sustainable development goals. World Trade Rev 17(2):215–237
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 98–110
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
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
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
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
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
Walter C (2006) Article 17 DSU. In: Wolfrum R et al (eds) Dispute settlement in the World Trade Organization. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 445–472
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chen, Tf. (2020). Judicial Economy and Advisory Opinions of the Appellate Body–Potential Reform of Article 17.12 of the DSU. In: Lo, Cf., Nakagawa, J., Chen, Tf. (eds) The Appellate Body of the WTO and Its Reform. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0255-2_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0255-2_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-0254-5
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-0255-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)