This research paper examines the progress made and problems of interpretation which have arisen under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement in the handling of international trade disputes. In general the panels and Appellate Body (AB) established under the WTO Dispute Resolution Understanding (DSU) have been provided adequate resources, rules and procedures for resolving disputes in a manner consistent with WTO's overriding objective, the reduction and eventual elimination of all barriers among its members to free international trade and capital flows. Since its founding in 1995, approximately 73 international trade disputes have been decided by WTO bodies (Text 147). In those decisions, WTO panelists and appellate participants have displayed considerable flexibility and impartiality. Some of the major issues confronting them have been procedural, including burden of proof and evidentiary questions. In addressing those issues in the context of Article VI Anti-Dumping cases the WTO dispute resolvers have sometimes revealed tendencies to limit themselves to narrow textual interpretations and even to ignore external realities with which they may not as yet be well equipped to deal.
Ad hoc dispute resolution panels are appointed by WTO's Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) whenever a Member (a nation which has acceded to the WTO Final Act) requests WTO to resolve a dispute. Members are obliged to attempt to resolve their disputes amicably before invoking a claim under WTO (Text 150). Under Article XXIII of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT XXIII), WTO has jurisdiction to resolve disputes of three types: 1. those involving claims that a Member has breached or violated the WTO Agreement and thereby caused a benefit of another Member under it to be "nullified or impaired" (Text 148); 2. so-called 'non-violation' claims; and 3. 'other situation' claims. 2 and 3 claims are seldom invoked and are outside the scope of this pa...