WTO DISPUTE RESOLUTION
This research paper exam
This is an excerpt from the paper...
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 be
. . .
the DSU are, patently, a weakness that may prove to be serious in some cases.
The process relies heavily on the factual narrations
made by the parties in submissions or in responses to
panel's inquiries [the American portion of which was
deemed insufficient in the Indian woolen textile case.]
The process can work reasonably well when disputes turn
entirely on the context of a statute or regulation . . Ascertaining the language of texts . . . does not pose
difficult issues of fact determination . . . [but]
there are many kinds of disputes in which material
issues of fact are contestable in panel proceedings.
In other words, if something more is involved in the factual determination than whether the wording of a law or regulation have been satisfied, then the WTO's approach of relying extensively on textual interpretation may unduly handicap either it or one or more parties to the dispute. Put another way, the issue is whether the evidentiary rulings of panels take into account the difficulties and obstacles facing parties seeking to discharge their burden of proof.
Evidentiary Issues
Without any discovery process, other
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
AD Agreement, United India, DSU Article, WTO Agreement, Vienna Article, Japan United, Questions Text, WTO Panels, Understanding DSU, Commerce DOC, national authorities, burden proof, japanese exporters, dispute resolution, hot-rolled steel, factual determinations, report panel, appellate body, anti-dumping agreement, dsu article, gatt anti-dumping agreement, 1994 gatt anti-dumping, hot-rolled steel products, 35th supp 116, supp 116 1988,
Approximate Word count = 3227
Approximate Pages = 13 (250 words per page)
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
