Originally from: The WTO: Governance, Dispute Settlement & Developing Countries
The WTO: Governance, Dispute Settlement & Developing Countries-Electronic
Chapter 43 - Preview Page
Remedy in WTO Dispute Settlement
A review of WTO dispute settlement has been underway for several years—longer even than the Doha Round. The DSB began this process in 1997 and no consensus has been reached on whether or not changes are needed, and if so, what they should be. The Doha Declaration excludes dispute settlement from what must be included in this Round, although presumably if there were a consensus on modifications that should be made to dispute settlement, these would be included in the ultimate negotiating results.
A substantial number of papers have been tabled by various WTO Members suggesting either further innovations in the DSU’s remedy provisions or giving formal recognition to some existing forms of remedy. The answer to the question of what remedies should be available under the DSU at the end of the current review process depends on the answers given to the following questions:
(i) First and foremost, what will the WTO Members accept?
(ii) How good are the substantive rules with which compliance is to be sought? Are the WTO’s substantive rules clear enough to be enforceable in specific cases? Does a given rule have substantive merit? Should it be enforced?
(iii) What is the quality of the decision-making?
(iv) What are the proper objectives of dispute settlement—deterrence, compliance, compensation?
(v) Is the remedy likely to bring about a desirable result?
(vi) What is the relationship between dispute settlement and trade diplomacy?
About the Author:
Alan Wolff is a member of Dewey Ballantine's Management Committee and Managing Partner of the Firm's Washington, DC office.