Originally from:
The WTO: Governance, Dispute Settlement & Developing Countries
The WTO: Governance, Dispute Settlement & Developing Countries-Digital
Chapter 30 - Preview Page
Enhancing the Operation of the WTO Panel Process and Appellate Review: Lessons from Experience and a Focus on Transparency
Andrew Stoler
Two years ago, I wrote a short article for the World Trade Review where I argued that the Uruguay Round dispute settlement negotiators achieved what they set out to attain in the new DSU, even if certain of their governments now seem to wonder why they lose cases or cannot win with arguments they bring against their trading partners. Times and policies do change. But as I argued then, and as I continue to believe now, ten years’ experience with the WTO’s system for settling disputes has shown that it is working well. In fact, given the current crisis in the much-delayed ongoing Doha Round of negotiations, some people worry that the DSU is working too well. Most trade policymakers do not want to see the WTO transformed into a machine that efficiently processes disputes, but is incapable of serving as a forum for the negotiation of mutually agreed trade liberalization outcomes. A WTO that is effective only as a “court,” with obvious winners and losers in a zero sum game, cannot survive for long.
Today, WTO Members’ trade disputes are generally settled efficiently, but there is always room for improvement. Over the past decade, an extraordinary number of State-to-State disputes have been brought before the system. A vast body of jurisprudence has been accumulated. Each new case involving some novel aspect tweaks our interest in the way in which it will be adjudicated. Sometimes, it has appeared as though the existing rules and procedures have had to be stretched to deal with unanticipated problems. The potential need to make adjustments in the DSU was foreseen in the WTO Members’ Ministerial Decision to review the arrangements for dispute settlement. Since the entry into force of the DSU, many WTO Members have put forward proposals for changes in the system that have grown out of their own direct experience.
About the Author:
Andrew Stoler the Executive Director of the Institute for International Business, Economics and Law and Adjunct Professor of International Trade at the University of Adelaide.