Latin American experience in the WTO dispute settlement: recommendations for Russia and the EAEU states (original) (raw)
Related papers
DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BODY OF THE WTO: ACCESS TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES?
Revista Direito.UnB, 2014
This article aims to analyze the importance of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSU) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) as mechanism for maintaining the multilateral trading system at the global level, in particular as regards access to the jurisdiction by member states. From the quantitative and qualitative analysis, the paper examines the performance of countries at different levels of development and seeks to demonstrate that existing asymmetries in the international trade rules and your reflexes to the OSC. Despite major advances in the creation of a permanent forum to address trade disputes between member states, it appears that developed countries and developing high-and middleincome countries are the biggest beneficiaries. Access to the jurisdiction of the WTO by the least developed countries is an improvement, but, paradoxically, also a denial of the full efficiency of the system, as will be seen ahead. The article also highlights the most active countries and agreements that are put in check before the OSC and the participation of Brazil as a global player in the logic of economic globalization. Finally, attempts to show why reform or revision of the system is essential for the OSC guarantees the right to the principle of special and differential treatment, especially to less developed nations, and promote greater equality between members, resolving conflicts in a more equitable manner.
ISSUES REGARDING EAEU MEMBERS' PARTICIPATION IN THE WTO ACTIVITY
Issues related to the use of the WTO instruments and mechanisms by CIS member states including the EAEU members remain one of the least studied problems regarding a comprehensive analysis not in Russia alone but also in other countries of the post-Soviet space. Ac vity in the WTO needs to be studied in two aspects: fi rst – as an impact factor on the implementa on of the na onal foreign economic policy and second – as a legal basis for crea on of integra on processes including within the CIS and EAEU. In spite of current problems, the WTO remains a powerful organiza on under whose auspices mul lateral rules designed to regulate foreign economic ac vity for the vast majority of countries are eff ec ve. These rules cover 98% of global trade in goods and services. The majority of the port-Soviet countries are already members of the WTO. Three states – Azerbaijan, Belorussia and Uzbekistan are on diff erent phases of accession to the WTO 1. Turkmenistan is an excep on. It never became an observer in this organiza on owing to its understanding of the neutral state status. Having said that, it should be noted that candidates start to incorporate the WTO norms and rules in their na onal legisla on and compliance prac ces at the accession phase. It should be noted that par cular terms for accession are diff erent for all countries and in some cases these diff erences are rather signifi cant (Table 1). This is determined by an economic poten al of an applicant: the higher the poten al the more requirements pop up from the WTO members, as well as the nego a ons are more complicated and last longer. We can acknowledge that the major part of the CIS economic space has already been incorporated in the sphere of mul lateral trade system. However, during the last 10-15 years the CIS delega ons missed the opportunity to present themselves from the construc ve point of view and, on the contrary, were highly passive both in the current WTO ac vity and in the framework of Doha round. Even in the Dispute Se lement Body (DSB) their ac vity was unno ced, except for Russia and the Ukraine, and they fi gure in separate disputes where they are defendants. Moreover, owing to the current geopoli cal situa on, the WTO is another pla orm for a public showdown between Russia and Ukraine 2. This is referred to not only mutual cases but to statements made during the discussion of na onal Trade Policy Reports (TPR), and discussions of various issues in the WTO commi ees and working groups. In the future, one can expect an esca-la on of the situa on linked, in par cular, to the new legal ac on of Ukraine against Russia regarding restric ons of free transit, which is one of the paramount WTO principles.
Eurasian Economic Union Court and WTO Dispute Settlement Body: Two Housewives in One Kitchen
Russian Law Journal, 2019
Using the approach of the United Nations International Law Commission, the law of the Eurasian Economic Union and WTO law might be regarded as autonomous complexes of rules. However, in all current disputes the DSB treats the norms of EAEU law as measures adopted by a specific EAEU member, but not as international law within the meaning of the ILC. These disputes concern import tariffs, anti-dumping investigations, and technical regulation and reveal a number of specific features. First, the EAEU measures are attributable to every EAEU member. Second, the WTO members may try to challenge in the DSB the measures adopted by an EAEU member in its national legislation based on EAEU law that affect national legislation of that EAEU member, rather than EAEU law as such. Third, “forum shopping” may arise, for the same measure can be challenged under EAEU law in the EAEU Court and under WTO law in the DSB. Finally, to overcome uncertainty concerning WTO law in EAEU Court jurisprudence, it i...
Developing Countries and the WTO Dispute Resolution System: A Legal Assessment and Review
The aim of this paper is to review and analyse the WTO procedures and rules designed to resolve developing countries disputes. The Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) of the World Trade Organization is generally considered as providing innovative set of rules through which countries could address and resolve trade disputes amongst themselves. The DSU also establishes an Advisory Centre, which seeks to assist developing countries to resolve trade disputes. Despite these innovations, opinions are divided on the practical effectiveness of the DSU and the Advisory Centre, particularly with respect to resolving disputes involving developing countries. In this paper, we shall examine the practical effectiveness of DSU and the roles of the Advisory Centre in the dispute resolution processes involving developing countries.
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES PARTICIPATION IN THE WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM
International Journal of Law, Humanities & Social Science, 2020
In the Preamble of the WTO defined that there is a need to make sure that developing countries especially the LDC ones, share growth in international trade proportionate with the needs of their economic development. This paper begins with the historical background of the developing countries participation in both GATT and the WTO. There is a broad discussion about the developing countries and the WTO dispute settlement system. Significant appraisals of the present and possible benefits from developing country engagement in the WTO focus mainly on the recent development. This paper examines a different feature of developing country participation in the WTO dispute settlement system. The WTO dispute system is providing the developing countries with some special benefits and developing countries are also trying to increase their status, that's the main reason for the participation in the WTO dispute system. This paper is also trying to find the obstacles that are creating a problem for developing countries to participate in the WTO dispute settlement system. The WTO dispute settlement system is working actively for developing countries, but the GATT system was also tried to develop the status of the developing countries. The comparison between the GATT system and the WTO dispute system developed country and developing country is also referred in this paper.
Yuridika, 2015
Economic actors are the main trade player in the World Trade Organization, although, the relation between WTO and economic actor is built by trade regulation that is negotiated among the WTO Members. Nothing in the WTO regulates economic actors to involve directly in the WTO, especially in the WTO dispute settlement system. Nevertheless, the debate amongst experts regarding the involvement of economic actors in the WTO dispute settlement system is unavoidable. This article therefore discusses the possibility of the involvement of economic actors in the WTO dispute settlement system, whether there is legal and political point of views.
The WTO Dispute Settlement System: Does it Work for Developing Countries?
Due to their level of development and challenges emerging out of that, developing countries (and least developed countries) occupy a very special position in the WTO multilateral system. The constitutive document of the WTO recognizes this and calls for positive measures to ensure access of developing countries to the trade benefits of the WTO multilateral system. This paper looks at the WTO Understanding on Dispute Settlement (DSU) from the perspective of developing countries and establishes whether or not there are adequate and effective positive measures to assist developing countries to assert and defend their trade rights at the WTO Dispute Settlement System (WTO DSS). The paper argues that most of the WTO DSS measures aimed at assisting developing countries are a gust of wind without substance and benefits for developing countries. They do not constitute “positive measures.” Furthermore, it is contended that the WTO DSS remedies are out of reach for developing countries. The paper argues for the reform of the WTO DSS to cater for developing countries’ interests and problems.