James5

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or to email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

There’s more on the on-going debate over the extent that AB can ‘interpret’ WTO agreements. The US now says that the AB can ‘clarify’ but not ‘interpret’ or ‘amend’ any agreement. Is this the worst case of legal semantics being played?

Popularity: 1% [?]

China’s concerned that people are violating their WTO agreements by banning the tainted milk, but it’s clear that countries can take action to ensure food safety.

Popularity: 2% [?]

The whole issue of the precedential value of past WTO Appellate Body and Panel reports sometimes just seems like semantics. IELP has a summary of some WTO Member’s positions on the topic here.

Popularity: 2% [?]

Over the winter I visited Geneva for two weeks studying Institutions in International Law, this post is part of a series on what I learnt and thought about the institutions we visited. See them all here.

While in Geneva, we had the pleasure of visiting the Advisory Centre for WTO Law and having a presentation on the work that they do. The ACWL is a kind of ‘legal aid’ for developing countries needing assistance with WTO law. Their membership includes 25% of WTO members, and is mostly developing countries. They have an important role to play in levelling out the power imbalances inherent in the WTO system, as well as providing more general training on WTO law. So far they have been used in about 20% of disputes.

Importantly the Centre only provides legal advice, so is unable to assist with general policy advice or advice on negotiating positions at the WTO. Their limited mandate ensures they can do excellent work with a very small staff, I was amazed at how much work they do given how small their staff is.

Theoretically the WTO Dispute Settlement System is a very empowering system for poorer or less powerful nations. By giving defined rights to countries, regardless of their size or power, and providing a forum within the rights can be enforced, the WTO lessens the ‘bullying’ that once accompanied trade disputes. Rich nations can’t do what they like without fear of real repercussions.

However, I wonder if the reality of the system is that the WTO dispute settlement is most useful to middle powers, nations that aren’t rich and powerful but aren’t extremely reliant on other powers. While it isn’t necessarily helpful for major powers, depending on what deal was struck during negotiations, because of their prior ability to get their way anyway. And recourse to legal dispute resolution may be out of reach for many poor nations due to cost in many instances. For middle powers, though, the Dispute Settlement System is an empowering way to resolve disputes with major powers and other nations, one that they can afford to use.

I haven’t read any statistics or analysis on this, so I’d be interested to hear what anyone else thinks. Of course thanks to the work of the ACWL and other institutions dispute settlement means more for poorer nations as they are able to realise their rights against powerful nations.

Popularity: 11% [?]

Gresser writes over at Yale Global of the broadening consensus that is emerging out of Doha, suggesting they were quite the failure we all think they were.

Popularity: 3% [?]