|
V. Conclusion
In conclusion, the proposals for reform in WTO Dispute Settlement focusing on the procedure and institution system may be numerous. Some of the proposals, in relation to consultation, panellist appointment, procedure adjustment, Appellate Body, transparency and developing countries mentioned in this paper, may or may not represent the general view. Moreover, it is quite possible that new issues will appear in the near future either following the new reports adopted from the WTO panels and the Appellate Body or new countries being members of WTO. So it is necessary for us to continue to keep attention on the new development of the WTO Dispute Settlement.
Footnotes
[23]United Nations, Handbook on The Peaceful Settlement of Disputes Between States, 10 (1992) (OLA/COD/2394).
[24]DSU, Article 3.7.
[25]DSU, Article 4.5.
[26]DSU, Article 3.10.
[27]DSU, Article 4.1.
[28]DSU, Article 4.3, 4.7. According to Article 4.3 of DSU, if the Member does not respond within 10 days after the date of receipt of the request, or does not enter into consultations within a period of no more than 30 days, or a period otherwise mutually agreed, after the date of receipt of the request, then the Member that requested the holding of consultations may proceed directly to request the establishment of a panel. Under Article 4.7, if the consultations fail to settle a dispute within 60 days after the date of receipt of the request for consultations, the complaining party may request the establishment of a panel.
[29]DSU, Article 4.
[30]Final Act Embodying the Results of The Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiation 353, 33 I.L.M. 1125 (1994).
[31]European Communities, Discussion Paper on the Review of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU). [hereinafter EC Discussion Paper] (on file with American University International Law Review).
[32]Ibid. ( discussing how some of these sanctions are reportedly also proposed by other WTO Members).
[33]Supra note 29.
[34]Report of the Appellate Body on India-patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, Dec. 19, 1997, WTO Doc. WT/DS50/AB/R. para. 94.
[35]DSU, Article 8.7.
[36]Jacques H. J. Bourgeois, Some Reflections on the WTO Dispute Settlement System from A Practitioner’s Perspective, 4 (1), J Int’l Econo L (2001) 146.[37]DSU, Article 8.1.
[38]Unless the parties to the dispute agree otherwise. DSU, Article 8.3. [39]DSU, supra note 6.
[40]Debra Steger, Overview of WTO Dispute Settlement. Address at the 1998 Conference of the World Trade Law Association ( leaving mainly panellists from New Zealand and Switzerland); Bernhard Jansen, Selcted Problem Areas in the Course of a Dispute Settlement Procedure, Free World Trade and the European Union, 59 at 60 ( vol 28,Publications by the Academy of European Law in Tier, Bundesanzeiger, 2000), ( adding panellists from Australia and Latin American countries).
|
