IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/wotrrv/v1y2002i01p63-87_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cross-agreement complaints before the Appellate Body: a case study of the EC–Asbestos dispute

Author

Listed:
  • PAUWELYN, JOOST

Abstract

WTO panels are often called upon to decide overlapping claims based on different WTO agreements. One such dispute was the EC–Asbestos case where claims were made under both GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). This paper examines whether the Appellate Body's refusal in that case to examine Canada's TBT claims was justified. The conclusion reached is no, based on the principle jura novit curia, the general prohibition on non liquet and the WTO case law on judicial economy. In addition, the paper examines when two WTO norms must be seen as ‘in conflict’. It argues in favour of broadening the current definition of conflict and clarifies the consequences of a norm being lex specialis.

Suggested Citation

  • Pauwelyn, Joost, 2002. "Cross-agreement complaints before the Appellate Body: a case study of the EC–Asbestos dispute," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 63-87, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:wotrrv:v:1:y:2002:i:01:p:63-87_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1474745601001033/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:wotrrv:v:1:y:2002:i:01:p:63-87_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/wtr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.