IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jieclw/v16y2013i4p777-825.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dispute Settlement Under the WTO and RTAs: An Uneasy Relationship

Author

Listed:
  • Armand C. M. de Mestral

Abstract

The proliferation of RTAs is a recognized feature of our time. While such agreements are permitted under Article XXIV of the GATT, this has not been without controversy and one aspect which remains unclear concerns the role decisions rendered by RTA dispute settlement bodies play in WTO cases. Are RTA dispute settlement systems in competition with and possibly even in contradiction to the WTO DSU or are they complementary? Can they co-exist or are they cast in eternal opposition? Are they equal or are they inherently subordinate to the WTO DSU? The article considers the WTO's treatment of RTAs in GATT and WTO case law, and weighs arguments for and against the consideration of RTA decisions by the DSB. The article submits that the DSB should not be blind to the equities of a situation where two states have reached an agreement in an RTA selecting dispute settlement under that body. This is more than a theoretical argument, it has happened, and the increasingly complex co-existence of the WTO with some 400 RTAs suggests that similar problems can arise in the future. Furthermore, these issues deserve a much more open and careful analysis than they have had to date. The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved., Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Armand C. M. de Mestral, 2013. "Dispute Settlement Under the WTO and RTAs: An Uneasy Relationship," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(4), pages 777-825, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jieclw:v:16:y:2013:i:4:p:777-825
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jiel/jgt032
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:oup:jieclw:v:16:y:2013:i:4:p:777-825. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jiel .

    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.