IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

WTO Dispute Settlement at Ten: Evolution, Experiences, and Evaluation

  • Thomas A. Zimmermann

    (Swiss Institute for International Economics & Applied Economic Research SIAW-HSG)

ENGLISH ABSTRACT: On 1 January 1995, the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) entered into force. During its first ten years, the DSU has since been applied to 324 complaints – more cases than dispute settlement under the GATT 1947 had dealt with in nearly five decades. The system is perceived, both by practitioners and in academic literature, to work generally well. However, it has also revealed some flaws. Negotiations to review and reform the DSU have been taking place since 1997 (“DSU review”), however, without yielding any result so far. In the meantime, WTO Members and adjudicating bodies managed to develop the system further through evolving practice. While this approach may remedy some practical shortcomings of the DSU text, the more profound imbalance between relatively efficient judicial decisionmaking in the WTO (as incorporated in the DSU) and nearly blocked political decisionmaking evolves into a serious challenge to the sustainability of the system. This article provides an overview of the first ten years of DSU practice, the on- going DSU review negotiations, and the challenges to the dispute settlement system. GERMAN ABSTRACT: Am 1. Januar 1995 trat das Übereinkommen über Regeln und Verfahren für die Streitschlichtung (Dispute Settlement Understanding; DSU) als Teil des WTO-Abkommens in Kraft. In den ersten zehn Jahren seines Bestehens fand das DSU auf 324 Klagebegehren Anwendung – mehr Fälle, als unter den Streitschlichtungsregeln des GATT 1947 in dessen nahezu fünfzigjähriger Geschichte behandelt wurden. Die Funktionsweise des Systems wird sowohl in der handelspolitischen Praxis als auch in der wissenschaftlichen Literatur als gut eingestuft. Gleichwohl hat der Mechanismus in seiner Anwendung auch einige Schwächen offenbart. Diese sollen auf dem Verhandlungswege („DSU Review“) behoben werden, doch blieben die seit Ende 1997 laufenden Gespräche bislang erfolglos. Zugleich ist es den Mitgliedstaaten und den Spruchorganen aber stellenweise gelungen, das System im Rahmen der praktischen Anwendung fortzuentwickeln. Während auf diesem Weg einige praktische Probleme des Verfahrenstextes behoben werden konnten, dürfte das beträchtliche Ungleichgewicht in der WTO zwischen einem vergleichsweise effizienten juristischen Entscheidungsmechanismus (in Form des DSU) und den häufig blockierten politischen Entscheidungsmechanismen fortbestehen. Dieses Ungleichgewicht bedroht die Systemnachhaltigkeit. Der vorliegende Artikel gibt einen Überblick über die ersten zehn Jahre DSU-Praxis, die laufenden DSU-Review-Verhandlungen sowie einen Ausblick auf zukünftige Herausforderungen.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://econwpa.repec.org/eps/it/papers/0504/0504003.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by EconWPA in its series International Trade with number 0504003.

as
in new window

Length: 35 pages
Date of creation: 08 Apr 2005
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpit:0504003
Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 35. Paper has been published
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://econwpa.repec.org

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, 2003. "Reflections on the Appellate Body of the WTO," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(3), pages 695-708, September.
  2. Anderson, Kym, 2002. "Peculiarities of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement," CEPR Discussion Papers 3578, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  3. Monika BÜTLER & Heinz HAUSER, 2000. "The WTO Dispute Settlement System : A First Assessment from an Economic Perspective," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'Econométrie et d'Economie politique (DEEP) 00.02, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, DEEP.
  4. Robert W. Staiger & Kyle Bagwell, 1999. "An Economic Theory of GATT," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 215-248, March.
  5. Jacques H.J. Bourgeois, 2003. "Comment on a WTO Permanent Panel Body," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 211-235, March.
  6. S. K. Mitchell, 1997. "GATT, Dispute Settlement and Cooperation: A Note," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(1), pages 87-93, 03.
  7. Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich, 1998. "How to Promote the International Rule of Law? Contributions by the World Trade Organization Appellate Review System," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 25-48, March.
  8. William J. Davey, 2003. "The Case for a WTO Permanent Panel Body," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 177-186, March.
  9. Jackson, John H., 2002. "Perceptions about the WTO trade institutions," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(01), pages 101-114, March.
  10. Guzman, Andrew & Simmons, Beth A, 2002. "To Settle or Empanel? An Empirical Analysis of Litigation and Settlement at the World Trade Organization," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(1), pages S205-35, January.
  11. repec:aei:rpbook:24252 is not listed on IDEAS
  12. Claude Barfield, 2002. "WTO dispute settlement system in need of change," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 131-135, May.
  13. Jeffrey J. Schott & Jayashree Watal, 2000. "Decision-Making in the WTO," Policy Briefs PB00-2, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
  14. Hudec, R. E., 2002. "Free trade, sovereignty, democracy: the future of the World Trade Organization," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(02), pages 211-222, July.
  15. Claude Barfield, 2001. "Free Trade, Sovereignty, Democracy," Books, American Enterprise Institute, number 52877, 8.
  16. John Greenwald, 2003. "WTO Dispute Settlement: an Exercise in Trade Law Legislation?," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 113-124, March.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpit:0504003. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (EconWPA)

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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.