Search results

This paper aims to examine changes in the jurisprudence of the World Trade Organization Appellate Body in three areas of law (judicial economy, the identification of the measure to be examined under Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and other duties and import charges), and concludes that the Appellate Body failed to acknowledge and cogently explain in each of these areas, the changes it made.

The paper asks two key questions: what has the Appellate Body done when its own rulings in past cases stood in the way of a legally sound ruling in a new case, and how should it handle such instances in the future?

The paper concludes that all changes in jurisprudence reduce predictability, but that predictability suffers even more when the changes are made in disguise because panels and Members then receive confused or conflicting normative signals.

The paper argues that the Appellate Body should seek consistency of jurisprudence wherever possible. It should handle changes in jurisprudence more transparently and adopt internal procedures that make the need for them less likely.

The purpose of this paper is to examine zeroing jurisprudence under the WTO’s Anti-Dumping Agreement and to see if the jurisprudence can still be applied to situations of targeted dumping where dumping takes place in a specific region, at specific timing, or for specific consumer groups.

This paper examines the prior decisions of the WTO panels and the Appellate Body relating to the zeroing practice. It categorizes the key elements of these prior decisions where the zeroing practice has been found WTO-inconsistent. While there has been no specific dispute addressing targeted dumping per se, this paper proves that core elements of the zeroing practice have been anatomized and dissected by the panels and the Appellate Body in prior proceedings. The paper then analyzes whether these key elements still exist in the specific context of targeted dumping and thus whether application of zeroing is still prohibited in targeted dumping situations.

The existing jurisprudence on zeroing from previous WTO disputes should apply to targeted dumping situations as well. Unbridled application of zeroing in the targeted dumping situations will effectively nullify the existing zeroing jurisprudence accumulated through a decade of WTO disputes. If unchecked, this calculation methodology in the context of targeted dumping may open the back door wide open for “zeroing” negative anti-dumping margins. The paper concludes that the existing jurisprudence on zeroing stands for the proposition that zeroing in targeted dumping should also be prohibited.

This paper examines the legality of the zeroing practice in targeted dumping situations, which has been one of the most controversial issues among WTO members for the past several years. The analyses and discussions contained in this paper will provide legal guideline to evaluate zeroing in targeted dumping within the WTO framework. The outcome of the research will provide a platform for continued research and discussion in this area.

When genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were put into the international trade, people in many countries, especially European countries, became skeptical of them. A perception developed that they are harmful to human, animal, plant life and health, and destructive to the environment. It is true that if there is no safe use of genetically modified living organisms (LMOs), other species might be affected causing loss to the environment. So as to ensure safe use of LMOs and GMOs, the Cartagena Protocol and the SPS Agreement were, respectively, made. The purpose of this paper is to critically examine both the legal instruments and to explore ways to make them co‐existent, so that human, animal, plant life and health, and the environment are protected without affecting the international trade in LMOs and GMOs.

This paper undertakes a critical examination of the issues surrounding GMOs and LMOs.

The Cartagena Protocol and the SPS Agreement serve two different purposes. It is for this reason that some of their provisions are not co‐extensive. But the conflict in them can be resolved. It is suggested that the provisions pertaining to the precautionary principle of the SPS Agreement should be brought in line with that of the Cartagena Protocol. It is also suggested that importing countries should conduct their own risk assessment preferably by following the CODEX procedure. In no case, risk assessment done by producing companies should be taken as conclusive.

If suggestions offered by the paper are followed, the two will then protect the human, animal and plant health and the environment in the best possible way.

For achieving its object, the paper presents a comparative assessment of the cases decided under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Discussions on the appropriate international regime to govern trade in biofuels are in their infancy. However, a large number of countries have set minimum blending targets for biofuels. Meeting these targets will require greater production and increased international trade in biofuels. Concerns exist as to whether unsustainable practices will be used to satisfy this growing demand. There is currently no multilateral agreement governing sustainable production and trade in biofuels. In the absence of an international framework, this paper will seek to demonstrate that concerned countries may unilaterally regulate imports of unsustainably produced biofuels in a way that is consistent with international trade rules. Unilateral regulation is to be understood as a stop gap until multilateral agreement can be reached on the interaction between trade in biofuels and issues of sustainability.

The paper aims to examine whether the panel and parties of China – Intellectual Property Rights could have applied the general principle of necessity developed under Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and Article XIV of the General Agreement on Trade in Services. This paper specifically seeks to examine applicability of the general principle of necessity in the World Trade Organization (WTO) tribunal's analysis of the provisions of the Berne Convention, which is incorporated by Article 9 of the Trade‐related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement.

The paper performs a series of documentary/archival research and case studies of the jurisprudence and interpretative methods of the WTO adjudicative bodies.

The general principle of necessity in WTO jurisprudence is applicable when a measure taken by a WTO member is inconsistent with WTO provisions, the measure is highly relevant to the sovereignty of the WTO member, the WTO member seeks to justify the measure by applying one of the exceptions articulated in the WTO Agreements, and the relevant language of necessity exists in the exception provisions. If these requirements are met, the general principle of necessity would be applicable to other provision of WTO Agreements, including Article 17 of the Berne Convention incorporated by Article 9 of the TRIPS Agreement, provided that the parties of the dispute raise the defense in their arguments.

By examining the application of the general principle of necessity and its relevance to sovereignty in one of the most recent disputes in the WTO, this paper analyzes a decision that could have considerable impacts on the jurisprudence of future disputes regarding enforcement of intellectual property rights in the WTO regime.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the success of the world trade organisation (WTO) dispute settlement system and its transferability to other fora.

The paper compares the design and case law of trade and investment law, and seeks lessons for the settlement of trade and investment disputes in other fora.

It concludes that despite its shortcomings, the WTO Appellate Body provides vital stability regarding legal interpretations, something notably absent from other fora.

The paper offers the perspective of a former Member and Chairman of the WTO Appellate Body on the success of the dispute settlement system.

This paper seeks to provide an in‐depth discussion on the impact of agricultural biotechnology in developing and least developed countries (LDCs) as well as the concomitant biosafety concerns that might have an impact on trade and the environment whilst highlighting the importance of choosing development pathways that are conducive to the specific needs of these nations without endangering the biodiversity and affecting people's health.

The paper adopts a socio‐legal approach by undertaking a content analysis of decided cases, relevant treaties and existing studies conducted in areas related to agricultural biotechnology within the framework of sustainable development imperatives.

The paper suggests that developing countries venturing into agricultural biotechnology need to enrich the technology according to their needs and capabilities in order to be able to weigh the benefits against the risks in the production and import of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) specifically via the implementation of the “precautionary principle” and viable “risk assessment” techniques which conform to their existing international law obligations in view of the findings that most of these nations have not formulated adequate legal and institutional frameworks supported with the necessary expertise to regulate, monitor, and ensure safety of agricultural GMOs produced and/or imported by them.

The issues and suggestions in this paper will enable the development process of developing and least developed economies to conform to the tenets of sustainable development and minimize the loss of Earth's biodiversity.

The paper is of practical use to stakeholders and policymakers alike venturing into agricultural biotechnology. It pools the findings of a cross‐section of studies to look at the implications therein and the arising biosafety and trade issues with special reference to developing and LDCs.

The purpose of this paper is to review the use of zeroing in the weighted average-to-transaction (W-T) comparison methodology and targeted dumping under the anti-dumping agreement by reviewing the WTO appellate body’s rulings on the use of zeroing in the W-T comparison methodology in the USA – anti-dumping measures on large residential washers from Korea (DS464). Although the appellate body has ruled that the use of zeroing would not be allowed in the weighted-average-to-weighted-average comparison methodology nor in the transaction-to-transaction comparison methodology, it has not ruled on whether the use of zeroing is allowed in the W-T comparison methodology prior to the instant case.

This paper mainly analyzes the WTO appellate body report on the USA – anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from Korea’s rulings (DS464) and reviews other WTO appellate body reports on the use of zeroing in anti-dumping measures. This paper reviews the relevant provisions of the WTO anti-dumping agreement and the US Anti-Dumping Act, and also referred prior papers on the use of zeroing.

The appellate body upheld the panel’s finding that the USA’s use of zeroing in the W-T comparison methodology is inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the anti-dumping agreement. As zeroing inflates dumping margins, increases the amount of duty collected, and hinders the expansion of trade in goods. The use of zeroing should be prohibited or permitted only in very limited circumstances.

Zeroing, which has been the subject of many WTO disputes between the USA and foreign governments, causes dumped sales to be masked by fair value. The WTO appellate body has consistently condemned the US practice of zeroing over the past decade as an unfair commerce practice. The instant case and this paper will help to stop the practice of zeroing in anti-dumping measures.

The text of Article 2.4.2 does not clearly prohibit the use of zeroing. The paper reviews the WTO appellate body’s rulings on the use of zeroing in the W-T comparison methodology in the USA – anti-dumping measures on large residential washers from Korea (DS464). The appellate body report was very recently circulated, on September 9, 2016. The appellate body has not ruled on whether the use of zeroing is allowed in the W-T comparison methodology prior to the instant case. This paper, first, concludes that the W-T comparison methodology is inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the anti-dumping agreement.

This paper aims to reflect on the first 20 years of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body’s jurisprudence, specifically as it relates to questions of normative fragmentation. It provides an overview of some of the highlights of the WTO’s jurisprudence as it pertains to fragmentation, with particular focus on the use of general public international law in the context of the WTO dispute settlement.

The paper adopts a traditional interpretive legal method, applied to the case law of the WTO.

The paper suggests that the Appellate Body’s approach has not been driven by the institutional myopia and normative closure of which they are sometimes accused, but rather a judicial sensibility which (rightly or wrongly) valorises the virtues of modesty, caution and self-restraint.

The paper contributes to the literature on the causes of fragmentation, drawing attention in particular to the importance of international lawyers and tribunals in contributing to fragmentation, not just responding to it. The fragmentation of international law is, in part, the product of ongoing boundary work, and the “fragmentation jurisprudence” of the Appellate Body has predictably involved boundary work of a particularly intense kind.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the current proposals for reform of the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement system. Two areas of proposed reforms have been chosen: one is regarding democratic control over the WTO dispute settlement body and the other is regarding structural balance within the WTO.

It is a theoretical study based on decided cases, opinions and writing of other writers.

Democratizing a judicial body from within is not the most desirable method to control it. Separation of powers and checks and balances which is termed as institutional balance in WTO is a better way to rein in the judicial organ of the WTO.

Most of the work on WTO judicial reforms have either concentrated on technical aspects. Some writers have written about the dispute settlement system from a political point of view. Most of the writings seem to be shy of pointing towards obvious developments in the WTO dispute settlement system, e.g. the precedent system. The work analyses the proposed reforms from two perspectives and presents writer’s opinion on them which is clearly and openly stated.