Search results

Previous research on the success of the WTO dispute-settlement system may miscalculate the true benefits of the dispute process due to the nature of the datasets used. Approximately 33 percent of all disputes filed at the WTO are classified as pending or inactive and thus omitted from most studies. Further investigation reveals that many of these inactive cases were actually settled by the countries involved or considered in a similar WTO dispute, and, as a result, no further WTO action was taken. This suggests that the WTO dispute settlement process may be more effective in resolving disputes than otherwise thought. For those disputes not successfully resolved, I empirically estimate why countries may choose to initiate WTO dispute settlement action but fail to follow through, thus allowing the offending party to continue with the alleged WTO illegal activities. The results suggest that developing countries are less likely to resolve their complaints in the WTO dispute settlement system, a troubling implication for the equity of the system.

We survey several of the theoretical models that have been applied to the analysis of the GATT/WTO dispute settlement process. These include repeated game models, which emphasize the punishment aspect of dispute settlement, and incomplete contracting models, which emphasize the “gap-filling” aspect. Our analysis emphasizes the implications of these models for the strengthening of the dispute settlement process under the WTO and for its application to the TRIPS agreement. We also discuss how models of settlement bargaining can be applied to obtain empirical predictions about which cases will actually proceed to an actual finding by the dispute panel.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate differences among member groups, with more detailed division of groups than the existing literatures, during the WTO’s dispute settlement procedures.

Trade disputes requested through the WTO’s DSU regimes up until 2011 were statistically described and analyzed using logit regression models.

Despite capacity gaps, developing nations have encountered stronger legal challenges from the US and, although without much capacity gaps, similar patterns of litigation rivalries between the US and other advanced countries, with the exception of the EU, have been also found during dispute settlements in the WTO regimes.

Although the DSU procedures themselves might not be biased for/against certain member groups, there has been some evidence of the struggles of weaker opponent groups of the US during the actual litigation processes.

Power dominances of the US against developing nations as well as developed nations, other than the EU, have been neglected in many previous researches on the topic with a simple developed-developing dichotomy classification.

We first discuss what fairness may mean in the context of the dispute settlement process, noting the crucial relation between fairness in dispute settlement and the functioning of the trading system as a whole. We explore this relation further through an analysis of three main groups of dispute settlement cases. These are cases that turn around the question of defining fair competition; cases that arise from the use of contingency measures; and cases that draw the boundaries between domestic regulatory measures and the trade-related norms and rules of the WTO. There follows an analysis of experience with compliance and with the use of countermeasures in various cases. Finally, taking together the rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body and the procedures for compliance and the use of countermeasures, we conclude that while the present dispute settlement process serves to protect the fairness of the trading system as a whole, there are some aspects of dispute settlement that remain problematic from the standpoint of fairness.

This chapter provides a theoretical framework of dispute settlement to explain the surge in blocking incidence of GATT panel reports during the 1980s and the variations in withdrawn incidence versus total disputes across different decades of the GATT regime. The study first suggests the role of the degree of legal controversy over a panel ruling in determining countries' incentives to block (appeal) a panel report under the GATT (WTO) regime. The study then analyzes the effects of political power on countries' incentives to use, and their interactions in using, the dispute settlement mechanism, given two-sided asymmetric information regarding panel judgement.

In this article, we focus on alternative dispute resolution procedures, in particular third party procedures. We describe eight different procedures and provide examples of how these procedures are used in different cultural contexts. We then evaluate the procedures in terms of how they impact four key criteria that have been noted in the literature related to negotiation: process criteria, settlement criteria, issue-related criteria, and relationship criteria. We subsequently explore the potential impact of culture on evaluations of these criteria. We finish with a discussion of future directions for research and practice, emphasizing that procedural recommendations should be made carefully when the criteria for effectiveness and applicability are derived from US-centric research. In other words, there is not “one best choice” for third party procedures universal to the myriad cultures on our planet.

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

This theme will be addressed through main points: Special Nature of Investment Disputes and its methods of peaceful settlement. International legal framework governing Arbitration in investment disputes: A. Multilateral legal framework. B. Bilateral legal framework/Investment promotion and protection agreementsTypes of arbitration in investment disputes. The Egyptian experience in investment disputes arbitration. The National legal framework. Egypt on the map of investment disputes in the world. A case study. Conclusion: Results related to the legal framework regulating investment disputes in Egypt. Results related to The arbitration cases against Egypt.

The researcher investigates the subject of international arbitration in investment disputes in the framework of voluntary theory, which is based on the premise that the satisfaction of people who are addressing the international legal norm is the basis of the same rule. In other words, the basis of international law is based on the satisfaction of the State and other international legal persons Both, and then express or implied consent.

Despite the availability of domestic and regional arbitration mechanisms in Egypt represented by a large number of cases.

The theme for the study primarily on Egypt and the international arbitration of investment disputes, through theoretical and practical study of disputes arbitration which Egypt is a party defendant in which to focus on what was issued in which the provisions of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes, in an attempt to find out the reasons for the verdicts image released it, where it came mostly against Egypt, and whether these judgments against them in investment disputes due to reasons related to the legal framework of the arbitration process, or for reasons of bodies of arbitration issued by those provisions, or to the defense, which represents the Egyptian party, or to the circumstances Economic and political (which represents the investment climate).

The proposed solutions to improve the conditions and factors surrounding the arbitration disputes that Egypt is waging against foreign investors, whether they are initially alleged or accused of drafting agreements and contracts, through amending the relevant legislation and laws, selecting arbitration bodies and defense bodies.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the critical issue of legal interpretation on the “development question” as they arise before WTO panels and Appellate Body, in view of the benefits inherent in a more‐rounded consideration of the development needs and concerns of WTO developing country Member States.

The introduction sets out the background to the challenges of developing countries in utilising the dispute settlement process effectively and using existing support. By analysing relevant cases, Section 2 analyses the “development question” and how it has been so far considered in legal interpretation. Section 3 addresses WTO jurisprudence on development, examining situations wherein “development” arises in the course of WTO dispute settlement. An examination as to how this aspect of WTO jurisprudence may be revisited including the potential aid of trade policy review mechanisms, and procedures for enforcement is then undertaken. It concludes on the position that the WTO judicial review process can work better by providing the much‐needed balance between binding global trade rules and the domestic progress of its developing country membership at the level of dispute settlement.

This paper establishes the importance of recognising and addressing the fact that core challenges and concerns facing developing countries can and should be factored into the legal interpretation of issues in dispute settlement.

A decisive enquiry into WTO development jurisprudence, this paper addresses developing country capacity to pursue the legal opportunities promised by the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, and how this can be redressed.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) is one of the best dispute settlement mechanisms in the world. Under WTO rules, aggrieved parties must establish a “prima facie” case before the panel can call on the offending party to respond to the claims. The objective of the present study is to critically evaluate the application of the concept of burden of proof under WTO dispute settlement mechanism.

The paper examines the rule of “prima facie” in WTO jurisprudence. To do so, the first part will focus on the development of dispute settlement within WTO. The second part is divided into several subsections that will focus on the burden of proof concept, burden of proof in common law, burden of proof in civil law and the prima facie standard.

The DSU does not explicitly regulate how to allocate the burden of proof, but panels and the AB needed to address that issue early in their history. Despite this, all aggrieved parties to establish a prima facie case before the case can become the subject of a panel hearing. There is a need to adopt a burden of proof standard that assesses evidence on the basis of preponderance of the available evidence rather than on the basis of a party’s failure to adduce evidence to back up or dispute a claim.

The paper is an attempt to address an important issue on the presentation of evidence and proof in international litigation, i.e. WTO.