Raiders of the lost jewel (in the Crown)

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1108/JITLP-11-2015-0034
Pages106-111
Published date21 September 2015
Date21 September 2015
AuthorPetros C. Mavroidis
Subject MatterStrategy,International business,International business law
GUEST EDITORIAL
Raiders of the lost jewel
(in the Crown)
Petros C. Mavroidis
Columbia Law School, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to offer an overview of papers in the WTO @ 20 collection.
Design/methodology/approach – An overview of the papers in the WTO @ 20 collection, complete
with a personal perspective on the continuing relevance of the organization.
Findings – This paper adds further support to the notion that the compliance rate with the WTO
dispute settlement system and the “quality” of judgments handed down require greater study and less
impressionistic reporting.
Originality/value – This paper positions the papers in the WTO @ 20 collection in their appropriate
context.
Keywords WTO, Dispute settlement, WTO judgments
Paper type Research paper
1. The Jewel in the Crown (who designed it?)
At the end of the Uruguay Round, the advent of the Dispute Settlement Understanding
(DSU) was celebrated as a major achievement, a turning point in the manner in which
international litigation occurs, and rightly so. The framers managed to put in place a
compulsory third-party adjudication system, where all disputes between members,
whether big or small, wealthy or poor, would always be resolved by impartial courts, and
not through gun diplomacy. The DSU is, when seen from this perspective, an oddity in
international relations.
Hudec (1993), in his monumental study of general agreement on tariffs and trade
(GATT), explained why we were experiencing the culmination of an incremental
process, and not a paradigm shift that occurred from one day to the other. Jackson
(1997) provided support for this argument and re-iterated the impact that the rule of
law (also shaped through case law) has had and would continue to have on the
shaping of the international trading regime.
The world trading community has de facto been living since 1947 in the world it
has been living since 1995 with the advent of the DSU. Still, the change from de facto
to de jure compulsory third-party adjudication should not be underestimated. For
one, parties anticipating a probable refusal might have avoided requesting the
establishment of a panel anyway. This is an issue that, alas, is difcult to measure,
but an issue anyway. In practice, only once did a defendant formally refuse a request
to establish a panel between 1947 and 1994. This was the rst Hormones dispute,
when the European Union (EU) and the USA could not agree on the composition of
the panel, and the EU refused to see its dispute litigated by a panel as a result. Credit
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1477-0024.htm
JITLP
14,3
106
Journalof International Trade Law
andPolicy
Vol.14 No. 3, 2015
pp.106-111
©Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1477-0024
DOI 10.1108/JITLP-11-2015-0034

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT