Trade Justice at a Crossroads: Barriers and Bottlenecks in Dispute Settlement Mechanism of the World Trade Organization
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69971/lra.3.1.2025.55Keywords:
World Trade Organization (WTO), dispute, settlement, mechanism, limitation, tradeAbstract
It is well known that a global disagreement attracts greater attention than the national one, but a trade dispute is more sensitive and need more active consideration. Dispute settlement process of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is a distinctive feature exclusively designed to ensure trade equity and a proactive forum for resolving global trade issues. The World Trade Organization (WTO), which succeeded the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) framework, has been in the force in ensuring stability and efficiency in global commercial relations. As times evolve, global trade is increasingly intricate and linked; its boundaries are becoming more apparent. The dispute settlement process in World Trade Organization (WTO) is not outdated in its function; instead, it calls for modernization to address evolving demands and growing trade patterns. This study examines the structural and procedural dimensions while emphasizing certain practical restrictions, including the exclusion of non-governmental entities and the conditions for inclusion. The research emphasizes procedural issues and implementation inadequacies, suggesting modifications to improve its efficacy, flexibility, productivity, and legitimacy.
References
Alilovic, Robert.2000. Consultations Under the WTO’s Dispute settlement system consultations under the WTO’s dispute settlement system con-sultations under the wto’s dispute settlement system. Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies 9:279-301. https://digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca/djls/vol9/iss1/7/
Antoniadis, Antonis. 2002. Enhanced third party rights in the WTO dispute settlement understanding. Legal Issues of Economic Integration 29: 285–304. https://doi.org/10.54648/5108890
Baroncini, di Elisa. 2019. Resorting to article 25 of the DSU to overcome the WTO Crisis on the APPELLATE Body: The EU proposal for an interim appeal arbitration. DPCE Online 41: 2313-2327. https://doi.org/10.57660/DPCEONLINE.2019.821
Bartels, Lorand. 2001. Applicable law in WTO dispute settlement proceedings. Journal of World Trade 35: 499–519. https://doi.org/10.54648/352549
Behboodi, Ramboodi. 2000. ‘Should’ means ‘Shall’: a critical analysis of the obligation to submit information under article 13.1 of the DSU in the Canada - aircraft case. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=249369
Bronckers, Marco, Van den Broek Naboth. 2005. Financial compensation in the WTO: improving the remedies of WTO dispute settlement. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=915557
Busch, Marc L, Reinhardt Eric. 2000. Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Early Settlement in GATT/WTO Disputes. Fordham International Law Journal 24:157-172. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj/vol24/iss1/9/
Busch, Marc L, Reinhardt Eric. 2006. Three’s a crowd: third parties and WTO dispute settlement. World Politics 58: 446–477. https://doi.org/10.1353/WP.2007.0000
Cameron, James, Gray, Kevin R. 2001. Principles of International Law in The WTO Dispute Settlement Body. International & Comparative Law Quarterly 50: 248–298. https://doi.org/10.1093/ICLQ/50.2.248
Choi, Won-Mog. 2007. To comply or not to comply-non-implementation problems in the WTO dispute settlement system. Journal of World Trade 41: 1043–1071. https://doi.org/10.54648/TRAD2007040
Cook, Graham. 2018. Confidentiality and Transparency in the WTO’s Party-Centric Dispute Settlement System. In: Huerta-Goldman, J, Moli-na-Tejeda M (Eds.) Practical Aspects of WTO Litigation. Kluwer: UK. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3301863
Davey, William J. 2014. The WTO and rules-based dispute settlement: historical evolution, operational success, and future challenges. Journal of International Economic Law 17: 679–700. https://doi.org/10.1093/JIEL/JGU031
Debevoise, Whitney. 1998. Access to documents and panel and appellate body sessions: access to documents and panel and appellate body sessions: practice and suggestions for greater transparency practice and suggestions for greater transparency access to documents and panel and appellate body sessions: practice and suggestions for greater transparency. International Lawyer 32:817. https://scholar.smu.edu/til/vol32/iss3/16
Dhlamini, Phumelele Tracy. 2021. The World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body crisis: A critical analysis. Master’s Thesis, University of Cape Town, South Africa. http://hdl.handle.net/11427/33713
Fukunaga, Yuka. 2006. Securing compliance through the WTO dispute settlement system: implementation of DSB recommendations. Journal of International Economic Law 9: 383–426. https://doi.org/10.1093/JIEL/JGL007
Goh, Alexis. 2001. The WTO dispute settlement system - The Lamb Meat Case". Australian International Law Journal 10: 208-243. https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/journals/AUIntLawJl/2001/10.html
Davey, William. J. 2005. Defending Interests: Public-Private Partnerships in WTO Litigation. In: Gregory C. Shaffer (Eds). Brookings Institution Press, Washington D.C.: USA. https://doi.org/10.2307/3246138
Grimmett, Jeanne J. 2011. WTO Dispute Settlement: Status of U.S. Compliance in Pending Cases. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc99081/
Iida, Keisuke. 2004. Is WTO dispute settlement effective? Global Governance 10: 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-01002006
Ali, Asim Imdad. 2003. Non-Compliance and Ultimate Remedies under the WTO Dispute Settlement System. Journal of Public and International Affairs 14:1-22. https://oar.princeton.edu/bitstream/88435/pr1jd4pp86/1/2003-1.pdf
Reinisch, August, Christina Irgel. 2001. The participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the WTO dispute settlement system. Non-State Actors and International Law 1:127–151. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718070121003482
Islam, M. Rafiqul. 2006. International trade law of the WTO. Oxford University Press, London: UK. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/international-trade-law-of-the-wto-9780195553284
Jackson, Jh. 1998. Dispute settlement and the WTO. Journal of International Economic Law 1: 329–351. https://doi.org/10.1093/JIEL/1.3.329
Kobayashi, Tomohiko. 2020. The use of Panel Process to improve the function of The Appellate Body: a proposal to utilize the Expert Review Group. In: Lo, Chang-fa, Nakagawa Junji, Chen Tsai-fang (Eds.) The Appellate Body of the WTO and Its Reform. Springer, Singapore. 199–https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0255-2_12
Konken, Lauren C. 2018. Silence is Golden? Revisiting Third Party Participation in World Trade Organization Litigation. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_status_e.htm
Leitner, Kara, Lester Simon. 2004. WTO dispute settlement 1995–2003: a statistical analysis. Journal of International Economic Law 7: 169-181. https://doi.org/10.1093/JIEL/7.1.169
Liu, Yuhao. 2023. On Retaliation Measures in the WTO Dispute Settlement System. Revista Jurídica Editora Mizuno 2:1-22. https://editoramizuno.emnuvens.com.br/revista/article/view/35/25
Marceau, Gabrielle.1998. Rules on ethics for the new World Trade Organization dispute settlement mechanism – the rules of conduct for the under-standing on rules and procedures governing the settlement of disputes. Journal of World Trade 32:57–97. https://doi.org/10.54648/TRAD1998021
McCall Smith, James. 2006. Compliance bargaining in the WTO: Ecuador and the bananas dispute. In: Odell John S. (Ed.) Negotiating Trade: Developing Countries in the WTO and NAFTA. Cambridge University Press, London: UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491610.008
Mehndiratta, Avantika, Agarwal Khushi, Yadav Rajiv, Maheshwari Shruti. 2021. Viability of article 25 DSU to solve the appellate body crisis. International Economic Law Practicum. https://tradelab.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CTIL-TradeLab-NLU-Jodhpur.pdf
Mercurio, Bryn. 2003. The Australian contribution to the jurisprudence of the WTO dispute settlement process. International Trade Law Journal 12:43. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/curritlj12&id=45&div=&collection=
Mercurio, Bryn. 2009. Why compensation cannot replace trade retaliation in the WTO dispute settlement understanding. World Trade Review 8 : 315–338). https://ssrn.com/abstract=1389196
Oesch, Matthias. 2003. Standards of review in WTO dispute resolution. Journal of International Economic Law 6: 635–659. https://doi.org/10.1093/JIEL/6.3.635
Petersmann, Ernest-Ulrich, Ortino, Federico. 2004. The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995-2003. https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/2300
Owen, Scott C. 2000. Might a future tuna embargo withstand a WTO challenge in light of the recent shrimp-turtle ruling. Houston Journal of In-ternational Law 23:123. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/hujil23&id=131&div=&collection=
Palmeter, David, Mavroidis, Petros C, Meagher, Nall. 2022. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization. Cambridge University Press, London: UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108908009
Pauwelyn, Joost. 2002. The use of experts in WTO dispute settlement. International & Comparative Law Quarterly 51:325–364. https://doi.org/10.1093/ICLQ/51.2.325
Puls, Bret. 1999. The murky waters of international environmental jurisprudence: a critique of recent WTO holdings in the shrimp/turtle controversy. Minnesota Journal of Global Trade B:343-379. https://minnjil.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Bret-Puls_-The-Murky-Waters-of-International-Environmental-Jurisprudence-A-Critique-of-Recent-WTO-Holdings-in-the-Shrimp-Turtle-Controversy.pdf
Poswal, Sumit Raj, Kumar Rakesh. 2022. A critique on dispute settlement under WTO Regime. Specialusis Ugdymas 1: 4538–4546. http://sumc.lt/index.php/se/article/view/552
Reich, Arie. 2017. The effectiveness of the WTO dispute settlement system: a statistical analysis. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2997094
Rosas, A. 2001. Implementation and enforcement of WTO dispute settlement findings: an EU perspective. Journal of International Economic Law 4:131-144. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/4.1.131
Sacerdoti, Giorgio. 2019. The WTO in 2018: systemic developments, disputes and review of the appellate body’s reports. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3392194
Sahani, Victoria Shannon. 2016. Judging third-party funding. UCLA Law Review 63:1-54. https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlufac/499
Sakmar, Susan L. 1999. Free trade and sea turtles: the international and domestic implications of the shrimp-turtles case. Colorado Journal of In-ternational Environmental Law and Policy 10:347-351. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1989186
Schaefer, Matthew. 2012. National review of WTO dispute settlement reports: in the name of sovereignty or enhanced WTO Rule Compliance? Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development 11:307-350. https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/jcred/vol11/iss2/3
Schuyler, Glen T. 1997. Power to the people: allowing private parties to raise claims before the WTO dispute resolution system. Fordham Law Review 65:2275-2311.https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol65/iss5/9
Secretariat, W. T. O. 2017. A Handbook on the WTO Dispute Settlement System. Cambridge University Press, London: UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108265423
Shell, G Richard. 1996. The trade stakeholders’ model and participation by nonstate parties in the World Trade Organization (participation of non-governmental parties in the World Trade Organization). University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 17:1995-1996. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/jil/vol17/iss1/12
Shepherd, Joanna M, Stone Judd E. 2015. Economic conundrums in search of a solution: the functions of third-party litigation finance. Arizona State Law Journal 47:919-960. https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/faculty-articles/270
Shoraka, Shahram.2006. World Trade Dispute Resolution and developing countries: Taking a development approach to fair adjudication in the context of WTO law. PhD Thesis. London School of Economics, London: UK. https://etheses.lse.ac.uk/1962/1/U230917.pdf
Shoyer, Andrew W. 2003. Panel selection in WTO dispute settlement proceedings. Journal of International Economic Law 6:203–209. https://doi.org/10.1093/JIEL/6.1.203
Smith, James McCall. 2003. WTO dispute settlement: the politics of procedure in Appellate Body rulings. World Trade Review 2: 65–100. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745603001356
Steinbach, Armin. 2009. The DSU interim review—need for its elimination or extension to the appellate body stage? Journal of International Economic Law 12: 417–434. https://doi.org/10.1093/JIEL/JGP018
Steinitz, Maya.2010. Whose claim is this anyway? Third party litigation funding. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1586053
Tarullo, Daniel K. 2005. The hidden costs of international dispute settlement: WTO review of domestic anti-dumping decisions. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.351080
Trachtman, Joel P, Moremen P. M. 2003. Costs and benefits of private participation in WTO Dispute Settlement: whose right is it anyway. Harvard International Law Journal 44:221-250. https://fletcher.tufts.edu/faculty-research/research-publications/costs-and-benefits-private-participation-wto-dispute-settlement-whose-right-it-anyway
Valles, Cherise. 2018. Different forms of expert involvement in WTO dispute settlement proceedings. Journal of International Dispute Settlement 9: 367-378. https://doi.org/10.1093/JNLIDS/IDY010
Wagner, Markus. 2020. Panel: dispute settlement system of the World Trade Organization (WTO). SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3644759
Zhang, Qi. 2007. Consultation within WTO Dispute Settlement: A Chinese Perspective. Peter Lang, New York: USA. https://www.peterlang.com/document/1102519
Zimmermann, A Thomas. 2006. The DSU review (1998-2004): negotiations, problems and perspectives. MPRA Paper. https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/4800.html
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Legal Research & Analysis
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
