Denna webbplats lagrar cookies i begränsad omfattning. Genom att besöka sidan, godkänner du villkoren i vår integritetspolicy. Läs mer

WTO Dispute Settlement: Time to Take Stock

Five Scenarios in Search for a Director. WTO Judges, Their Terms of References, Scope of Competence, Remedies they Proscribe, and the Consequences for the Addressees

Bokkapitel
Referens
Johannesson, Louise och Petros C. Mavroidis (2017). ”Five Scenarios in Search for a Director. WTO Judges, Their Terms of References, Scope of Competence, Remedies they Proscribe, and the Consequences for the Addressees”. I Jacques H. J. Bourgeois, Marco Bronckers och Reinhard Quick (red.), WTO Dispute Settlement: Time to Take Stock (121–143). Brussels: P.I.E. Peter Lang. doi.org/10.3726/b11187

Författare
Louise Johannesson, Petros C. Mavroidis

Redaktör
Jacques H. J. Bourgeois, Marco Bronckers, Reinhard Quick

The WTO has been lauded for its unique dispute settlement system. Its uniqueness lies primarily in that it is the most comprehensive “compulsory third party” adjudication regime in international relations. No other regime of this breadth exists in state to state relations. Without assigning a cause to effect relationship, we point to factors that might be further researched in order to show to what extent they constitute prerequisites for emulating compulsory third party adjudication. Pragmatic judgments constitute a factor to be reckoned with. WTO judges are typically “Geneva crowd”, and they feel comfortable with judgments that do not prejudge too much national sovereignty. The institution is further happy to talk compliance up, using proxies rather than accurate information to this effect.