Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T16:46:01.659Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jurisprudential developments on the purpose of WTO suspension of obligations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 September 2013

JAIME TIJMES
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines World Trade Organization (WTO) jurisprudence on the question as to if the purpose of suspending concessions or other obligations is to induce compliance, to rebalance concessions, or both. WTO jurisprudence on this issue can be systematized into three steps. First, inducing compliance is the general purpose of suspension as complaining parties have the right to request the authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations as long as they meet the requirements spelled out in the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding. The second step relates to the level of suspension. In general, WTO jurisprudence has accorded a higher hierarchy to the purpose of rebalancing concessions or other obligations, with some exceptions made regarding disputes on prohibited subsidies and diachronically variable suspension levels. As a third step, WTO jurisprudence has bestowed complaining Members freedom concerning the suspension's content, so as to induce the defending party to comply. Keeping these three steps in mind will hopefully make understanding WTO jurisprudence on suspension of concessions or other obligations easier.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 1 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © Jaime Tijmes 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Araki, I. (2004), ‘Comment on Fritz Breuss “WTO Dispute Settlement: An Economic Analysis of Four EU–US Mini Trade Wars” ’, Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 4(4): 345–364.Google Scholar
Barton, J. H., Goldstein, J. L., Josling, T. E., and Steinberg, R. H. (2006), The Evolution of the Trade Regime, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bello, J. H. (1996), ‘The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding: Less Is More’, American Journal of International Law, 90: 416–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brand, R. A. (1993), ‘Competing Philosophies of GATT Dispute Resolution in the Oilseeds Case and the Draft Understanding on Dispute Settlement’, Journal of World Trade, 27(6): 117–144.Google Scholar
Breuss, F. (2004), ‘WTO Dispute Settlement: An Economic Analysis of Four EU–US Mini Trade Wars – A Survey’, Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 4(4): 275–315.Google Scholar
Carmody, C. (2002), ‘Remedies and Conformity under the WTO Agreement’, Journal of International Economic Law, 5(2): 307–329.Google Scholar
Cavalier, G. A. (1999), ‘A Call for Interim Relief at the WTO Level: Dispute Settlement and International Trade Diplomacy’, World Competition, 22(3): 103–139.Google Scholar
Charnovitz, S. (2001), ‘Rethinking WTO Trade Sanctions’, American Journal of International Law, 95: 792–832.Google Scholar
Charnovitz, S. (2002a), ‘Should the Teeth be Pulled? An Analysis of WTO Sanctions’, in Kennedy, D. L. M. and Southwick, J. D. (eds.), The Political Economy of International Trade Law: Essays in Honor of Robert E. Hudec, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 602–635.Google Scholar
Charnovitz, S. (2002b), ‘The WTO's Problematic “Last Resort” Against Noncompliance’, Aussenwirtschaft, 57(4): 409–439.Google Scholar
Damrosch, L. F. (1980), ‘Retaliation or Arbitration – or Both? The 1978 United States–France Aviation Dispute’, American Journal of International Law, 74(4): 785–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davey, W. J. (2005), ‘The WTO Dispute Settlement System: The First Ten Years’, Journal of International Economic Law, 8(1): 17–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Bièvre, D. (2002), ‘Redesigning the Virtuous Circle: Two Proposals for World Trade Organization Reform’, Journal of World Trade, 36(5): 1005–1013.Google Scholar
Drezner, D. (1999), The Sanctions Paradox: Economic Statecraft and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ehring, L. (2010), ‘The European Community's Experience and Practice in Suspending WTO Obligations’, in Bown, C. P. and Pauwelyn, J. (eds.), The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 244–266.Google Scholar
Ethier, W. J. (2004), ‘Intellectual Property Rights and Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization’, Journal of International Economic Law, 7(2): 449–457.Google Scholar
Ford, R. A. (2002), ‘The Beef Hormone Dispute and Carousel Sanctions: A Roundabout Way of Forcing Compliance with WTO Decisions’, Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 27(2): 543–573.Google Scholar
Fukunaga, Y. (2006), ‘Securing Compliance through the WTO Dispute Settlement System: Implementation of DSB Recommendations’, Journal of International Economic Law, 9(2): 383–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GATT (1951a), ‘Item 30 – Import Restrictions of Dairy Products into the United States of America’, Memorandum submitted by the Netherlands Delegation, GATT/CP.6/26, 19 September 1951.Google Scholar
GATT (1951b), ‘Item 30 – Import Restrictions of Dairy Products into the United States of America’, Memorandum submitted by the Netherlands Delegation, Press Release GATT/39, 24 September 1951.Google Scholar
GATT (1951c), ‘Restriction on Import of Dairy Products into the United States’, Statement by the Netherlands Delegate, Dr. H. van Blankenstein, Press Release GATT/41, 24 September 1951.Google Scholar
GATT (1952), ‘Summary Record of the Seventeenth Meeting’, GATT/SR.7/17, 12 November 1952.Google Scholar
GATT (1955), ‘Ninth Session – Report of Review Working Party IV on Organizational and Functional Questions’, GATT/L/327/Rev.1, 4 April 1955.Google Scholar
GATT (1988a), ‘Minutes of Meeting Held in the Centre William Rappard on 4 May 1988’, GATT/C/M/220, 8 June 1988.Google Scholar
GATT (1988b), ‘Minutes of Meeting Held in the Centre William Rappard on 22 September 1988’, GATT/C/M/224, 17 October 1988.Google Scholar
Goh, G. and Ziegler, A. R. (2003), ‘Retrospective Remedies in the WTO after Automotive Leather’, Journal of International Economic Law, 6(3): 545–564.Google Scholar
Grossman, G. M. and Sykes, A. O. (2011), ‘“Optimal” Retaliation in the WTO: A Commentary on the Upland Cotton Arbitration’, World Trade Review, 10(1): 133–164.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1961), The Concept of Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, second edition, 1994.Google Scholar
Horlick, G. (1995), ‘Dispute Resolution Mechanism: Will the United States Play by the Rules?’, Journal of World Trade, 29(2): 163–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudec, R. (1990), The GATT Legal System and World Trade Diplomacy, Salem: Butterworth Legal Publishers, second edition.Google Scholar
International Law Commission (1966), ‘Reports of the Commission to the General Assembly’, Document A/6309/Rev.l, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Volume II, New York: United Nations, pp. 169–361.Google Scholar
Irwin, D. A. and Weiler, J. (2008), ‘ Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services (DS 285)’, World Trade Review, 7(1): 71–113.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. H. (1967), ‘The Puzzle of GATT: Legal Aspects of a Surprising Institution’, Journal of World Trade, 1(2): 131–161.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. H. (1997a), The World Trading System, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. H. (1997b), ‘The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding – Misunderstanding on the Nature of Legal Obligation’, American Journal of International Law, 91: 63.Google Scholar
Josling, T. (2004), ‘WTO Dispute Settlement and the EU–US Mini Trade Wars: A Commentary on Fritz Breuss’, Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 4(4): 337–344.Google Scholar
Jürgensen, T. (2005), ‘Crime and Punishment: Retaliation under the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement System’, Journal of World Trade, 39(2): 327–340.Google Scholar
Kerr, W. A. and Gaisford, J. D. (1994), ‘A Note on Increasing the Effectiveness of Sanctions’, Journal of World Trade, 28(6): 169–176.Google Scholar
Komuro, N. (2000), ‘The EC Banana Regime and Judicial Control’, Journal of World Trade, 34(5): 1–87.Google Scholar
Krmpotic, I. (2002), ‘Brazil – Aircraft: Qualitative and Temporal Aspects of “Withdrawal” under SCM Article 4.7’, Law and Policy in International Business, 33(4): 653–682.Google Scholar
Lawrence, R. Z. (2003), Crimes and Punishments? Retaliation under the WTO, Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
Lennard, M. (2002), ‘Navigating by the Stars: Interpreting the WTO Agreements’, Journal of International Economic Law, 5(1): 17–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M. K. (2006), ‘The Lack of Dissent in WTO Dispute Settlement’, Journal of International Economic Law, 9(4): 895–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mavroidis, P. C. (2000), ‘Remedies in the WTO Legal System: Between a Rock and a Hard Place’, European Journal of International Law, 11(4): 763–813.Google Scholar
McGivern, B. P. (2002), ‘Seeking Compliance with WTO Rulings: Theory, Practice and Alternatives’, The International Lawyer, 36(1): 141–157.Google Scholar
Mercurio, B. (2004), ‘Improving Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: The Dispute Settlement Understanding Review – Making It Work?’, Journal of World Trade, 38(5): 795–854.Google Scholar
Mitchell, A. D. (2006), ‘Proportionality and Remedies in WTO Disputes’, European Journal of International Law, 17(5): 985–1008.Google Scholar
Ortino, F. (2006), ‘Treaty Interpretation and the WTO Appellate Body Report in US– Gambling: A Critique’, Journal of International Economic Law, 9(1): 117–148.Google Scholar
Palmeter, D. and Alexandrov, S. A. (2002), ‘ “Inducing Compliance” in WTO Dispute Settlement’, in Kennedy, D. L. M. and Southwick, J. D. (eds.), The Political Economy of International Trade Law: Essays in Honor of Robert E. Hudec, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 646–666.Google Scholar
Parker, R. P. (1989), ‘Dispute Settlement in the GATT and the Canada–US Free Trade Agreement’, Journal of World Trade, 23(3): 83–93.Google Scholar
Pauwelyn, J. (2000), ‘Enforcement and Countermeasures in the WTO: Rules Are Rules – Toward a More Collective Approach’, The American Journal of International Law, 94: 335–347.Google Scholar
Pauwelyn, J. (2010), ‘The Calculation and Design of Trade Retaliation in Context: What Is the Goal of Suspending WTO Obligations?’, in Bown, C. P. and Pauwelyn, J. (eds.), The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 34–65.Google Scholar
Pérez Aznar, F. (2006), Countermeasures in the WTO Dispute Settlement System, Geneva: Graduate Institute of International Studies.Google Scholar
Pescatore, P. (1993), ‘The GATT Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Its Present Situation and its Prospects’, Journal of World Trade, 27(1): 5–20.Google Scholar
Renouf, Y. (2010), ‘From Bananas to Byrd: Damage Calculation Coming of Age?’, in Bown, C. P. and Pauwelyn, J. (eds.), The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 135–146.Google Scholar
Sacerdoti, G. (2010), ‘The Nature of WTO Arbitration on Retaliation’, in Bown, C. P. and Pauwelyn, J. (eds.), The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 23–33.Google Scholar
Sebastian, T. (2010), ‘The Law of Permissible WTO Retaliation’, in Bown, C. P. and Pauwelyn, J. (eds.), The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 89–127.Google Scholar
Shadikhodjaev, S. (2009), Retaliation in the WTO Dispute Settlement System, Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Shaffer, G. and Ganin, D. (2010), ‘Extrapolating Purpose from Practice: Rebalancing or Inducing Compliance’, in Bown, C. P. and Pauwelyn, J. (eds.), The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 73–85.Google Scholar
Spamann, H. (2006), ‘The Myth of “Rebalancing” Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement Practice’, Journal of International Economic Law, 9(1): 31–79.Google Scholar
Tijmes, J. (2006), ‘Parallel Reports in WTO Dispute Settlement’, Manchester Journal of International Economic Law, 10(2), forthcoming.Google Scholar
van Bael, I. (1988), ‘The GATT Dispute Settlement Procedure’, Journal of World Trade, 22(4): 67–77.Google Scholar
Vázquez, C. M. and Jackson, J. H. (2002), ‘Some Reflections on Compliance with WTO Dispute Settlement Decisions’, Law and Policy in International Business, 33(4): 555–567.Google Scholar
Waincymer, Jeff (2002), WTO Litigation, London: Cameron May.Google Scholar
WTO (2000), United States – Section 306 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Amendments Thereto – Request for Consultations by the European Communities, G/L/386 and WT/DS200/1, 13 June 2000.Google Scholar
WTO (2002a), Contribution of the European Communities and Its Member States to the Improvement of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, TN/DS/W/1, 13 March 2002.Google Scholar
WTO (2002b), Proposal to Review Article 22.7 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, TN/DS/W/3, 21 March 2002.Google Scholar
WTO (2002c), Negotiations on Improvements and Clarifications of the Dispute Settlement Understanding, TN/DS/W/8, 8 July 2002.Google Scholar
WTO (2003a), Negotiations on Improvements and Clarifications of the Dispute Settlement Understanding, TN/DS/W/34, 22 January 2003.Google Scholar
WTO (2003b), Contribution of the European Communities and Its Member States to the Improvement and Clarification of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, TN/DS/W/38, 23 January 2003.Google Scholar
WTO (2003c), Negotiations on Improvements and Clarifications of the Dispute Settlement Understanding, TN/DS/W/49, 17 February 2003.Google Scholar
WTO (2004), A Handbook on the WTO Dispute Settlement System, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
WTO (2009a), Appellate Body: Annual Report for 2008, WT/AB/11, 9 February 2009.Google Scholar
WTO (2009b), Dispute Settlement Body: Minutes of Meeting Held in the Centre William Rappard on 19 February 2009, WT/DSB/M/265, 29 April 2009.Google Scholar
WTO (2010), Appellate Body: Annual Report for 2010, WT/AB/13, 17 February 2010.Google Scholar
WTO (2011), Dispute Settlement Body: Minutes of Meeting Held in the Centre William Rappard on 1 June 2011, WT/DSB/M/297, 11 July 2011.Google Scholar
Wüger, D. (2002), ‘The Never Ending Story: The Implementation Phase in the Dispute between the EC and the United States on Hormone-treated Beef’, Law and Policy in International Business, 33(4): 777–825.Google Scholar
Yenkong, N. H. (2005), ‘The Role of Arbitrators in Determining Reasonable Period of Time and Retrospective Remedies in WTO Dispute Resolution: Beyond the Australia – Automotive Leather Panel’, The Journal of World Investment and Trade, 6(4): 611–634.Google Scholar