Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
The present chapter focuses on the question of whether the Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) included in the Pacific Alliance (PA), which comprises Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru, offers better and more effective guarantees, in the case of treaty breaches, than DSMs in other agreements between PA members. In other words, this chapter compares the PA’s DSM with the DSMs included in the bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) previously signed between its members, as well as with the World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU). This question arises because, despite the availability of multiple bilateral forums to solve commercial disputes, they appear useless. Experience has shown that States have preferred to appear before the WTO system, which has demonstrated a certain level of effectiveness that the bilateral DSUs had not. In this regard, this chapter will firstly focus on the relevant features of the PA’s DSM and compare them with the DSU. Secondly it will look at how the PA’s DSM interacts with the multilateral Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), in light of the importance of trade liberalization. Finally, conclusions are drawn regarding its relevance, taking into account the many overlapping international court systems in place, and how this situation could affect the implementation of the PA commercial Agreement by creating uncertainty among its members.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Additional Protocol to the Economic Complementation Agreement N°24 (Colombia and Chile Free Trade Agreement) entry into force May 8th 2009.
Additional Protocol to the Pacific Alliance Framework Agreement, entry into force May 1st 2016.
Economic Complementation Agreement N°33 (Colombia, Mexico and Venezuela Free Trade Agreement), entry into force January 1st 1995.
Economic Complementation Agreement N°41 (Mexico and Chile Free Trade Agreement), entry into force August 1st 1999.
Free Trade Agreement between Chile and Peru, entry into force March 1st 2009
Pacific Alliance Framework Agreement, signed on June 6 2012.
Trade Integration Agreement between Mexico and Peru, entry into force February 1st 2012.
Treaty Creating the Court of Justice of the Cartagena Agreement, entry into force on May 28 1979. Modified on May 28 of 1996.
Bertola, L., & Ocampo José, A. (2013). The economic development of Latin America since independence. Oxford: Oxford Uniersity Press.
Bhagwati, J. (2008). Termites in the trading system: How preferential agreements undermine free trade. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
Lester, S., et al. (2012). World trade law. Portland: Hart Publishing.
Matsushita, M., et al. (2015). The World Trade Organization. Law, practice, and policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
O’Keefe, T. (2008). Latin American and Caribbean trade agreements: Keys to a prosperous community of the Americas. London: Martinus Nijhoff.
Trebilcock, M., Robert, H., & Antonia, E. (2013). The regulation of international trade. London: Routledege.
Álvarez, J. (2005). Recomendaciones de Bogotá para la negociación de un tratado de libre comercio con Estados Unidos: asuntos constitucionales, institucionales, solución de diferencias, inversión y competencia (Alcaldía de Bogotá).
Crawford, J., & Fiorentino, R. (2005). The changing landscape of regional trade agreements (Discussion Paper N° 8).
World Trade Organization. World Trade Report 2011. The WTO and preferential trade agreements: From co-existence to coherence.
WTO. “SINGAPORE WTO MINISTERIAL 1996: MINISTERIAL DECLARATION” (WT/MIN(96)/DEC). 18 December 1996
WTO. “Doha WTO MINISTERIAL 2001: MINISTERIAL DECLARATION” (WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1). 20 November 2001
Aksar, Y. (2014). Towards global dispute settlement mechanisms in international economic law. In Y. Aksar (Ed.), Implementing international economic law (pp. 187–191). Leiden: BRILL.
Baldwin, R., & Freund, C. (2011). Preferential trade agreements and multilateral liberalization. In J.-P. Chauffour & J.-C. Maur (Eds.), Preferential trade agreement policies for development (pp. 121–141). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Baldwin, R. (2012). Preferential trading arrangements. In M. Daunton, A. Narlikar, & R. M. Stern (Eds.)., (eds.) The oxford handbook on the world trade organization (pp. 632–654). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davey, W. (2006). Dispute settlement in the WTO and RTAs: A comment. In L. Bartels & F. Ortino (Eds.), Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO Legal System (pp. 343–358). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
Elsig, M., et al. (2012). Dispute settlement mechanism. In M. Daunton, A. Narlikar, & R. M. Stern (Eds.), The Oxford handbook on the World Trade Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kwak, K., & Marceau, G. (2006). Overlaps and conflicts of jurisdiction between the World Trade Organization and regional trade agreements. In L. Bartels & F. Ortino (Eds.), Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO Legal System (pp. 465–524). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
Whalley, J. (1998). Why do countries seek regional trade agreements? In J. Frankel (Ed.), The regionalization of the world economy (pp. 63–90). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Barbee, I., & Lester, S. (2014). The TPP and the future of trade agreements. Latin American Journal of International Trade Law, 2, 207–225.
Brewster, R. (2006). Rule-based dispute resolution in international trade law. Virginia Law Review, 92, 251–288.
Caichiolo, C. (2016). International law and dispute settlement mechanism. Meridiano, 47(17), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.20889/M47e17016.
Creamer, C., & Godzirinska, Z. (2016). (De)Legitimization at the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 49, 275–321.
Guzman, A. (2002). The cost of credibility: Explaining resistance to interstate dispute resolution mechanisms. The Journal of Legal Studies, 31, 303–326. CrossRef
Hayter, R., & Edenhoffer, K. (2014). Trade disputes, dispute settlement mechanisms, and local development. The Professional Geographer, 66, 631–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2013.826559. CrossRef
Holbein, J., & Carpentier, G. (1993). Trade agreements and dispute settlement mechanisms in the western hemisphere. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 25, 531–569.
Jovanovic, M., & Damnajovic, J. (2015). Saving multilateralism in a higgledy-piggledy trading system. Journal of Economic Integration, 30, 29–65. CrossRef
Keohane, R., & Others. (2000). Legalized dispute resolution: Interstate and transnational. International Organization, 54, 457–488. CrossRef
Kono, D. (2007). Making anarchy work: International legal institutions and trade cooperation. Journal of Politics, 69, 746–759. CrossRef
Koremenos, B. (2007). If only half of international agreements have dispute resolution provisions, which half needs explaining? The Journal of Legal Studies, 36, 189–212. CrossRef
Vazquez López, R. (2011). Integración económica en América Latina: la visión teórica de la CEPAL confrontada con la evolución del proyecto en la región. Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science, 16, 107–118.
Bown, C. (2016). Mega-Regional Trade Agreements and the future of the WTO. Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Bown, C., & Others. (2014). What do we know about Preferential Trade Agreements and temporary trade barriers? (Policy Research Working Paper- World Bank 6898). CrossRef
Chauffour, J.-P., & Maur, J.-C. (2010). Beyond market access. The new normal of Preferential Trade Agreements. (Policy Research Working Paper-World Bank 5454). CrossRef
Crawford, J.-A., & Laird, S. (2000). Regional trade agreements and the WTO. Nottingham: Centre for Research in Economic Development and International Trade, University of Nottingham.
Culot, H. (2008). OMC et accords régionaux: les relations entre les mécanismes de règlement des différends (Working Papers Series 2008/5). Université Catholique de Louvain.
- The Pacific Alliance Dispute Settlement Mechanism: One More for the Heap
José Manuel Álvarez Zárate
Diana María Beltrán Vargas
- Chapter 13
Entwicklung einer Supply-Strategie bei der Atotech Deutschland GmbH am Standort Feucht