Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
The Pacific Alliance: Building a Pathway to the High-Hanging Fruits of Deep Integration Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2019 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

13. The Pacific Alliance Dispute Settlement Mechanism: One More for the Heap

verfasst von : José Manuel Álvarez Zárate, Diana María Beltrán Vargas

Erschienen in: The Pacific Alliance in a World of Preferential Trade Agreements

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

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.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Competition Law and Policy in the Regional Context: European Union Experiences for the Pacific Alliance
Nächstes Kapitel Concluding Remarks: The Pacific Alliance – Stocktaking and the Way Forward
Fußnoten
1
Chile-US Free Trade Agreement (entry into force 1 June 2004), Colombia–United States Trade Promotion Agreement (entry into force 15 May 2012); North American Free Trade Agreement (entry into force 1 January 1994), Peru–United States Trade Promotion Agreement (entry into force 1 February 1 2009).
 
2
“Protocolo Adicional al Acuerdo Máximo de la Alianza del Pacífico” (entry into force 1 May 2016)
 
3
In the case of the FTA between developed and LDC, the issues subject to negotiation where those that were of interest of the developed one that were left unaccounted for by the WTO, or where their aims were not achieved completely after the Uruguay Round negotiations, which at the end of the bilateral negotiations were achieved.
 
4
Additional Protocol to the Pacific Alliance Framework Agreement, Article 17.2 (2).
 
5
Additional Protocol to the Pacific Alliance Framework Agreement, Annex 17.3 nullification or impairment, allows to understand better the consideration (iii) of Article 17.3. According with this provision a Member is entitled to resort to the DSM when the measure, although does not contravene other provisions of the Protocol, it nullifies or impairs the legitimate expectations regarding the chapters on Market Access, Rules of origin, Sanitary and phytosanitary measures, Technical obstacles on trade, Public Procurement, Cross border Trade on services.
 
6
Economic Complementation Agreement N°33 (Colombia, Mexico and Venezuela Free Trade Agreement) Article 19-02.
 
7
Economic Complementation Agreement N°41 (Mexico and Chile Free Trade Agreement) Article 18-02.
 
8
Free Trade Agreement between Chile and Peru. Article 16.2.
 
9
Trade Integration Agreement between Mexico and Peru. Article 15.2.
 
10
Treaty Creating the Court of Justice of the Cartagena Agreement Article 4- “Member Countries are under the obligation to take the necessary steps to enforce the rules comprising the legal system of the Cartagena Agreement. They are also hereby committed to refrain from adopting or employing any measure that opposes these rules or that in any way restricts their application.”
 
11
Treaty Creating the Court of Justice of the Cartagena Agreement Article 41.- In order to comply with the Court’s verdicts, no official approval or exequatur will be required in any Member Countries.
 
12
Additional Protocol to the Economic Complementation Agreement N°24, article 16.3; Economic Complementation Agreement N°33, article 19-03; Economic Complementation Agreement N°41. Article 18-03; Free Trade Agreement between Chile and Peru, article 16.03; Trade Integration Agreement between Mexico and Peru. Article 15.3.
 
13
Article 17.14 (3) sets a list of guarantees for the procedure, such as: each party has the opportunity to present on written, at least, the initial considerations as well as a rejoinder; each party is entitled to of, at least, one hearing before the arbitral tribunal, and in the same sense, they are entitled to present their case orally; the hearing in front of the arbitral tribunal should be open to the public, unless the information under debate is considered confidential or there is an agreement between the parties that there are justifiable reasons to not make public the hearing; the Tribunal’s deliberation process is confidential as well as the documents classified as confidential by any of the parties; all the information presented to the Tribunal must be made available for the counterparty; the information classified as confidential has to be protected.
 
14
“One clear policy implication arising from the new RTAs is that introduction of competition among different trade agreements in the area of dispute settlement will not work. Two different trade agreements covering the same economic (market access) jurisdiction with competing court systems would inevitably render inconsistent legal rulings. Such fragmentation of international trade law and juris-prudence would increase policy uncertainty that would discourage firms from investing in international commerce.”
 
15
“The complainant’s choice of forum depends on whether it prefers to set a regional or multilateral precedent, or no precedent at all. By setting a precedent, I mean adding to an institution’s body of case law that is followed by its judicial bodies when ruling on subsequent disputes.”
 
Literatur
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.
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
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.
Metadaten
Titel
The Pacific Alliance Dispute Settlement Mechanism: One More for the Heap
verfasst von
José Manuel Álvarez Zárate
Diana María Beltrán Vargas
Copyright-Jahr
2019
Buch
The Pacific Alliance in a World of Preferential Trade Agreements

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78463-2

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-78464-9

Copyright-Jahr: 2019

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78464-9_13