The role of arbitrators in determining reasonable period of time and retrospective remedies in Wto dispute resolution: Beyond the Australia-automotive leather panel

Journal of World Investment and Trade

Volumn 6, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 611-634

  Yenkong, Ngangjoh H ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR COMPARATIVE PUBLIC LAW AND INTERNATIONAL LAW   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33744489925     PISSN: 16607112     EISSN: 22119000     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/221190005X00055     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Doha Ministerial Declaration, Wto Doc. WT/Min (01)/Dec/1, 14 November 2001; available at: .
2. Kyle Bagwell, Petros C. Mavroidis and Robert W. Staiger, The Case for Tradable Remedies in Wto Dispute Settlement, 21 January 2004, mimco.
3. See further Mateo Diego-Fernandez and Roberto Rios Herran, The Reform of the wto Dispute Settlement Understanding: A Closer Look at the Mexican Proposal, Manchester J. Int'l Econ. L., Vol. 1, No. 1, 2004.
4. Some writers have used game theory to explain this strategic way of behaviour; see, for example, Monika Bütler and Heinz Hauser, The Wto Dispute Settlement System: A First Assessment from an Economic Perspective, J. L. Econ. & Org., Vol. 16, No. 2, 2000.
5. For the role of game theory in contractual relationships, see Avinash K. Dixit and Barry J. Nalebuff, Thinking Strategically: The Competitive Edge in Business, Politics, and Everyday Life, Norton, New York, 1993.
6. John Austin, The Province of furisprudence Determined, London, 1954.
7. H. L. A. Hart, The Concept of Law, 2nd edition, Clarendon, Oxford, 1994.
8. Hans Kelsen, General Theory of Law and State, (translated and republished), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U. K., 1999.
9. Ian Brownlic, Principles of Public International Law, 6th edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U. K., 2003.
10. Australia-Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of Automotive Leather (Automotive Leather or Australia-Automotive Leather), Recourse by the United States to Article 21.5 of the Dsu, Report of the Panel, WT/DS126/RW, adopted 11 February 2000.
11. Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the Wto, Article ix. 1, World Trade Organization, The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations-The Legal Texts, Gatt Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland, 1994;
12. also found on the Wto Website, at: .
13. See Wto Dsb Special Session, 28 May 2003, Wto Doc. TN/DS/9, dated 6 June 2003. See also an evaluation of the Chairman's Text by William J. Davey, Reforming WTO Dispute Settlement, in M. Matsushita and D. Ahn, (eds.), New Perspectives of the World Trading System: WTO and East Asia, Cameron May, London, April 2004, Chapter 6.
14. Agreement under Dsu Article 21.3 (b), Canada-Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products, WT/DS103/10 and WT/DS113/10, 7 January 2000.
15. United States-Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea, Recourse to Arbitration under Dsb Article 21.3 (c), WT/DS202/17.
16. United States-Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada, WT/DS264/13, dated 13 December 2004. Dsu Article 21.3 (c) Arbitration was invoked, but no report was issued.
17. United States-Hot-Rolled Steel, supra, footnote 18, paras. 5, 16 and 34.
18. 4IJ See Terence P. Stewart, The Gait Uruguay Round: A Negotiating History (1986-1992), Kluwer Law and Taxations Publishers, Deventer, 1993, Vol. 11, Commentary, pp. 2764-2767.
19. In the same vein, Baldwin opines that economic statecraft constitutes a form of mtcr-State bargaining behaviour; see David A. Baldwin, Bargaining with Economic Statecraft, in Edward D. Mansfield (ed.). International Conflict and the Global Economy, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, U. K., 2004.
20. In Howse's view, a finding of lack of jurisdiction essentially vitiates the bona fides of the original judgment altogether and may even lead to harsh consequences; sec Robert Howse, in Thomas Cottier, Petros C. Mavroidis and Patrick Blatter, The Role of the fudge in International Trade Regulation: Experience and Lessons for the WTO Universitv of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor. Michigan. 2003.
21. Gabcikovo-Nagy maros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Icj Reports, 25 September 1997, para. 152; available at: www.icj-cij.org
22. Automotive Leather, supra, footnote 7, para. 6.27.
23. AB Report, Brazil-Export Financing Programme for Aircraft, Recourse by Canada to Article 21.5 of the Dsu, WT/DS46/AB/RW, adopted 4 August 2000, para. 45.
24. Automotive Leather, supra, footnote 7, paras. 6.33-6.34.
25. For a critical discussion of the Panel Report, see particularly Gavin Goh and Andreas R. Ziegler, Retrospective Remedies in the WTO after Automotive Leather, J. Int'l Econ. L., Vol. 6, No. 3, 2003, 545-564.
26. Yong-Shik Lee, Safeguard Measures in World Trade, The Legal Analysis, Kluwer Academic, London, 2003, pp. 158-159.
27. For a discussion on such relationship reconstructed in Austin's approach to law, see Raj Bhala, Wto Dispute Settlement and Austin's Positivism: A Primer on the Intersection, Int'l Trade Law & Regulation, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2003.
28. gatt Panel Report, New Zealand-Imports of Electric Transformers from Finland (New Zealand-Electric Transformers), B. I. S. D., 32nd Supp., 1986, p. 55, or L/5814-32S/55, adopted 18 July 1985, para. 4.11.
29. Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the Dsu and Article 4.11 of the Scm Agreement, United States-Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations", WT/DS108/ARB, 30 August 2002, paras. 5.30 and 5.52.