Law Assignment Paper on Uchenna Response

UCHENNA RESPONSE

Based on my colleague’s post on the role of GATT jurisprudence, I support his arguments due to the implications on WTO agreements in case of conflicts. The post affirms that there is a need to incorporate the legal experiences under the GATT 1994 into the WTO agreements.  The incorporation of the WTO agreements sought to bring about a smooth flow of the GATT system.[1] The post also provides supportive arguments that acknowledge the importance of the different trading systems by the WTO.  Since they often adopted panel reports that formed part of the GATT acquis.  In case of any disputes, the WTO agreements are legally binding in order to resolve particular disputes[2]. However, the past should have included the legal expectations among the WTO members.  According to the WTO dispute settlement, the decision of the contracting parties is annexed to the incorporation of the WTO agreement. Based on Article 31 of the Vienna Convention, the recommendations of the panel are not panel reports.  

Alongside the supporting statement by the post for the Appellate body, it should have noted the importance of the WTO agreement as a legal tool and perspective in conflicts among the WTO members.[3]

The contents of WTO include panel reports, arbitral awards, and councils of other WTO bodies. Thus, the WTO provides an overview process of solving any arising disputes[4]. The post argues that the GATT 1957 superseded the WTO agreement in the resolution of disputes.

 In contrast, the WTO dispute resolution has sought to establish international laws to control trade among different countries[5].  The rule of law and interpretation considered the critics of the Appellate Body into rulemaking and other mandates. Therefore, the post provided some key provisions of WTO dispute resolution overlooking some recent developments in dispute resolution, including the establishment of international law to control trade[6].

Bibliography

Bown, Chad Philips. Self-enforcing trade: developing countries and WTO dispute settlement. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press, 2010.

Horn, Henrik, Louise Johannesson, and Petros C. Mavroidis. The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995-2010: Some Descriptive Statistics. No. 891. IFN Working Paper, 2011.

Hsueh, Ching-Wen. Direct Effect of WTO Agreements: Practices and Arguments. Bern: Peter Lang, 2012.

Leitner, Kara, and Simon Lester. “WTO Dispute Settlement 1995–2011—A Statistical Analysis.” Journal of International Economic Law 15, no. 1 (2012).

McGovern, Edmond. International trade regulation. Vol. 2. Exeter: Globefield Press, 2013.

Narlikar, Amrita, Martin Daunton, and Robert M. Stern, eds. The Oxford Handbook on the World Trade Organization. Great Clarendon St, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.


[1] Kara, Leitner and  Lester Simon. “WTO Dispute Settlement 1995–2011—A Statistical Analysis.” Journal of International Economic Law 15, no. 1 (2012).

[2] Philips, Chad Bown. Self-enforcing trade: developing countries and WTO dispute settlement. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press, 2010.

               [3] Henrik Horn,  Johannesson Louise and Mavroidis  C. Petros. The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995-2010: Some Descriptive Statistics. No. 891. IFN Working Paper, 2011.

[4] Ching-Wen Hsueh. Direct Effect of WTO Agreements: Practices and Arguments. Bern: Peter Lang, 2012.

               [5] Edmond McGovern. International trade regulation. Vol. 2. Exeter: Globefield Press, 2013.

[6] Amrita Narlikar, Daunton Martin and Stern M Robert. The Oxford Handbook on the World Trade Organization. Great Clarendon St, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.