Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wtssw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-10T05:18:39.100Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
This chapter is part of a book that is no longer available to purchase from Cambridge Core

8 - The WTO dispute settlement system

Peter Van den Bossche  and
Denise Prévost
Peter Van den Bossche
Affiliation:
WTO Appellate Body, Geneva
Denise Prévost
Affiliation:
Maastricht University, The Netherlands
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The WTO possesses a system for the settlement of disputes between its Members that is in many respects unique and quite successful. This system is provided for in the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU). It creates a single, integrated system for the resolution of disputes arising under any of the WTO ‘covered agreements’.

The WTO dispute settlement system is the most prolific international State-to-State dispute settlement system. From the WTO's establishment in 1995 to date (i.e. 1 December 2015), 500 disputes have been brought to the WTO dispute settlement system, and 194 panel reports and 120 Appellate Body reports have been adopted. Although many of these disputes are of a technical nature, others are politically sensitive and have received extensive media attention.

Disputes that have received much attention from the media include those involving domestic health or environmental legislation: among others, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products (2006), a dispute on the European approval regime for biotech products; Brazil – Retreaded Tyres (2007), a dispute on Brazilian measures to reduce risks arising from the accumulation of waste tyres; EC – Hormones (1998), a dispute on the European ban on meat from cattle treated with growth hormones; US – Shrimp (1998), a dispute on the US ban on shrimp caught in nets that lead to incidental killing of sea turtles; US – Tuna II (Mexico) (2012), a dispute concerning US requirements for the use of its ‘dolphin-safe’ label on tinned tuna; US – Clove Cigarettes (2012), a dispute on the US ban on flavoured cigarettes, except menthol cigarettes; and the China – Raw Materials (2012) and China – Rare Earths (2014) disputes regarding China's export restrictions on natural resources essential in the production of high-technology products. In addition, the EC and Certain Member States – Large Civil Aircraft (2011) and US – Large Civil Aircraft (2012) disputes, dealing with many billions of euros and dollars of European and American subsidies to Airbus and Boeing, respectively, have been economically very significant and of high political sensitivity.

Type
Chapter
Information
Essentials of WTO Law
, pp. 259 - 295
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

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

Alschner, W. (2014) ‘Amicable settlements of WTO disputes: bilateral solutions in a multilateral system’, World Trade Review 13 65–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, L., ‘Jurisdiction and applicable law in the WTO’ (October 1, 2014) University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 59/2014 available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2500684 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohanes, J., and Garza, F. (2012) ‘Going beyond stereotypes: participation of developing countries in WTO dispute settlement’, Trade, Law and Development 4(1) 45–124.Google Scholar
Davey, J.W. (2014) ‘The WTO and rules-based dispute settlement: historical evolution, operational success and future challenges’, Journal of International Economic Law 17 679–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tijmes, J. (2014) ‘Jurisprudential developments on the purpose of WTO suspension of obligations’ World Trade Review, 13 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Damme, I. (2010) ‘Treaty interpretation by the WTO Appellate Body’, The European Journal of International Law 21(3) 605–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voon, T., and Yanovich, A. (2006) ‘Facts aside: the limitation of WTO appeals to issues of law’ Journal of World Trade, 40(2) 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, D.C. (2012) ‘The neglected link between the legal nature of WTO rules, the political filtering of WTO disputes, and the absence of retrospective WTO remedies’, Trade Law and Development 4(1) 251–267.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×