Overview

Neither the Dispute Settlement Understanding nor any of the WTO agreements contains an article, comparable to Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, explicitly setting forth the jurisdiction of the Dispute Settlement Body, panels, or the Appellate Body. However, a number of articles in the DSU treat jurisdictional issues, without explicitly using the term. These include: Article 1, which specifies the coverage and application of the DSU; Article 2, establishing the Dispute Settlement Body to administer the DSU; Article 3.1, in which Members affirm their adherence to the principles for the management of disputes previously applied under Articles XXII and XXIII of GATT 1947; Article 6, providing for the establishment of dispute settlement panels; Article 7, specifying the terms of reference for panels; Article 17.6, limiting jurisdiction of the Appellate Body to issues of law covered in a panel report and legal interpretations developed by a panel; and Article 17.13, authorizing the Appellate Body to uphold, modify or reverse legal findings and conclusions of panels. Perhaps the most notable structural distinction between the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the WTO with regard to jurisdiction is not the DSU's lack of an explicit article dealing with the subject, but the fact that, with the DSU, the WTO system enjoys compulsory jurisdiction, something the ICJ does not possess. The extent of a panel's jurisdiction, however, is dependent upon the subject matter of the dispute, ratione materiae, and the parties to the dispute, ratione personae.