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-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T11:03:45.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Re-Designing the WTO Mediation Mechanism

from Part I - Current Challenges in International Trade Dispute Settlement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2021

By
Tetyana Payosova
Edited by
Manfred Elsig ,
Rodrigo Polanco  and
Peter van den Bossche
Manfred Elsig
Affiliation:
Universität Bern, Switzerland
Rodrigo Polanco
Affiliation:
Universität Bern, Switzerland
Peter van den Bossche
Affiliation:
Universität Bern, Switzerland
Get access

Summary

The ongoing deadlock of the WTO Appellate Body (AB) poses one of the main challenges to the rule-based multilateral trading system since its establishment in 1995. Whilst most of the current discussions prompted by the AB crisis focus on formal WTO adjudication, modernization of the “jewel in the crown” could also include re-evaluation of alternative means of dispute resolution, in particular, mediation (McDougall 2017).

Type
Chapter
Information
International Economic Dispute Settlement
Demise or Transformation?
 , pp. 97 - 137
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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

ARMO 2018. “Draft Rules of Procedure for Mediation Conducted under the Asia-Pacific Regional Mediation Organization,” Asian Journal for WTO and International Health Law and Policy 13: 17–26.Google Scholar
ARMO Initiative 2020. Background and Essence of ARMO Initiative, www.armomediation.com/backgroud-and-essence-of-armo-initiativeGoogle Scholar
CETA 2017. Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union and Its Member States, provisionally in force since 21 September 2017.Google Scholar
Energy Charter 2016. Decision of the Energy Charter Conference. Adoption by Correspondence of the Guide on Investment Mediation, CCDEC 2016, 19 July 2016.Google Scholar
EU – Korea FTA 2011. Free Trade Agreement Between the European Union and Its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part, OJ L 127/6, 14 May 2011.Google Scholar
EU – Mexico Global Agreement 2018. New EU – Mexico agreement: The Agreement in Principle and its texts, https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1833Google Scholar
EU – Viet Nam FTA 2020. Free Trade Agreement Between the European Union and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, OJ L 186/3, 12 June 2020.Google Scholar
Fraser, V. 2012. “Horizontal Mechanism Proposal for the Resolution of Non-Tariff Barrier Disputes at the WTO: An Analysis,” Journal of International Economic Law 15(4): 1033–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, S. B., Sander, F. E. A., Rogers, N. H. and Cole, S. R. 2012. Dispute Resolution. Negotiation, Mediation, Arbitration, and Other Processes. New York: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
Greig, J. M. and Diehl, P. F. 2012. International Mediation. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Holzer, K. 2018. “Addressing Tensions and Avoiding Disputes: Specific Trade Concerns in the TBT Committee,” Staff Working Paper ERSD-2018–11, 31 October 2018.Google Scholar
IBA 2012. IBA Rules for Investor-State Mediation, adopted by a resolution of the IBA Council, 4 October 2012.Google Scholar
ICC 2014. ICC Mediation Rules, 1 January 2014, https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution-services/mediation/mediation-rules/Google Scholar
ICSID 2020. “Proposals for Amendment of the ICSID Rules,” Working Paper No. 4, February 2020. Rules for Mediation Proceedings (ICSID Mediation Rules), pp. 213–26, https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/documents/WP_4_Vol_1_En.pdfGoogle Scholar
McDougall, R. 2017. “Making Trade Dispute Settlement More Accessible and Inclusive,” Centre for International Governance Innovation, 2 November 2017.Google Scholar
Palmeter, D. and Mavoridis, P. C. 2004. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization. Practice and Procedure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Park, N. and Chung, M.-H. 2016. “Analysis of a New Mediation Procedure under the WTO SPS Agreement,” Journal of World Trade 50(1): 93–115.Google Scholar
Payosova, T. 2018. “Mediation in the Future WTO Dispute Settlement Governance,” Harvard Law School, LLM thesis.Google Scholar
SCC 2014. “Mediation Rules 2014,” Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, https://sccinstitute.com/media/49819/medlingsregler_eng_web.pdfGoogle Scholar
TTIP 2015. Textual Proposal. Dispute Settlement, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/january/tradoc_153032.pdfGoogle Scholar
UNCTAD 2010. “Investor–State Disputes: Prevention and Alternatives to Arbitration,” UNCTAD Series on International Investment Policies for Development, United Nations, New York and Geneva.Google Scholar
Vukovic, S. 2016. International Multiparty Mediation and Conflict Management. Challenges of Cooperation and Coordination. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wolfe, R. 2015. “How Can We Know (More) about the Trade Effects of Regulation?” E15 Task Force on Regulatory Systems Coherence, Think Piece, September 2015.Google Scholar
WTO 1966. “Decision of 5 April 1966 on Procedures under Article XXIII,” BISD 14S/18.Google Scholar
WTO 1995. “Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Working Procedures of the Committee,” G/SPS/1, 4 April 1995.Google Scholar
WTO 2001. “Article 5 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding, Communication from the Director-General,” WT/DSB/25, 17 July 2001.Google Scholar
WTO 2002a. “Communication from Paraguay, Negotiations on Improvements and Clarifications of the Dispute Settlement Understanding,” Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, 25 September 2002, TN/DS/W/16.Google Scholar
WTO 2002b. “Contribution of the European Communities and Its Member States to the Improvement of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding,” DSB Special Session, 13 March 2002, TN/DS/W/1.Google Scholar
WTO 2002c. “Request for Mediation by the Philippines, Thailand and the European Communities, Communication from the Director-General, WT/GC/66, 16 October 2002 and WT/GC/66/Add.1,” 23 December 2002.Google Scholar
WTO 2003a. “Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Peter Balas to the Trade Negotiations Committee,” TN/DS/9, 6 June 2003.Google Scholar
WTO 2003b. “Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, 14 October 2002, Minutes of the Meeting (27 February 2003),” TN/DS/M/5.Google Scholar
WTO 2008. “Negotiating Group on Market Access, Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products, Negotiating Proposal on WTO Means to Reduce the Risk of Future NTBs and to Facilitate Their Resolution, Communication from the European Communities,” TN/MA/W/11/Add.8, 1 May 2008.Google Scholar
WTO 2009. “Negotiating Group on Market Access, Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products, Answers by the Co-Sponsors to Questions Raised during Chair’s NTB Sessions in 2009 Regarding the Proposed ‘Ministerial Decision on Procedures for the Facilitation of Solutions to Non-Tariff Barriers’,” TN/MA/W/110/Rev.1, 29 October 2009.Google Scholar
WTO 2010. “Negotiating Group on Market Access, Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products, Ministerial Decision on Procedures for the Facilitation of Solutions to Non-Tariff Barriers, Communication from the African Group, Canada, European Union, LDC Group, NAMA-11, Group of Developing Countries, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan and Switzerland,” TN/MA/W/106/Rev.1, 3 February 2010.Google Scholar
WTO 2012. “Negotiating Group on Market Access, Report by the Chairman,” TN/MA/23, 18 July 2012.Google Scholar
WTO 2014. “SPS Committee, Procedure to Encourage and Facilitate the Resolution of Specific Sanitary or Phytosanitary Issues among Members in accordance with Article 12.2, Decision adopted on 9 July 2014,” G/SPS/61, 8 September 2014.Google Scholar
WTO 2018a. A Handbook on the WTO Dispute Settlement System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
WTO 2018b. “Catalogue of Instruments Available to WTO Members to Manage SPS Issues,” G/SPS/63, 26 March 2018.Google Scholar
WTO 2020. “Negotiations to Improve Dispute Settlement Procedures,” www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_negs_e.htmGoogle 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
×