Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T22:32:35.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

United States Blocks Reappointment of WTO Appellate Body Member

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 110 , Issue 3 , July 2016 , pp. 573 - 579
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 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

1 Statement by the U.S. at the Meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body 1 (May 23, 2016) [hereinafter U.S. WTO Statement], available at https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/us_statment_dsbmay16_e.pdf (footnotes and citations omitted). See Elsig, Manfred, Pollack, Mark & Shaffer, Gregory, The U.S. is Causing Controversy in the World Trade Organization. Here’s What’s Happening., Wash. Post (June 9, 2016), at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/06/the-u-s-is-trying-to-block-the-reappointment-of-a-wto-judge-here-are-3-things-to-know/ Google Scholar.

2 For background on the WTO dispute resolution system and the role of the Appellate Body in resolving trade disputes, including procedures for appeals, see Understanding the WTO: Settling Disputes, WTO, at https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/disp1_e.htm (last visited July 15, 2016). See also Dispute Settlement Rules: Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 2, Art. 2(4), The Legal Texts: The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations 354 (1999), 1869 UNTS 401, 33 ILM 1226 (1994) [hereinafter Dispute Settlement Understanding]; Working Procedures for Appellate Review, WTO Doc. WT/AB/WP/6 (Aug. 16, 2010).

3 Dispute Settlement Understanding, supra note 2, Art. 17 (1).

4 Id., Art. 17(2).

5 Id.

6 See Elsig, supra note 1.

7 See Sarvarian, Arman & Fontanelli, Filippo, The USA and Re-Appointment at the WTO: A ‘Legitimacy Crisis’?, EJIL: Talk! (May 27, 2016), at http://www.ejiltalk.org/the-usa-and-re-appointment-at-the-wto-a-legitimacy-crisis/ Google Scholar.

8 See Elsig, supra note 1. The list of cases the United States Trade Representative pointed to included Appellate Body Report, Argentina—Measures Relating to Trade in Goods and Services, WTO Doc. WT/DS453/AB/R (adopted Apr. 14, 2016); Appellate Body Report, India—Measures Concerning the Importation of Certain Agricultural Products, WTO Doc. WT/DS430/AB/R (adopted Mar. 20, 2015); Appellate Body Report, United States— Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from China, WTO Doc. WT/DS437/AB/R (adopted Dec. 18, 2014); and Appellate Body Report, United States—Countervailing and Anti-dumping Measures on Certain Products from China, WTO Doc. WT/DS449/AB/R (adopted July 7, 2014). The cases are not all disputes to which the United States was a party, and the U.S. Trade Representative claims that unfavorable outcomes to the United States are not the motivating factor behind opposing Chang. See Sarvarian, supra note 7.

9 Sarvarian & Fontanelli, supra note 7.

10 Guida, Victoria, WTO Appellate Body Soon to Have Another Vacancy, Politico Morning Trade (May 12, 2016), at http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-trade/2016/05/tpp-death-watch-wto-appellate-body-soon-to-have-another-vacancy-kerlikowske-time-for-cbp-to-get-tough-214258 Google Scholar.

11 U.S. WTO Statement, supra note 1 (citations omitted).

12 See Hufbauer, Gary Clyde, WTO Judicial Appointments: Bad Omen for the Trading System, Peterson Inst. for Int’l Economics (June 13, 2011), at https://piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/wto-judicial-appointments-bad-omen-trading-system Google Scholar. For a discussion of how the blocking of Hillman’s reappointment might be related to the “zoning” controversy, see Howse, Robert, The World Trade Organization 20 Years On: Global Governance by Judiciary, 27 Eur. J. Int’l L. 9, 71 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 See Elsig, supra note 1. See also Gregory Schaffer, Elsig, Manfred & Puig, Sergio, The Extensive (but Fragile) Authority of the WTO Appellate Body, 79 Law & Contemp. Probs. 237, 271 (2016)Google Scholar. For detailsonGathii’s initial nomination, see Gathii Nominated for WTO Job, Daily Nation (June 16, 2013), at http://www.nation.co.ke/News/Gathii-nominated-to-WTO-Appellate-Body/-/1056/1883786/-/10kv1kwz/-/index.html.

14 See Howse, supra note 12, at 72.

15 See id.

16 See id.; see also Manfred Elsig & Mark Pollack, Agents, Trustees, and International Courts: Nomination and Appointment of Judicial Candidates in the WTO Appellate Body, Paper Prepared for Presentation at the 4th Annual Conference on the Political Economy of International Organizations 58 (Jan. 27–29, 2011), available at http://wp.peio.me/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Conf4_Elsig-Pollack-24.01.2011.pdf (discussing the perception of the United States as affecting the outcomes of cases through judicial selection as early as 2007 with Jennifer Hillman).

17 For particular criticisms from member states, see WTO Press Release, Members Debate Appointment/Reappointment of Appellate Body Members (May 23, 2016), at https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/dsb_23may16_e.htm [hereinafter WTO Debate] (public summary of meeting minutes). For comments made by trade envoys criticizing the United States, see Kanth, D. Ravi, US Body Blow to DSU, Creating Systemic Crisis, Third World Network (May 17, 2016), at http://www.twn.my/title2/wto.info/2016/ti160514.htm Google Scholar.

18 Lawson, Alex, WTO Members Clash over Appellate Body Reappointment, Law 360 (May 23, 2016), at http://www.law360.com/articles/799169/wto-members-clash-over-appellate-body-reappointment Google Scholar.

19 See Sarvarian & Fontanelli, supra note 7.

20 See WTO Debate, supra note 17.

21 Elsig, supra note 1. See also Donnan, Shawn, US Accused of Undermining WTO, Financial Times (May 30, 2016), at https://next.ft.com/content/1b89a3b4-261d-11e6-8ba3-cdd781d02d89 Google Scholar.

22 Kanaga Raja, , WTO Members Scoldan Isolated US Over AB Veto, Third World Network (June 24, 2016), at http://www.twn.my/title2/wto.info/2016/ti160621.htm Google Scholar [hereinafter WTO AB Veto]. See also WTO Press Release, Compliance Panels Established in Disputes over Broiler Products, Tuna (June 22, 2016), at https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/dsb_22jun16_e.htm.

23 WTO AB Veto, supra note 23.

24 Kanth, D. Ravi, AB Members Challenge US Over Reappointment of Seung Wha Chang, Third World Network (May 20, 2016), at http://www.twn.my/title2/wto.info/2016/ti160516.htm Google Scholar.

25 Letter from former Appellate Body Members to the Chair of the WTO Dispute Settlement Board (May 31, 2015), available at http://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/files/abletter.pdf.

26 WTO Debate, supra note 17.

27 See id.

28 U.S. WTO Statement, supra note 1.

29 Kanth, D. Ravi, US “Undercutting” Members’ “Trust” in WTO by AB Veto, Third World Network (June 23, 2016), at http://www.twn.my/title2/wto.info/2016/ti160617.htm Google Scholar.

30 WTO Debate, supra note 18. The United States currently opposes the single-term system, for the same reason it objects to de facto reappointment: disallowing member states to voice negative feedback in the form of blocking reappointments does not allow for the removal of judges who are not performing their jobs properly. Sarvarian & Fontanelli, supra note 7.

31 Sarvarian & Fontanelli, supra note 7.

32 Id.