Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T00:37:49.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Future of Dispute Settlement Within GATT: Conciliation V. Adjudication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2009

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

Extract

A system for the settlement of disputes has developed within the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), originally through the practice of this organization, later on embodied in several decisions of Contracting Parties. This system presents a unique set of rules and practices for the settlement of interstate economic conflicts. It is the only comprehensive system, established within multicultural context, that is comparable with the bilateral procedure incorporated in the Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Canada.

Type
Articles
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 3 , Issue 3: SPECIAL ISSUE 1990: THE UNITED NATIONS DECADE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: Reflections on International Dispute Settlement , December 1990 , pp. 125 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 1990

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. ‘Contracting Parties’ written with capital letters means, in the context of GATT, its principal organ composed of representatives of all member states acting collectively.

2. Cf. Parker, R.P., Dispute Settlement in GATT and the Canada - U.S. Free Trade Agreement, 23 Journal of World Trade 83–93 (1989).Google Scholar

3. Hudec, R.E., “Transcending the Ostensible”: Some Reflections on the Nature of Litigation Between Governments, 72 Minnesota Law Review 214–215 (1987).Google Scholar

4. GATT Focus No. 43, Jan.-Feb. 1987, at 6.

5. For a more detailed description see: van Bael, I., The GATT Dispute Settlement Procedure, 22 Journal of World Trade 67–77 (1988)Google Scholar; Castel, J.-G., The Uruguay Round and the Improvements to the GATT Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures, 38 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 835–840 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. GATT Basic Instruments and Selected Documents (BISD), 26 Supplement, at 210.

7. GATT Focus No. 61, May 1989, at 9–12.

8. For a more detailed description of the new amendments see J.-G. Castel, supra note 5, at 844–849; Canal-Forgues, E. and Ostrihansky, R., New Developments in the GATT Dispute Settlement Procedures, 24 Journal of World Trade 68–81 (1990)Google Scholar; Petersmann, E.-U., The Mid-Term Review Agreements of the Uruguay Round and the 1989 Improvements to the GATT Dispute Settlement Procedures, 32 German Yearbook of International Law 299–306 (1989).Google Scholar

9. Officially it is called “good offices, mediation and conciliation”, which is rather unfortunate, because, in fact, the panel proceedings are a form of conciliation.

10. I. van Bael, supra note 5, at 70.

11. BISD, 29 Supplement, at 9.

12. In 1952 the Netherlands was authorized to impose a discriminatory quota on imports of wheat flour from the US, however it did not exercise this right.

13. The importance of this amendment is stressed by E. Canal-Forgues and R. Ostrihansky, supra note 8, at 69–70.

14. Id. at 72; Castel, supra note 5, at 846.

15. GATT Focus No. 70, Apr. 1990, at 10.

16. Canada Proposes Extensive Changes to GATT Dispute Settlement Process, Inside U.S. Trade, Special Report, Apr. 27,1990.

17. GATT Focus No. 69, Mar. 1990, at 7.

18. J.-G. Castel, supra note 5, at 841–842; Ingcrsoll, S., Current Efficacy of the GATT Dispute Settlement Process, 22 Texas International Law Journal 105–109 (1987).Google Scholar For the opposite view see Plank, R., An Unofficial Description of How a GATT Panel Works and Does Not, 4 Journal of International Arbitration 94–97 (1987).Google Scholar

19. Waincymer, J., GATT Dispute Settlement: An Agenda for Evaluation and Reform, 14 North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation 88–89 (1989).Google Scholar

20. McGovem, E., Dispute Settlement in the GATT: Adjudication or Negotiation?, in M. Hilf, F. Jacobs, E.-U. Petersmann (eds.), The European Community and GATT 74 (1986).Google Scholar

21. 28 I.L.M. 59–69 (1989).

22. Cunningham, R.O., The Restatement as Prologue to Turmoil in the Law: A Commentary on the Restatement of U.S. International Trade Law, 24 International Lawyer 328–332 (1990)Google Scholar; Ashman, K.J., The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988: The Section 301 Amendments - Insignificant Changes from Prior Law?, 7 Boston University International Law Journal 129–153 (1989).Google Scholar

23. GATT Focus No. 63, July 1989, at 6–8.

24. J. Tumlir, GATT Rules andComnmnity Law, in M. Hilf, F. Jacobs, E.-U. Petersmann (eds.), supra note 20, at 19–21.

25. BISD, 11 Supplement, at 95.

26. Whilst writing this section the author made frequent use of one of the background papers prepared by the GATT Secretariat for the Uruguay Round Negotiations. The circulation of all the working documents for these negotiations is restricted and can therefore, unfortunately, not be quoted directly.

27. E. Canal-Forgues and R. Ostrihansky, supra note 8, at 81.

28. Venturini, G., GATT, Domestic Adjudication and International Conciliation, 7 Italian Yearbook of International Law 97 (1986–1987)Google Scholar; Petersmann, E.-U.,Strengthening GATT Procedures for Settling Trade Disputes, 11 World Economy 64 (1988).Google Scholar

29. For more on this concept see E. Canal-Forgues and R. Ostrihansky, supra note 8, at 87–89.

30. G.N. Horlick, G.D. Oliver and D.P. Steger, Dispute Resolution Mechanisms, in J.J. Schott, M.G. Smith (eds.), The Canada - United States Free Trade Agreement 75(1988) and comment of R. Hudec, id., at 92–94.

31. M. Maresceau, The GATT in the Case-Law of the European Court of Justice, in M. Hilf, F. Jacobs, E.-U. Petersmann, supra note 20, at 107–126.

32. G. Venturini, supra note 28, at 100–103.

33. M. Hilf, The Application of GATT within the Member States of the European Community, with Special Reference to the Federal Republic of Germany, in M. Hilf, F. Jacobs, E.-U. Petersmann, supra note 20, at 174.

34. Id., at 177, 179.

35. Jackson, J., The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in United States Domestic Law, 66 Michigan Law Review 249–332 (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36. R. Hudec, The Legal Status of GATT in the Domestic Law of the United States, in: M. Hilf, F. Jacobs, E.-U. Petersmann, supra note 20, at 187–249.

37. Id., at 210,219.

38. M. Hilf, supra note 33, at 186.

39. Supra note 17.

40. Cf. also E.-U. Petersmann, supra note 8, at 303–304.

41. 575 U.N.T.S. 159. Out of numerous literature see, e.g., A. Broches, The Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States, 136 Recueil des Cours 331–410 (1972).

42. Article 27 of the Washington Convention.