Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest • Volume 6 • Number 15 • 23rd April 2002
EC Proposal Under Scrutiny In DSU Negotiations
At a 16 April special (negotiating) session of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), Members formally commenced negotiations "on improvements and clarifications" of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) as mandated by the Doha Declaration in paragraph 30. Addressing the EC’s call for more transparency in the WTO dispute settlement mechanism as put forward in its tabled proposal (see BRIDGES Weekly, 16 April 2002), India and Malaysia reiterated their long-standing resistance to opening up the DSU process to external groups, especially by accepting so-called amicus curiae (friends-of-the-court) briefs.
India made it clear that it would in "no way" tolerate procedural modifications that would provide non- governmental organisations (NGOs) with the right to table unsolicited submissions, saying this would go against the intergovernmental nature of the WTO. Nevertheless, India went on to ask several detailed questions about the precise functionality of the proposed scheme.
Hong Kong-China voiced its opposition to addressing the issue of transparency under the current DSU negotiating mandate. On the so- called ’sequencing’ issue on retaliation (see BRIDGES Weekly, 19 March 2002), various Members cautioned that placing more emphasis on compensation vis-à-vis retaliation in WTO dispute settlement would enable rich countries to "buy" compliance and would contravene the DSU premise that compliance is the first objective of dispute settlement. Some further cautioned that developing countries might not have the possibility of offering compensation.
Regarding the EC’s proposal for permanent dispute settlement panellists, Members such as the US and Japan asked about the costs and the details of the selection process. In terms of procedure, newly elected Chair of the DSB special session (SS), Ambassador Peter Balas from Hungary, announced that he would conduct the SS on two parallel tracks: one general track where countries can make general statements; and a second one for specific proposals.
Members further indirectly addressed the question of whether or not to limit the scope for the negotiations in the light of the May 2003 deadline for concluding the DSU negotiations. Hong Kong- China questioned whether complex issues such as permanent panellists could be settled quickly.
"WTO Members Discuss DSU Changes Based On EU Proposal," INSIDE US TRADE, 19 April 2002.