Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest • Volume 6 • Number 28 • 24th July 2002

Dispute Settlement Review Considers Ecuadorian, Australian Submissions

Do More

Subscribe to Bridges

* required

Email Address: *

Country: *
Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua And Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas, The Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, Democractic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote D'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) Croatia (Hrvatska) Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Islands Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia, The Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard and McDonald Islands Honduras Hong Kong S.A.R. Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea Korea, North Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macau S.A.R. Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, The New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Panama Papua new Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Island Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russia Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts And Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent And The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia And The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard And Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad And Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks And Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Vatican City State (Holy See) Venezuela Vietnam Virgin Islands (British) Virgin Islands (US) Wallis And Futuna Islands Yemen Yugoslavia Zambia Zimbabwe

Employment Sector: *

First Name:

Last Name:

Organisation:

Enter the letters shown above:*

Download this issue

See also

The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) special session on the review of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) met on 15 July. Discussions on DSU review have gained momentum since the Doha Ministerial Conference in November 2001 at which WTO Members agreed to "negotiate, improve and clarify" the DSU (Paragraph 30 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration (WT/MIN (01)/DEC/1)). The 15 July session was the third since the inauguration of the post-Doha DSB special session. The review of the DSU, which lays out the procedures for substantive dispute settlement procedures in the WTO, is one of the items that are in the "in-built agenda" for reform, and discussions in this respect have been ongoing since 1997.

Calls for more proposals

Many WTO Members have expressed concern about the perceived weaknesses of the current dispute settlement process in their proposals for reform. There have been eight proposals so far: Thailand, the EC, the Philippines and Thailand, India, Ecuador, Australia, Korea, and Costa Rica). The Australian (TN/DS/W/8 searchable at http://docsonline.wto.org) and Ecuadorian (TN/DS/W/9) proposals were submitted and discussed at the third session. At the meeting, Chair Ambassador Peter Balas of Hungary noted that "there was not a critical mass of proposals" yet, and urged Members to submit proposals by the end of July. According to the timetable set out by the Chair of the Trade Negotiations Committee (TN/DS/1) on 23 April, the DSU review negotiations are now reaching the end of the first phase of presenting proposals and preliminary deliberations. The second phase, which will involve focused discussions on the "negotiating issues" arising from the individual proposals, will commence at the 10 September session.

Australia’s proposal

Australia’s proposal focused on the procedural time-frame weaknesses of the system. For instance, Australia recommended that a panel should be established "on the first request" and that the first written submissions should be lodged at the same time. In addition, Australia said it preferred to see an accelerated time-frame for disputes under the Agreement on Safeguards, as currently exists for disputes under the Agreement on Subsidies. Other concerns put forward in the Australian proposal included the sequencing of retaliation procedures between DSU Articles 21.5 and 22 (see BRIDGES Weekly 18 March 2002), surveillance of the level of retaliation and the rights of non-parties in compensation arrangements.

Ecuador’s proposal

The proposal by Ecuador was informed by its experiences in the EU- Banana dispute (see BRIDGES Weekly, 12 April 1999), in which major weaknesses with the system of remedies to successful disputants under WTO law were perceived by many Members. Ecuador urged that Members should find better ways of achieving prompt compliance. Further, Ecuador said it would like to see the mandate and terms of reference on arbitration under Article 21.3 (c) of the DSU "broadened" by determining an annual level of nullification or impairment and by fixing a reasonable period of time for prompt compliance with DSB recommendations. Ecuador also proposed that Article 21.8 of the DSU, which contains a compulsory provision on special and differential treatment, "be made more effective and authorise developing countries, when they suspend concessions to a developed country, also to take into account the impact on their economies and not only the level of nullification or impairment."

According to Ecuador, compensation should be made a compulsory obligation. This suggestion was met with ambivalence from other Members, notably the EC, Korea and Norway. Indonesia and Switzerland spoke out in favour of the proposal. Presently, Article 22.2 of the DSU makes the ‘payment’ of a "mutually acceptable compensation" voluntary on the part of the losing party. Many WTO observers think this would be a good way of ensuring that developing countries, whose economies could be adversely affected by an attempt to take retaliatory measures against a developed country Member, could receive effective redress.

Permanent panellists

On an informal level, Members discussed the issue of permanent panellists that the EC had raised in a proposal submitted on 12 July (TN/DS/W/1). The EC argued that a change to permanent panellists "would mean greater efficiency, broader global representation, improved quality and consistency and better handling of disputes of the procedures throughout the implementation process." While several Members were in favour of the EC proposal, others had doubts. Concern was raised over the likely increase in cost for permanent panellists, on how a geographical balance could be achieved in the selection of such panellists and broadly about the selection procedure and criteria for panellists.

The next meeting of the DSB special session will be on 10-11 September.

ICTSD reporting.