|
· particular consideration to matters affecting the interests of developing countries in the surveillance stage (Arts.21.2, 21.7, 21.8);
· special provisions for least-developed countries (Art.24);
· legal assistance from the Secretariat (Art. 27.2).
However, to effectively participate in the dispute settlement system, developing countries are still eager to get more assistance in both substantive WTO law and in the procedural aspects of the dispute settlement mechanism. Firstly, technical assistant by the WTO Secretariat is believed more limited in scope. The minimum request seems to be an increase of the consultant staffs provided for in Article 27.2 of the DSU. Secondly, it is suggested that a Permanent Defense Counsel should be established to assist developing countries whenever cases are brought against them. Many countries have suggested that WTO budget surpluses should be used to create a reserve fund to finance this Counsel.[64] Thirdly, a group of developed and developing countries have announced in Seattle the establishment of an Advisory Centre for WTO Law, to assist developing countries in their participation in WTO dispute settlement by organizing seminars, arranging internships for officials from developing country Members, and advising developing countries on the merits of particular proceedings.[65] Finally, developing countries face the problem of enforcing the findings of the adopted reports because they have not sufficient economic power. The threat of retaliation from the developing countries to the accused countries, especially developed countries, is not usually effective. Under the situation, monetary remedies are suggested as well joint and collective retaliation.[66]
V. Conclusion
In conclusion, the proposals for reform in WTO Dispute Settlement focusing on the procedure and institution system may be numerous. Some of the proposals, in relation to consultation, panellist appointment, procedure adjustment, Appellate Body, transparency and developing countries mentioned in this paper, may or may not represent the general view. Moreover, it is quite possible that new issues will appear in the near future either following the new reports adopted from the WTO panels and the Appellate Body or new countries being members of WTO. So it is necessary for us to continue to keep attention on the new development of the WTO Dispute Settlement.
Footnotes
[1]Statement of Director-General Ruggiero dated 17 April 1997, reprinted at http://www.wto.org/wto/about/dispute1.htm.
[2]John H. Jackson, Dispute Settlement and the WTO Emerging Problems, 1 (3), J Int’l Econo L (1998), 330.
[3]John H. Jackson, The World Trading System, 109-11 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 1997).
[4]Werner Zdouc, WTO Dispute Settlement Practice Relating to the GATS, 2 (2) J Int’l Econo L (1999),
295.
[5]Andrew W. Sboyer, The First Three Years of WTO Dispute Settlement: Observations and Suggestions, 1 (2), J Int’l Econo L (1998), 298.
[6]See Decision on the Application and Review of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, Apr. 15, 1994, 33 I.L.M. 1125, 1259, reprinted in John H. Jackson, 1995 Documents Supplement to Legal Problems of International Economic Relations, 446 (3d ed. 1995).
[7]Ibid, at 1260.
[8]DSU, Articles 4.2-4.3, see World Trade Organization, The WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures, A Collection of the Relevant Legal Texts, 2nd , Cambridge University Press, 2001.
[9]DSU, Article 4.7, 6.2.
[10]DSU, Article 8.7.
[11]DSU, Article 12.1.
[12]DSU, Article 11.
[13]DSU, Article 7.
[14]DSU, Article 12.8.
[15]DSU, Article 12.12.
[16]DSU, Article 15.
[17]DSU, Article 16.
[18]DSU, Article 17.1.
[19]DSU, Article 17.5.
[20]DSU, Article 17.14.
[21]Hyun Chong Kim, The WTO Dispute Settlement Process: A Primer, 2 (3) J Int’l Econo L, 1999, 460. Also see, Debra P. Steger and Susan M. Hainsworth, World Trade Organisation Dispute Settlement: The First Three Years, 1 (2) J Int’l Econo L 1998, 201.
|
