|
[22]Ibid.
[23]United Nations, Handbook on The Peaceful Settlement of Disputes Between States, 10 (1992) (OLA/COD/2394).
[24]DSU, Article 3.7.
[25]DSU, Article 4.5.
[26]DSU, Article 3.10.
[27]DSU, Article 4.1.
[28]DSU, Article 4.3, 4.7. According to Article 4.3 of DSU, if the Member does not respond within 10 days after the date of receipt of the request, or does not enter into consultations within a period of no more than 30 days, or a period otherwise mutually agreed, after the date of receipt of the request, then the Member that requested the holding of consultations may proceed directly to request the establishment of a panel. Under Article 4.7, if the consultations fail to settle a dispute within 60 days after the date of receipt of the request for consultations, the complaining party may request the establishment of a panel.
[29]DSU, Article 4.
[30]Final Act Embodying the Results of The Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiation 353, 33 I.L.M. 1125 (1994).
[31]European Communities, Discussion Paper on the Review of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU). [hereinafter EC Discussion Paper] (on file with American University International Law Review).
[32]Ibid. ( discussing how some of these sanctions are reportedly also proposed by other WTO Members).
[33]Supra note 29.
[34]Report of the Appellate Body on India-patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, Dec. 19, 1997, WTO Doc. WT/DS50/AB/R. para. 94.
[35]DSU, Article 8.7.
[36]Jacques H. J. Bourgeois, Some Reflections on the WTO Dispute Settlement System from A Practitioner’s Perspective, 4 (1), J Int’l Econo L (2001) 146.
[37]DSU, Article 8.1.
[38]Unless the parties to the dispute agree otherwise. DSU, Article 8.3.
[39]DSU, supra note 6.
[40]Debra Steger, Overview of WTO Dispute Settlement. Address at the 1998 Conference of the World Trade Law Association ( leaving mainly panellists from New Zealand and Switzerland); Bernhard Jansen, Selcted Problem Areas in the Course of a Dispute Settlement Procedure, Free World Trade and the European Union, 59 at 60 ( vol 28,Publications by the Academy of European Law in Tier, Bundesanzeiger, 2000), ( adding panellists from Australia and Latin American countries).
[41]DSU, Article 8.7.
[42]Jacques H. J. Bourgeois, Some Reflections on the WTO Dispute Settlement System from A Practitioner’s Perspective, 4 (1), J Int’l Econo L (2001) 147.
[43]Ibid, 148.
[44]Allan Rosas, EC and the WTO Dispute Settlement: Some Reflections on Practice and Doctrine, Presentation at the 37th Leiden-London Meeting (June 27, 1998).
[45]Rudolf Ostrihansky, Chambers of the International Court of Justice, 37 Int’l & Comp. L. Q. (1988) 30, 43.
[46]Supra note 39, p146.
[47]DSU, Article 6.2.
[48]Supra note 20.
[49]Ibid. In the article, the author give an example that Korean proposes that parties should be required to submit their evidence by no later than the time of second written submission.
[50]WTO Appellate Body Report on EC-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, Sept. 9, 1997, WT/DS 27 AB/R, para. 142.
[51]Debre P. Steger and Susan M. Hainsworth, World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement: The First Three Years, 1 (2) J Int’l Econo L (1998), 208.
[52]DSU, Article 17.6.
[53]DSU, Article 17.4.
[54]DSU, Article 17.13.
[55]DSU, Article 17.3.
[56]Supra note 50.
[57]EC Discussion Paper. Supra note 30.
[58]David Palmeter, The WTO appellate Body Needs Remand Authority, 32, J. World Trade, Feb. 1998, p 41-44.
[59]Supra note 20, p 473.
[60]DSU, Article 18.2.
[61]John H. Jackson, Due Process in the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, Address at the 2nd Annual Conference of the Word Trade Law Association: Liberalisation and Protectionism in the World Trading System (May 15, 1998).
|
