How Should the EU and Other WTO Members React to Their WTO Governance and WTO Appellate Body Crises?

Abstract

The Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, created in 1992 and currently directed by Professor Brigid Laffan, aims to develop inter-disciplinary and comparative research on the major issues facing the process of European integration, European societies and Europe's place in 21st century global politics.The Centre is home to a large post-doctoral programme and hosts major research programmes, projects and data sets, in addition to a range of working groups and ad hoc initiatives. The research agenda is organised around a set of core themes and is continuously evolving, reflecting the changing agenda of European integration, the expanding membership of the European Union, developments in Europe's neighbourhood and the wider world.For more information: http://eui.eu/rscas The Global Governance ProgrammeThe Global Governance Programme is one of the flagship programmes of the Robert Schuman Centre. It is a community of outstanding professors and scholars, that produces high quality research and engages with the world of practice through policy dialogue. Established and early-career scholars work on issues of global governance within and beyond academia, focusing on four broad and interdisciplinary areas: Global Economics, Europe in the World, Cultural Pluralism and Global Citizenship.The Programme also aims to contribute to the fostering of present and future generations of policy and decision makers through its executive training programme: the Academy of Global Governance, where theory and 'real world' experience meet and where leading academics, top-level officials, heads of international organisations and senior executives discuss on topical issues relating to global governance. For more information: http://globalgovernanceprogramme.eui.euThe European University Institute and the Robert Schuman Centre are not responsible for the opinions expressed by the author(s). AbstractSince 2017, the United States (US) and other World Trade Organization (WTO) members violate their legal duties and democratic mandates given by national parliaments to maintain the WTO Appellate Body (AB) as legally prescribed in Article 17 of the WTO Dispute Understanding (DSU), i.e. as being 'composed of seven persons', with vacancies being 'filled as they arise'. This contribution argues that none of the reasons offered by the US for its blocking of the (re)appointment of AB candidates -on grounds unrelated to the personal qualifications of the candidates -can legally justify its disruptions of the WTO legal and dispute settlement system. Also the European Union (EU) has offered no convincing justification of its failure to protect 'strict observance of international law' in it external relations, as required by Article 3 of the Lisbon Treaty on European Union (TEU) and by Article IX:1 WTO Agreement ('where a decision cannot be arrived at by consensus, the matter at issue shall be decided by voting'). The 2018 'Concept Paper' prepared by the EU Commission on 'WTO modernization' indicates no strategy for the obvious problem that the EU ob...

Article 25 as an Alternate Way to Resolve the Crisis of the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism: A Chinese Perspective

“…In a strategic distance from the AB crisis that is currently forcing the cessation of its activities, it would be wise to start putting a more effective voting method for the WTO members with vital and legitimate support. 39 An emergency would justify the adoption of special measures by the members under abnormal circumstances in an international organization.…”

Appointment with Destiny: Selecting WTO Judges in the Future

“…This means that, as the current impasse illustrates, a single member can block an appointment. Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann 19. and others (such as former GATT legal adviser Frieder Roessler) have made elaborate legal arguments as to why, as with the situation since 2017, it would be possible to address lack of consensus through voting on AB appointments.…”

Enforcing WTO/GATS law and fundamental rights in EU infringement proceedings: An analysis of the ECJ’s ruling in Case C-66/18 Central European University

“…Consequently, the Appellate Body does not have the requisite minimum number of members anymore and the WTO dispute settlement system is therefore currently not fully operative. 18 To some degree this context may also be reflected in the question, addressed by Advocate General (AG) Kokott to the ECJ, as to 'what extent infringement proceedings can serve as an instrument to enforce and increase the effectiveness of international trade law'. 19 An additional important issue concerns the applicability of the EU Fundamental Rights Charter in EU external relations: it seems to be the first time that the Commission has invoked the applicability of the Charter based on an alleged Member State violation of an international agreement.…”