Jurisprudential developments on the purpose of WTO suspension of obligations

Abstract

Jurisprudential developments on the purpose of WTO suspension of obligations J A I M E T I J M E S 'If you don't know what you want, you end up with a lot you don't'. Chuck Palahniuk, Fight ClubAbstract: This article examines World Trade Organization (WTO) jurisprudence on the question as to if the purpose of suspending concessions or other obligations is to induce compliance, to rebalance concessions, or both. WTO jurisprudence on this issue can be systematized into three steps. First, inducing compliance is the general purpose of suspension as complaining parties have the right to request the authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations as long as they meet the requirements spelled out in the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding. The second step relates to the level of suspension. In general, WTO jurisprudence has accorded a higher hierarchy to the purpose of rebalancing concessions or other obligations, with some exceptions made regarding disputes on prohibited subsidies and diachronically variable suspension levels. As a third step, WTO jurisprudence has bestowed complaining Members freedom concerning the suspension's content, so as to induce the defending party to comply. Keeping these three steps in mind will hopefully make understanding WTO jurisprudence on suspension of concessions or other obligations easier.

Legitymizacja działań Światowej Organizacji Handlu a kryzys Organu Apelacyjnego systemu rozstrzygania sporów

“…Państwa, popierając idee wolnego handlu na podstawie art. XXIII GATT z 1947 roku, mogły wycofać środki protekcjonistyczne (cła lub bariery pozataryfowe) polityki handlowej (Tijmes, 2014). System rozstrzygania sporów GATT z 1947 roku nie stanowił niezależnego systemu sądowniczego; państwa zdecydowały się jedynie na tzw.…”