Welcome to Open Science
Contact Us
Home Books Journals Submission Open Science Join Us News
Challenges of WTO Appellate Body and China’s Solutions in Perspective of Belt and Road Initiative
Current Issue
Volume 7, 2019
Issue 2 (June)
Pages: 10-16   |   Vol. 7, No. 2, June 2019   |   Follow on         
Paper in PDF Downloads: 76   Since Oct. 29, 2019 Views: 765   Since Oct. 29, 2019
Authors
[1]
Yuntao Pu, Institute of International Law, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Abstract
America’s blocking of appointment of World Trade Organization (hereinafter “WTO”) appellate body members is not conducted in good faith. WTO dispute resolution mechanism is experiencing tough period, but have bright future with its spirit of rule-of-law and multilateralism. Voting procedure could be launched to resolve the impasse according to rules of WTO, but lack of experience and political concerns constitute obstacles. Apart from compulsory dispute resolutions, conciliation and arbitration should not be neglected. Professional conciliation committee ought to be established, and more attention ought to be paid on procedural issues of trade disputes arbitration. From China’s perspective, it is necessary to have more direct resolutions in its proposals for appointment of WTO appellate body members. Under Belt and Road Initiative, the dispute resolution centre instituted by China should be the outcome of cooperation between China and foreign famous institutions, based on the reputation of foreign arbitration institutions and characters of Belt and Road Initiative. The centre aims at sustaining multilateralism and rule-of-law principle, instead of replacing WTO dispute settlement body.
Keywords
WTO Dispute Resolution Mechanism, WTO Appellate Body, Voting Procedure, Conciliation, Arbitration, Belt and Road Initiative
Reference
[1]
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (2018). 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report. PP. 25-28.
[2]
Bryce Baschuk (2017). WTO Faces Paralysis in Dispute Settlement Cases as U.S. Blocks Appointments. International Trade Rep. (BBNA). Vol. 34: p. 1653.
[3]
Panikkar, Vinayak, Prakhar Bhardwaj, Akhil Raina (2019). Taking Recourse to the DSU to save Dispute Settlement at the WTO. International Economic Law and Policy Blog. Part B.
[4]
David A. Gantz (2018). An Existential Threat to WTO Dispute Settlement: Blocking Appointment of Appellate Body Members by the United States. Arizona Legal Studies. Discussion Paper No. 18-26: p. 10-13.
[5]
Hoekman, Bernard, Henrik Horn, Petros C. Mavroidis (2008). Winners and Losers in the Panel Stage of the WTO Dispute Settlement System. PP. 23-26.
[6]
Brewster Rachel (2019). WTO Dispute Settlement: Can We Go Back Again?. AJIL Unbound. Vol. 113: p. 65.
[7]
Abu Haber (2018). WTO Stalled in the Sino-US Trade War: Powerlessness or Urgent Reform. BBC. Available: https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/simp/world-44870528.
[8]
Yingtong Zhong (2017). Research on Plurilateral Agreements in WTO. Doctoral Thesis of Southwest University of Political Science and Law. P. 101.
[9]
Yaqing Qin (2005). Power, System, Culture: Collection of Theory and Method of International Relations Research. Beijing: Peking University Press. PP. 108-109.
[10]
John G. Ikenberry (2003). Is American Multilateralism in Decline?. Perspectives on Politics. Vol. 1 (3): p. 545.
[11]
Elvire Fabry, Erik Tate (2018). Saving the WTO Appellate Body or Returning to the Wild West of Trade?. Values-based Power Policy Paper. No. 225: p. 20.
[12]
Donghui FU (2018). How to Frustrate Trump’s Trade War from the WTO Law. Allbright Law Offices. Available: www.allbrightlaw.com/CN/10475/23cb152bcc248d67.aspx.
[13]
Horng Der-chin (2013). The WTO’s Voting Models. Chinese (Taiwan) Review of International and Transnational Law. Vol. 9 (1): p. 4.
[14]
Hillman Jennifer (2019). Three Approaches to Fixing The World Trade Organization’s Appellate Body: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Institute of International Economic Law (Georgetown University Law Center). P. 2.
[15]
Bernard M. Hoekman, Michael M. Kostecki (2001). The Political Economy of the World Trading System: The WTO and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 57.
[16]
Yugang Chen (2009). Financial Crisis, Decadence of America, and Flattening of International Relations. World Economics and Politics. No. 5: p. 28.
[17]
Changlong Zhang (2004). Application of ADR in WTO Dispute resolution mechanism. Journal of South China University of Technology (Social Science). No. 3: pp. 49-52.
[18]
Stewart P. Terence (2019). Disputed Court: A Look at the Challenges to (and from) the WTO Dispute Settlement System. P. 5.
[19]
Mingzhan Zhou (2007). Conciliation in WTO dispute resolution mechanism. Annual Meeting World Trade Organization Law Research Association of China Legal Society. P. 206.
[20]
TN/DS/W/38 (2003). Paras. 23, 26.
[21]
Yuanyuan Ren (2012). Arbitration in WTO Dispute resolution mechanism. Doctoral thesis of Fudan University. P. 157.
[22]
China's Proposal on WTO Reform, WTO Doc. WT/GC/W/773, 13 May 2019.
[23]
Yongping Xiao (2019). On the Construction of International Legal Community towards the Community of Shared Future for Mankind. Wuhan University Journal (Philosophy & Social Science). Vol. 72 (1): p. 135.
[24]
Rachel Brewster (2018). The Trump Administration and the Future of the WTO. Yale Journal of International Law Online. No. 4: p. 10.
Open Science Scholarly Journals
Open Science is a peer-reviewed platform, the journals of which cover a wide range of academic disciplines and serve the world's research and scholarly communities. Upon acceptance, Open Science Journals will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download.
CONTACT US
Office Address:
228 Park Ave., S#45956, New York, NY 10003
Phone: +(001)(347)535 0661
E-mail:
LET'S GET IN TOUCH
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message
SEND MASSAGE
Copyright © 2013-, Open Science Publishers - All Rights Reserved