Available only in Russian
Author: Joanna Gomula
Keywords: anti-dumping determinations, dispute settlement, functions of judicial organs, hierarchy of judicial organs, precedential effect of judicial decisions, World Trade Organization, WTO Appellate Body
The WTO dispute settlement system is based on a two-tier review, where parties to a dispute have the possibility of appealing issues of law and interpretations developed in a panel report to a standing tribunal, the Appellate Body. The jurisprudence developed in this period is impressive, with 300 panel and Appellate Body reports adopted up to 2016 year-start. For many years, the Appellate Body’s supreme position in the hierarchy of this system was largely unchallenged. This has changed in recent years as a result of a series of anti-dumping disputes, in which a number of panels disagreed with the Appellate Body’s interpretation of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and its findings that all categories of “zeroing” – a practice applied in anti-dumping determinations – were WTO-inconsistent. Since the “zeroing” disputes, many panels have invoked Article 11 of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, asserting their right and duty to make an objective assessment of matters brought before them, independently of the Appellate Body’s prior interpretation of similar issues. Although the Appellate Body seems to have defended, at least for the time being, its supreme position, attempts to undermine its authority are continuing. Such attempts are harmful to the WTO dispute settlement mechanism and adversely affect its efficiency. The recognition of some degree of precedential effect of Appellate Body reports is therefore vital for ensuring the security and predictability of the whole WTO legal system. To ensure the importance of the WTO dispute settlement system and its remaining as an efficient mechanism, the authority of the Appellate Body must be supported and unconditionally respected by all members.
About the author: Joanna Gomula – Candidate of Legal Sciences (Polish Academy of Sciences), Fellow at Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom; Member of New York Bar.
Citation: Gomula J. (2016) Pravovye posledstviya resheniy Apellyatsionnogo organa v sisteme razresheniya sporov VTO [The legal effect of Appellate Body Rulings in the WTO dispute settlement system]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.3. pp.78–87. (In Russian).
Bhala R. (1999) The Myth About Stare Decisis and International Trade Law (Part One of a Trilogy). American University International Law Review, vol.14, no.4, pp.845–956.
Chua A. (1998) The Precedential Effect of WTO Panel and Appellate Body Reports. Leiden Yearbook of International Law, vol.11, pp.45–61.
Cottier T., Oesch M. (2001) WTO Law, Precedents and Legal Change. Turku Law Journal, vol.3, no.1, pp.27–41.
David F. (2009) The Role of Precedent in the WTO – New Horizons: Maastricht Faculty of Law Working Paper No.2009-12. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1666169 (accessed 16.07.2016).
Gomula J. (2008) Precedential Effect of WTO Decisions: Note on the Zeroing Cases. The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence, vol.1, pp.295–318.
Jackson J.H. (1997) The World Trading System: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations, 2nd ed., Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Jackson J.H. (1994) The Legal Meaning of a GATT Dispute Settlement Report: Some Reflections. In: Blokker N., Muller S. (eds.) Towards More Effective Supervision by International Organizations: Essays in Honour of Henry G. Schermers, vol.1, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp.149–164.
Martha R.S.J. (1997) Precedent in World Trade Law. The Netherlands International Law Review, vol.44, no.3., pp.346–377.
Nichols P.M. (1996) GATT Doctrine. Virginia Journal of International Law, vol.36, no.2, pp.379–466.
Palmeter D., Mavroidis P. (2004) Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pauwelyn J. (2014) Minority Rules: Precedent and Participation Before the Appellate Body (31 July 2014). Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2474611 (accessed 16.07.2016).
Petersmann E.U. (1997) International Trade Law and the GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System 1948–1996: An Introduction. In: Petersmann E.U. (ed.) (1997) International Trade Law and the GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System, The Hague: Kluwer Law International, pp.3–122.
Sacerdoti G. (2006) The Dispute Settlement System of the WTO in Action: a Perspective on the First Ten Years. In: Sacerdoti G., Yanovich A., Bohanes J. (eds.) (2006) The WTO at Ten: The Contribution of the Dispute Settlement System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.35–57.
Shahabuddeen M. (1996) Precedent in the World Court, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.