The Perils of Globalization and the World Trading System

The post-World War II world trading system is now more than fifty years old, and not surprisingly, it has evolved through a number of different stages of development and survived a series of perils. Recently, however, the perils seem even greater than before. The failure of the Seattle Ministerial Meeting of November-December 1999 focused the attention of the international community, almost like a prospective execution focusing the attention of the targeted person. A number of different factors have contributed to this perilous situation, and in this brief Essay, I want to look particularly at some of the institutional characteristics of the World Trade Organization ( WTO ), which may be contributing to, or inhibiting escape from, the perils. I will do this in four parts. Part I will be a brief reminder of the policy objectives and implications of the international economic system. Part II will overview the world trading system\u27s need for a cooperative international mechanism or institution. Part III will examine the characteristics needed for a successful institution of this type, which might be the WTO. Part IV will explore some problems connected with the current situation related to the needed characteristics

Afterword: The Linkage Problem – Comments on Five Texts

The problem of linkage between non trade subjects and the World Trade Organization is certainly one of the most pressing and challenging policy puzzles for international economic relations and institutions today. It is extensively and harshly debated by political leaders and diplomats, at both the national and the international levels of discourse, and is one of several issues that derailed the WTO Third Ministerial Conference in Seattle in late 1999. It also posed problems for the Fourth Ministerial Conference in Doha, Qatar, in November of 2001, and it threatens to derail the successful functions of the WTO itself. With the ambitious topic assigned to them, the five authors, or groups of authors, have labored heroically to address the problem. The task assigned to me and to some others is to comment on these works. Partly because of time and space constraints, I will not try to deal very much with each work individually but will focus on some overall characteristics of these works and of the subject generally

International Law Status of WTO Dispute Settlement Reports: Obligation to Comply or Option to Buy Out ?

In four further parts of this comment, I undertake to fulfill my obligation to present a more thorough analysis. In part II, I briefly introduce some of the different elements that would go into normal treaty interpretation related to the issue in question, such as which text should be part of the analysis and whether preparatory work or intent of the parties, including statements by some nation-state governmental officials made contemporaneously with the drafting of the treaty, should be considered. Likewise, I mention the importance of the forty seven years of GATT practice to the interpretive process, and I note that one way to sharpen the focus of treaty interpretation is to assess the relevance of a prediction of what the WTO Appellate Body would decide if the issue came before it. In part III, I take a detailed look at the various treaty text provisions. The texts themselves are contained in an appendix so that the reader can examine them in context, if he or she wishes. In part IV, I outline several of the important policies that support the view I am taking and that I believe to be enormously significant in suggesting that the Schwartz and Sykes approach is markedly deficient. Finally, in part V, I briefly summarize my conclusions and perceptions

The Varied Policies of International Juridical Bodies: Reflections on Theory and Practice

I would like to turn to how my current thinking and writing relate to the broader issues of international law norm creation. One such article is quite recent and it represents some of my thinking in these broader general issues. It is entitled Sovereignty Modern, and it is a close look at the question of sovereignty and how it affects the fundamental logic of international law. I do not pretend that I have finalized my views, but fundamentally very few people really accept the original, Westphalian idea of sovereignty anymore. There are many other constructs of what sovereignty currently means, and what its significance should be going forward, but there is a real confusion about the notion generally. It is an important notion to explore, however, as the fundamentals of international law arguably depend, at least somewhat, on the concept

Sovereignty - Modern: A New Approach to an Outdated Concept

This article, however, does not purport to cover all possible dimensions of sovereignty but, instead, focuses primarily on what might be thought of as the core of sovereignty - the monopoly of power dimension - although it will be clear that even this focus inevitably entails certain linkages and slop-over penumbra of the other sovereignty dimensions. This core dimension is examined in the context of its roles with respect to international law and institutions generally, and international relations and related disciplines such as economics. National government leaders and politicians, as well as special interest representatives, too often invoke the term sovereignty to forestall needed debate. Likewise, international elites often assume that international is better (thus downplaying the importance of sovereignty) and this is not always the better approach. What is needed is a close analysis of the policy framework that gets us away from these preconceived mantras”. The objective is to shed some light on these policy debates or, in some cases, policy dilemmas, and to describe some of the policy framework that needs to be addressed

WTO constitutional problems: dispute settlement and decision making

The author looks at the background and history of the WTO, as well as procedures for dispute settlement among nations. Article by Professor John H. Jackson (University Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC) based on a speech given at the Society of Advanced Legal Studies Conference on 24 February 2000, published in Amicus Curiae - Journal of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies and its Society for Advanced Legal Studies. The Journal is produced by the Society for Advanced Legal Studies at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London

Remarks

The limits of international trade must be understood within the context of the institutional framework of the WTO, in particular, the decision-making and dispute settlement processes. The WTO dispute settlement rules are contained in the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), which is Annex 2 to the WTO agreement. The DSU includes some comments on the philosophy, the direction and the purposes of the dispute settlement procedures. Article 3.2 of the DSU has some very interesting phrases. One of those phrases (roughly paraphrased) says, \u27\u27None of the reports of the dispute settlement procedure should result in a change, addition, or subtraction from the rights and obligations of the members. Some have pointed to that clause as a warning against judicial activism. The panelists and Appellate Body members should not be changing the direction of the system in terms of its basic goals. Any changes to the direction of the system are to be left in the hands of the sovereign states, the nation states, and the members. I interpret Article 3.2 to mean: Be careful