WTO Agreements Research

Introduction

One critical and important facet in the trading environment worldwide that significantly contributes to international disputes is the matter of environment pollution. The issue is mainly examined by WTO but was formerly the mandate of GATT (General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade). However, during the period when GATT was in control, matters of environmental pollution had not risen to be a critical issue that needed serious attention. Therefore, GATT never addressed the issue promptly as it was seen as a subject that did not require negotiations. However, the World Trade Organization departments have raised concerns on the topic of environmental pollution taking the matter to the legislative considerations. The connection between trade and the environment has been stated in the policies under the ''WTO Agreements". Under the agreement, member states of WTO are required to conduct operations during trading with the most optimum use of natural resources in compliance with the set objective and goal of maintaining sustainable development. The approach is meant to ensure that world`s resources are preserved and protected keenly considering the effect on the environment. The same procedure should be observed continuously bearing in mind that economic development is essential. Secondly, the WTO`s environmental concerns trigger growth in all aspects that contribute to a healthy environment which could not be predicted earlier even in the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Purpose, Goals and Function

The WTO (World Trade Organization) states that dispute settlement is a crucial factor to be considered in a polygonal trading system. It is also a vital concept that contributes significantly holistically to the worldwide economy. There are various cases where a dispute may arise. One of them is when a member country assumes a specific policy of trade which is considered as unfit or inappropriate according to the agreements set by the WTO and implements it. One action that is prohibited by the member countries of WTO is confronting nations that have violated the trade rules solely. All nations answerable to the WTO are supposed to comply with the regulations set in the multilateral system of settling disputes. The policy states that the right procedures must be followed and the final judgments should be respected. WTO has a department known as DSB (Dispute Settlement Body) responsible for handling dispute cases. The DSB has been useful in carrying out its mandate to the point that it was termed as the "most efficient international adjudicative mechanism in the world today by a retired Director General of WTO. Petros M. also commended the system from CLS (Columbia Law School) and Chad P. from PIIE (Peterson Institute for Internal Economics) stating that it was strong since there was no sign of its weakness and.

Dispute Settlement Understanding

An agreement was made among the member countries of WTO in 1994 regarding the DSU (Disputes Settlement Understanding) and the Understanding of rules and procedures that governed Settling of disputes. All this was entailed in the Final Act that was signed in that year in Marrakesh. All member countries have the right to conduct consultations with the aim of resolving disputes related to trade, and if the applied strategy fails, then the DSB steps in to settle the case. The option is allowed to give room for resolving claims by consultations if the same is possible. Approximately 136 cases of the total 369 passed the whole process set by the panel by Jan 2008.

The whole process of settling disputes involves different parties including member countries, AP (Appellate Body), DSB officials, WTO Secretariat, independent personnel and other third parties. It is the work of the General Council to issue tasks guided by the GSU. This approach must be conducted through the DSB. The Dispute Settlement Body consists of prospect representatives of all member countries. One of the many responsibilities of the DSB is to oversee the whole process of settling disputes. The department has the right to assume and utilize reports from the Appellate Body, authorize suspending of obligations and maintain full control of the implemented recommendations and rulings as stated in the covered agreements. The Dispute Settlement Body has frequent meetings to meet the set timeframes set by DSU.

From complaint to final reportVarious reasons can lead to consultations between member countries. For instance, if a member country feels that an action taken by another member country has denied it some benefits stated in the cover agreement, then it should consider calling out for a consultation to settle the matter. If within 60 days the discussions do not resolve the dispute, the appellant member can go ahead and request a Panel to be established. The accused country has no right to delay or prevent a Panel from being developed. The DSB can decide to avert a Panel by consensus if the scenario suggests so. The Panel contains three members chosen by the Secretariat with the responsibility of receiving oral and written reports from the parties. The submissions are then used to analyze the issue at hand and give appropriate and unbiased conclusions that are later submitted to the DSB. The process is strictly confidential to the point that even the private parties present are required to provide their reports separately. The Non-Violation nullification of benefits claims can be another platform where disputes arise.Compensation and RetaliationIn any case, others register failures; there are two more alternatives defined by the DSU;

Where a member registers failure within the 'period considered reasonable' in fulfilling the recommendations and the rulings, he or she may institute negotiation with the state raising complains about compensation that is acceptable. Compensation lacks its definition though there may be an expectation of it granting a concession by the state responding to the service or product that draws interest to the state complaining.

Where there is no agreement reached concerning compensation within a period of twenty-one days after the period deemed reasonable expires, the state that prevails may request authorization aided by the DSB to institute the suspension of the member application associated with concessions or the obligations linked with the agreement. The DSU clarifies that retaliation has no favors and defines the criteria governing it. On the other hand, as practiced by GATT, the permissions to initiate suspension cases of concessions based on this context, is ever semi-automatic since it is still the DSB that will give grants for the authorization after thirty days of the period deemed reasonable expires unless it reaches the consensus of declining the request. Any form of suspension, concession or even the obligation shall remain to be temporary. The state that responds by declining the suspension level suggested in line with the principles of the DSU paves the way for offering an alternative arbitration. The instance, in this case, is possible with the initial members of the panel, arbitrator or many of arbitrators who are appointees of the Director-General. Where its completion is to be realized within sixty days of the period of expiry, then it will be deemed reasonable.

Developing Nations

The same way to other agreements that had been implemented by the Uruguay Round, DSU has various provisions targeting countries that are developing. According to the understanding, member states must provide special attention to issues and interests emanating from members of the countries that are developing. Added to the same, where one party to a dispute originates from that which is developing, then it is the party that has the right for a minimum of one panelist who originates from a country that is developing. In a scenario where the complainant is brought forward in contradiction to a country that is developing, then there could be room for the extension of the time for consultation. Also, where the dispute proceeds to the panel, then the developing country's deadline for making submissions may be halted a bit. Similarly, the Secretariat has the authority of making qualified legal expertise present to any nation that is developing on request. Formal types of complaints raised against the countries that are least developed are not encouraged. Consequently, in the event of the failure of consultations, the Director-General and Chairman in charge of DSB are always ready to avail their good offices before making a formal request for a panel. With the objective of assisting the countries that are developing in managing their expertise that is limited in the WTO law and also helping in the maintenance of complex disputes associated with trade, an Advisory Centre on WTO was set up in the year 2001. The objective of the levelled playing field for these states and custom based territories within the system of the WTO is to ensure full knowledge of the rights and the obligations stipulated in the WTO Agreement. Dispute Settlement UnderstandingThe Dispute Settlement Understanding was meant to handle the complexity of mitigating the trade non-tariff barriers. The non-tariff barrier is viewed as the government regulations and policies that influence the making it costly or difficult foreign competitors to carry on with the business activities in the country. In the initial years of GATT operations, many of the development in mitigating the trade barriers targeted the trade-in-goods and eliminating or reducing the level of tariffs on the goods. Recently, tariffs have been abolished in many of the business sectors, hence making the non-tariff barriers to become more significant, in the nonexistence of tariffs. In most cases, such non-tariff barriers are the coincidental outcome of well-natured endeavors to manage to guarantee protection or wellbeing for the environment or other public policies goals. In different cases, countries have been alleged to have the unintentionally developing that kind of regulations under the show of regulation intent, though, they affect the protection of the domestic industries from open international competition, to the damage of the international free-trade rule.

The enhanced dispute resolution mechanism that is operated by the WTO is meant to have the power to handle the issue with "fine line between national prerogatives and unacceptable trade restrictions" Many of the additional agreements designed for the GATT established during the Uruguay Round, for instance, as the SPS Agreement, seeks to stress on the conditions that the national regulations were allowed even in the case where they had the issue on restricting trade. Perhaps, the US has found itself on both sides of the delicate balance. On 1988, during the Uruguay round, the United States supported the enhancement of the Dispute Settlement pro...