Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:33:48.538Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Future of WTO Dispute Settlement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Andrew W. Shoyer
Andrew W. Shoyer*
Affiliation:
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy LLP, Washington, DC
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
WTO Dispute Settlement: Three Years in Review
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 92 , 1998 , pp. 75 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 DSU Article 3.7 provides, in part, that “[a] solution mutually acceptable to the parties to a dispute and consistent with the covered agreements is clearly to be preferred [over the use of panel procedures].”

2 See, e.g., Korea—Measures Concerning the Shelf-Life of Products—Notification of Mutually Agreed Solution—Revision, WT/DS5/5/Add. 1 (Apr. 22, 1996); Annual Report at 11 (1997) (regarding the U.S. complaint concerning EC tariff concessions on grains).

3 DSU Article 3.5.

4 WT/AB/WP/3, circulated Feb. 28, 1997.

5 See Appellate Body Report on EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), circulated Jan. 16, 1998, (WT/DS26/AB/R & WT/DS48/AB/R) at para. 99.

6 Uruguay Round Agreements Act § 127(d), 19 U.S.C. § 3537(d) (1994).