Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T16:37:41.184Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Remarks by Mark Zaid

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Mark Zaid
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
Effectuating International Criminal Law Through International and Domestic Fora: Realities, Needs and Prospects
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 91 , 1997 , pp. 274 - 276
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1997

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 Christine Gray, Judicial Remedies in International Law 11 ff. (1987).

2 Trail Smelter Case (U.S. v. Can.), 3 R.I.A.A. 1905 (Apr. 16, 1938).

3 Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzow (Ger. v. Pol.), 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 17 (Judgment of Sept.

4 Doc.ADP/47, para. 5.24.

5 D0C. GPR.D5.1/R.

6 Not adopted.

7 Bello, Judith Hippler, The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding: Less is More, 90 Am. J. Int’l L. 416 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jackson, John H., The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding—Misunderstandings on the Nature of Legal Obligation, 91 Am. J. Int’l L. 60 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Working Party Report, Netherlands Action under Article XXIII: To Suspend Obligations to the United States, Nov. 8, 1952, GATT B.I.S.D. (1st Supp.) at 62 (1953).

9 Doc. C/M/220.

10 This was the Bill according to which each WTO dispute settlement judgment involving the U.S. should be reviewed by a panel of (former) federal judges. If their view was negative, the U.S. could withdraw. This Bill is well-known in trade circles.

11 Discriminatory withdrawal of TRIPs concessions is nearly always impossible, because it amounts to discriminatory expropriation, which is prohibited by most national legal systems.