The dispute settlement system of the World Trade Organization (WTO) knew considerable success in its early years, being described as the WTO's crown jewel. In recent years, the jewel has become tarnished. Its principal actor – the Appellate Body – is no longer functioning, and the practice of the membership has been to appeal almost all new panel reports, thereby consigning them to a legal limbo from which they seem unlikely to ever emerge. This paper briefly reviews the record of the WTO dispute settlement system, considers the problems that led to its current state and evaluates various proposals that have been made to reinvigorate the system.

Although the Arctic is emerging as a promising region for energy development and maritime transportation, navigational safety is a persistent and growing concern. What can international trade regulations do to ensure the safe transportation of natural resources on the Northern Sea Route (NSR) and the sustainable development of the Arctic region? Government support is almost inevitable for shipyards, particularly in a highly competitive market. Shipyards build large-scale vessels that navigate the Arctic Ocean. However, excessive export competition will soon lead to over-production and exportation of substandard products. Assuming that even a single incident in the NSR could have a disastrous impact on the flora and fauna of the entire Arctic region, the potential for substandard vessel use represents a significant risk and potential damage to the environment. Although the World Trade Organization (WTO) has detailed rules for this purpose with an effective dispute settlement mechanism, the history of WTO disputes has proven that WTO proceedings sometimes result in unintended consequences. As an alternative option, along with negotiations under the WTO and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), this paper suggests the possibility of a critical mass agreement to mutually allow more flexible government support for vessels only if they have superior environmental performance.

This article explores the issue of norm conflict in the context of specific multilateral agreements that are administered and enforced by the World Trade Organization (WTO), namely, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT), the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), and the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Any discussion of norm conflict between treaty provisions must necessarily draw a critical distinction between an apparent conflict, on the one hand, and a real conflict, on the other hand. An apparent conflict is one where the content of two or more norms is at first glance contradictory, yet the conflict can be avoided, most often by interpretative means. A real conflict represents an irreconcilable divergence between norms which cannot be interpreted away and can only be solved by the application of a conflict rule. The notion of intra WTO conflict is largely unexplored and consequently under-theorized. It is explored here not as an abstract notion, but rather against the backdrop of the institutional and normative environment of the WTO. It is submitted that intra WTO norm conflict is hardly likely to arise as a legal issue under WTO law. This is because the normative and institutional environment of the WTO militates against treating overlapping WTO provisions as situations of real norm conflict. This environment allows for, and potentially mandates a judicial approach to intra WTO conflict that accords with the telos of the single undertaking nature of WTO rights and obligations. In the result, intra WTO conflict will possibly never be real; will often be deemed as merely apparent; and will sometimes be avoided.