The Jurisprudence of the World Trade Organization 2014

Cottier, Thomas; Espa, Ilaria; Liechti, Rachel; Payosova, Tetyana (2015). The Jurisprudence of the World Trade Organization 2014. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für internationales und europäisches Recht, 25(2), pp. 239-264. Schulthess

Full text not available from this repository.

In 2014, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) adopted seven panel reports and six Appellate Body rulings. Two of the cases relate to anti-dumping measures. Three cases, comprising five complaints, are of particular interest and these are summarized and discussed below. China – Rare Earths further refines the relationship between protocols of accession and the general provisions of WTO agreements, in particular the exceptions of Article XX GATT. Recourse to that provision is no longer excluded but depends on a careful case-by-case analysis. While China failed to comply with the conditions for export restrictions, the case reiterates the problem of insufficiently developed disciplines on export restrictions on strategic minerals and other commodities in WTO law. EC – Seals Products is a landmark case for two reasons. Firstly, it limits the application of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement) resulting henceforth in a narrow reading of technical regulations. Normative rules prescribing conditions for importation are to be dealt with under the rules of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) instead. Secondly, the ruling permits recourse to public morals in justifying import restrictions essentially on the basis of process and production methods (PPMs). Meanwhile, the more detailed implications for extraterritorial application of such rules and for the concept of PPMs remain open as these key issues were not raised by the parties to the case. Peru – Agricultural Products adds to the interpretation of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA), but most importantly, it confirms the existing segregation of WTO law and the law of free trade agreements. The case is of particular importance for Switzerland in its relations with the European Union (EU). The case raises, but does not fully answer, the question whether in a bilateral agreement, Switzerland or the EU can, as a matter of WTO law, lawfully waive their right of lodging complaints against each other under WTO law within the scope of their bilateral agreement, for example the Agreement on Agriculture where such a clause exists.

Item Type:	Journal Article (Original Article)
Division/Institute:	02 Faculty of Law > Department of Economic Law > Institute of European and International Economic Law 02 Faculty of Law > Department of Economic Law > World Trade Institute 10 Strategic Research Centers > World Trade Institute
UniBE Contributor:	Cottier, Thomas, Espa, Ilaria, Liechti, Rachel, Payosova, Tetyana
Subjects:	300 Social sciences, sociology & anthropology > 340 Law 300 Social sciences, sociology & anthropology > 380 Commerce, communications & transportation
ISSN:	1019-0406
Publisher:	Schulthess
Language:	German
Submitter:	Rachel Liechti-Mc Kee
Date Deposited:	18 Aug 2015 09:48
Last Modified:	05 Dec 2022 14:48
URI:	https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/70686