The Crisis of WTO Dispute Resolution System: Crisis Overcoming and Need for Reforms

The existence of a mechanism for resolving international trade disputes (IFAs) within the framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is one of the most significant advantages of this organization and is important not only from an economic, but also from a political point of view. Over the 25 years of the existence of the WTO and, accordingly, of the universal dispute resolution mechanism (IFA), it has been possible to achieve greater transparency in the application of the rules, create a precedent base and enable countries to defend their positions on the application of trade policy measures based on a universally recognized mechanism. Proponents of the functioning of this mechanism argue that it helped prevent trade wars while protecting the rights of smaller states in the WTO. In turn, the critical arguments are that only the most powerful states capable of effectively defending their arguments can really take advantage of this mechanism. The allegations of critics have been confirmed recently when D. Trump’s policy of “restoring” American greatness and domination (Make America Great Again) turned this “working” tool into a political tool, which drove the system into a deep crisis and, moreover, questioned the effectiveness of the WTO at large. In the process of forming the WTO, IFAs and representatives of its member countries strove to maximize the transparency, fairness and independence of decisions based solely on the agreed upon principles and procedures. At the same time, in 2019, the DSM was in a crisis situation due to a violation of the procedural principles by some of its participants, due to which, in particular, the work of one of the most important elements, the Appeals Body, was practically paralyzed.

The purpose of this article is to identify the main causes of the current crisis of the IFA and to substantiate the need for its reform within the framework of the WTO reform, taking into account the positions of individual members of the Organization. After analyzing the main causes of the crisis, as well as the proposals of individual researchers and the arguments of countries, the authors draw conclusions about possible solutions to the problems that have arisen, reflecting on the political nature of the problem and the need to maintain this mechanism as one of the foundations of the modern multilateral trading system.

1. (2017). Pravila VTO i osnovy torgovoj politiki [WTO Rules and Foundations of Trade Policy]. Moscow: Mezdunarodnye otnocheniya. 624 p.

2. Alee T., Huth P.K. (2006). Legitimizing Dispute Settlement: International Legal Rulings as Domestic Political Cover. American Political Science Review. Vol. 100. No. 2. P. 219–223.

3. Alter K.J. (2011). International Enforcement Courts. APSA 2011 Annual Meeting Paper. American political science association. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1901128

4. Bagwell K., Staiger R.W. (2004). Backward stealing and forward manipulation in the WTO. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2004. No. w10420. URL: https://www.nber.org/papers/w10420.pdf

5. Dmitriev S.S. (2019). Administratsiya Trampa gotova vzvalit’ na sebya bremya liderstva v VTO [Trump Administration Is Ready to Take the Burden of Leadership in the WTO]. Kontury global’nykh deformatsiy. Vol. 12. No. 3. P. 221–234.

6. European Commission. 2018. WTO reform: EU proposes way forward on the functioning of the Appellate Body. URL: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1945.

7. Fabry E., Tate E. (2018). Saving the WTO Appellate Body or Returning to the Wild West of Trade? Notre Europe. No. 225. URL: http://institutdelors.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/SavingtheWTOAppellate Body-FabryTate-June2018.pdf

8. Isachenko T.M. (2016). Reforma VTO: predposylki, usloviya i perspectivy [WTO Reform: Prerequisites, Conditions and Prospects]. Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta. No. 3(48). P. 239–248.

9. Kuijper P.J. (2017). The US Attack on the WTO Appellate Body. Legal Issues of Economic Integration. Vol. 45. No. 1. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3076399

10. Lawrence R.Z. (2003). Crimes and Punishments? Retaliation under the WTO. Washington D.C.: Peterson Institute. 108 p.

11. Maggi G. (1999). The role of multilateral institutions in international trade cooperation. American Economic Review. Vol. 89. No. 1. P. 190–214.

12. Maggi G., Staiger R.W. (2011). The role of dispute settlement procedures in international trade agreements. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vol. 126. No. 1. P. 475–515.

13. McDougall R. (2018). Crisis in the WTO Restoring the WTO Dispute Settlement Function. CIGI Papers. No. 194. 22 p.

14. Musikhin V.I., Evstyukhina K.K., Panov A.V. (2019). Torgovye vojny i VTO [Trade Wars and WTO]. Mezdunarodnaya elonomika. No. 3. P. 22–36.

15. Obolenskiy V.P. (2019). Kamni pretknovenya na puti reformirovanya VTO [Stumbling Blocks on the Pathway of WTO Reforming]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. Vol. 63. No. 8. P. 13–20.

16. Palmeter N.D., Mavroidis P.C. (2004). Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 330 p.

17. Smbatyan A.S. (2006). Mezdunarodnie torgovie spory v GATT. VTO: izbrannie rechenia (1952–2005) [International Trade Disputes in GATT. WTO: Selected Decisions (1952–2005)]. Moscow: Volters Kluver. 344 p.

18. Solovyeva O. (2019). VTO stanovitsya zhertvoj konflikta SSHA s Kitaem [WTO Becomes the Victim of the Conflict of the USA with China]. Mezdunarodnaya ekonomika. No. 2. P. 6–8.

19. Sutyrin S.F., Prokopova A.G. (2007). Perspektivi razvitia mezdunarodnoi torgovoi sistemi: vyzovy dlya stran Latinskoj Ameriki [Prospects for Development of International Trade System: Challenges for Countries of Latin America]. Vestnik SPbGU. Seriya 5. No. 3. P. 103–110.

20. Tallberg J., Smith Mc.C. (2014). Dispute settlement in world politics: States, supranational prosecutors, and compliance. European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 20. No. 1. P 118–144. DOI: 10.1177/1354066111434519

21. Trofimenko O.U. (2008). Mekhanizm razrecheniya sporov v GATT/VTO [Mechanisms of Dispute Settlement in GATT/WTO]. Vestnik SPbGU. Seriya 5. No. 2. P. 80–89.

22. Trunk-Fedorovya M.P. (2005). Reshenie sporov v ramkakh Vsemirnoy Torgovoj Organizatsii [Dispute Settlement in the Framework of the World Trade Organization]. UF SPbGU. 312 p.

23. Van den Bossche P. (2005). From afterthought to centerpiece: the WTO appellate body and its rise to prominence in the world trading system. Maastricht University Faculty of Law Working Paper No. 2005/1. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=836284

24. Wolff A. (1995). Testimony before Senate Finance Committee on proposed WTO Dispute Settlement Review Commission Act. URL: https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Hrg104-124.pdf.

25. Zagashvili V.S. (2019). Zastoj v VTO kak proyavlenie krizisa globalizacii [Stagnation in the WTO as a Reflect ion of Crisis of Globalization]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. Vol. 63. No. 6. P. 5–12.

26. Zangl B., Helmedach A., Mondré A., Kocks A., Neubauer G., Blome K. (2011). Between law and politics: Explaining international dispute settlement behavior. European Journal of International Relations.

27. Vol. 18. No. 2. P. 369–401. DOI: 10.1177/1354066110389832