WTO 争端解决机制：改革方案（I〕
The WTO Dispute Settlement System: Proposals for Reform (I)
吴戈
【摘要】WTO Dispute Settlement System and Disadvantage for Reform
【关键词】WTO Dispuite Settlement
【全文】
The WTO Dispute Settlement System: Proposals for Reform（Ⅰ）
Author: Ge WU
I. Introduction
On 1 January 1995, the most fundamental change occurred during the Uruguay Round, which regulated the rules of the new dispute settlement mechanism, named the Understanding on the Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“Dispute Settlement Understanding” or “DSU”), under Articles XXII and XXIII of the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). The DSU has been widely regarded as a big success in its creativity and necessity of effective service to resolve disputes between the 142 states and separate customs territories that are currently members of the World Trade Organization (“WTO”). In addition, the DSU is highly praised as “the central pillar of the multilateral trading system and the WTO’s most individual contribution to the stability of the global economy.”[1]
During the six-year operation of the DSU “constitution”,[2] the experience has shown us that the DSU has changed the nature of the dispute settlement process different from the practices of the previous GATT 1947 system in many ways. The changes made the system from “a diplomatic to a legalized process and from a power-based to a more rule-based procedure.”[3] Under the DSU, the dispute settlement process consists of three major stages, namely, “(1) bilateral or multilateral consultations, (2) adjudicative process before a panel, subject to appellate review, (3) implementation and enforcement under surveillance by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB).”[4] A series of features have been introduced to deal with the trading problems in the new dispute settlement mechanism. The consultation is a first step before the establishment of panel. Panel reports are adopted unless there is a consensus in the DSB to the contrary. In addition, the DSB introduced strict deadlines to settle disputes within a time-frame which is acceptable to the business community. Further, a standing Appellate Body is empowered to review the panel report to ensure the legal consistency of the reports and of the jurisprudence in general. Finally, the implementation or enforcement of the recommendations or rulings from the panel or the Appellate Body is underpinned by the right of retaliate of the winning party.
