Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla

Discipline – International Trade of Law

Topic -WTO Dispute Settlement

Submitted To: - Dr Sarita Klair

[Assistant Professor Law]

Submitted By: - Yashasvi Sharma

BBA LLB (Hons.) (Sem 7th)

Enrollment No.: - 1120202148

1
Acknowledgement

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my professor Dr. Sarita Klair Ma’am who
gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic of WTO dispute
settlement, which also helped me do a lot of Research and I came to know about so many new
things I am really thankful to them.

Secondly, I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in finalizing this
project within the limited time frame.

I am overwhelmed in all humbleness and gratefulness to acknowledge my depth to all those who
have helped me to put these ideas, well above the level of simplicity and into something concrete.

Thanking you,

Yashasvi Sharma

Enrollment No. 1120202148

B.B.A LLB Sem VII

2
INDEX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE Page No

ACKNOWLEDGMENT 04

ABSTRACT 05

1. OBJECTIVES 07

2. INTRODUCTION 07

3. HYPOTHESIS 08

4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 08

5. WTO OVER GATT 08

5.1.GATT Dispute Settlement Scheme 08

5.2.Establishment of WTO and its Specific 09

Objectives

5.3.Dispute Settlement Understanding

10

6. PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED BY 10-12

DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BODY

7. CASE ANALYSIS 13

7.1.Cases Filed by Less Developed Countries 13

7.2.Cases against Less Developed Countries 14

3
 8. INDIA IN DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BODY 15

9. CRITICISM 16

10. SUGGESTIONS 17

CONCLUSION 18

BIBLIOGRAPHY 19

Books

Articles

4
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

¶ Paragraph

& And

Ed. Edition

No. Number

AIR All India Reporter

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Ors. Others

Anr. Another

Supp Supplementary

Ibid Ibidem

Govt. Government

Art. Article

UOI Union of India

v. versus

5
ABSTRACT

Economy of a nation depends heavily on the trade and commercial activities within and outside
its jurisdictions. Jurisprudence of trade in the classical era was that there should be no restriction
and there was no state to control the affairs over trade. But with the industrial revolution, it was
felt by majority nations that the trade between two individuals having consequence in the income
of the nation as whole and needs to be regulated with their own laws and external agencies. Trade
between two individuals belongs to a same nation can be regulated by the law of that particular
nation. But with regard the commercial transactions between nations, there was no uniform
mechanism or a body to systemize the international trade, particularly when it comes a dispute
between the parties or states. Immediately after the World War II, negotiations between large
counts of nation were initiated in the year 1944 at Bretton Woods to form a body and treaty to
coordinate international trade and successfully concluded with the preparation of multilateral
treaty with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in the Geneva meetings, 1947 and the
GATT provisionally came into effect from January 1, 1948. At the same time the attempt to
establish an international body called International Trade Organization was completed with the
charter but failed to exist as it was not adopted by the United States of America’s congress which
was an important arm intended in creating such an international body. From then, GATT was the
only international instrument administering international trade until 1995 when World Trade
Organization was established.

6
 1. OBJECTIVES

To understand and analyse the WTO dispute settlement mechanism with the critical analysis.

2. INTRODUCTION

Economy of a nation depends heavily on the trade and commercial activities within and also
outside its jurisdictions. Jurisprudence of the trade in the era was that there should be no restriction
and there was no state or authority to control the affairs over trade and commerce. With the
industrial revolution, it was felt by most of the nations that the trade between two individual
nations having consequence in the income of the nation as a whole and needs to be regulated with
their own laws and the external agencies. Trade between two individual parties belongs to a same
nation can also be regulated by the law of that respective nation. But with this regard the
commercial transactions between the nations, there was no uniform mechanism or a settlement
body to systemize the international trade and commerce, particularly when it comes to a dispute
between the parties or the states. Immediately, after the World War II, the negotiations between
large counts of nation were also initiated in the year 1944 at the Bretton Woods to form a body
and the treaty to coordinate with international trade and successfully concluded with the
preparation of the multilateral treaty with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in the
Geneva meetings in the year 1947 and then GATT provisionally came into effect from January 1,
1948. At this time, the attempt to establish an international body called as International Trade
Organization was also completed with the charter but it failed to exist, as it was not adopted by
the United States of American congress which was also an important arm, which intended in
creating such an international body. From then, GATT was the only international instrument in
administering the international trade until 1995 till World Trade Organization was established.1

The important purpose for the establishment of GATT agreement was settling any kind of trade
disputes arising between the nations. This article will also discuss the provisions and the also
procedures under GATT and WTO regarding international trade dispute settlement. Discussion in
the first part will be based on the evolution of GATT and the emergence of the international body
WTO for the settling disputes and also the agreements under it. Second part will give a brief
overview of the Dispute Settlement Understanding followed by the WTO Dispute Settlement
Body in deciding trade disputes. In the third part, cases decided by the Dispute Settlement Body,

1
Safia Gupta, “From GATT to WTO”, available at: http://legalserviceindia.com/article/l378-From-GATT-to-
WTO.html, last visited on (March 1, 2016).

7
this will be analysed with a special focus on the disputes which has involved developing countries.
Then, the criticism of the Dispute Settlement Body process will be looked into.

3. HYPOTHESIS

WTO is the central pillar of the multilateral trading system. The dispute settlement body of the
WTO is deciding the trade disputes between nations following the dispute settlement
understanding and the covered agreements. The existing system under GATT, 1947 was renewed
with the separate body called dispute settlement body. The cases decided by the body and the
problems with the settlement proceedings were analysed in this article.

4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1.Research Questions

1. What is the dispute settlement of WTO over GATT?

2. What is the procedure to be by the Dispute Settlement Body?

3. What are the analysis of cases filed by the Less Developed Countries and India in Dispute
Settlement Body?

4. What are the Critics of the Dispute Settlement Body?

4.2. Sources of Data

The primary sources of data are internet source and books.

4.3.Method of Writing

The research paper is doctrinal in nature.

4.4.Mode of Citation

The mode of citation used in this paper is Harvard Blue Book Citation.

5. WTO OVER GATT

5.1. GATT Dispute Settlement Scheme

The main objective of the GATT was to limit the tariff charges and also facilitating the free trade
for the benefit of all the GATT parties of contract. Under the GATT provisions, there was a
procedure for the settlement of disputes in consensus mode, which intends to provide an

8
alternative measure to the retaliation, less than two provisions.2 Retaliation can be recommended
under the provision of Article XXIII but it has occurred only once in the history of GATT, but in
general almost all parties agree to windup the policies in question.3 In the beginning, the disputes
under the GATT procedure were to be decided by rulings of chairman of the council and then later
on disputes were referred to the working parties, which comprise of all interested parties
representatives. Then, all these procedures were replaced by the new process of establishing an
independent expert panel, which consists of three or five experts who are not associated to the
parties of dispute.4Then the report of the expert panel will send for the approval to the GATT
council and once the recommendations of the panel get approved, it will become binding on the
parties to the dispute. This evolution of the GATT dispute settlement process was the sole basis
for the foundations of WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism.

In spite of the salient features of the Dispute Settlement Process under GATT, it was not effectively
enforceable due to several reasons like the positive consensus and also retaliation measures which
are not possible in all cases.5 The inborn defects in the GATT dispute settlement process, will lead
to number of problems in mid-80’s and the need for improving and also strengthening the process,
which was felt by almost all nations.6

5.2.Establishment of WTO and its Specific Objectives

In addition to the non-tariff barrier reduction method, which was introduced in the Tokyo round,
the dispute settlement was also included and then given higher importance in the later negotiation
called as Uruguay round (1986-94) which was the last round of the GATT multilateral
negotiations, which concluded with the creation of a new body to regulate and also administer the
international trade. The final act of Uruguay round singed in the ministerial meeting at Marrakesh
transformed the GATT in to a new international organization called as WTO, which came into
effect from 1st January 1995.7 The new WTO had its notable feature of creating a new procedure
for adjudicating the legal disputes under provisions of GATT and WTO with a dispute settlement

2
MITSUO MATSUSHITA, THOMAS J. SCHOENBAUM AND ET. AL., THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION- LAW, PRACTICE
AND POLICY, 85 (Oxford University Press, New York, 2nd ed., 2006).
3
Dan Kovenock and Marie Thursby, “GATT, Dispute Settlement and Cooperation”, available
at:http://www.nber.org/papers/w4071.pdf (Visited on September 12, 2011).
4
Historic Development of WTO Dispute Settlement System, available at:
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/disp_settlement_cbt_e/c2s1p1_e.htm#txt4 (Visited on March 14,
2011).
5
SURENDRA BHANDARI, WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, 73(Deep & Deep Publications
Pvt. Ltd.,2001).
6
Supra note 4
7
Supra note 2 at 7

9
procedure.8 WTO was established with four main tasks under the agreement: i) to provide a forum
for negotiations among members both to current matters and any future agreements, ii) to
administer the system of dispute settlement, iii) to administer the trade policy review mechanism,
and iv) to cooperate as needed with the IMF and the World Bank.9

5.3.Dispute Settlement Understanding

The scheme of the Dispute Settlement Understanding is an overall framework for resolution of the
disputes in the field of international trade under WTO.10 The understanding consists of 27 articles,
which provides the rules and the procedures to be followed by the Dispute Settlement Body in
interpreting and also enforcing all the covered agreements that make up with the WTO.11 Dispute
Settlement Understanding itself under the Article 3.1, which provides for the application of Article
XXII and XXIII of the GATT, 1947.12 In November 2001, at the Ministerial Conference of Doha,
the member governments agreed to negotiate to improve and also clarify the DSU, which was
compelled in 1994 decision itself to review the Dispute Settlement Understanding after five
years.13

This new procedure under the Dispute Settlement understanding eliminates the blocking
possibility through a procedure called as ‘reverse consensuses.14 It is a sole authority, which is
responsible for establishing panel, the appellate body and implementing the findings or
recommendation of the panel or the appellate body. Only when any positive solution is not
possible, then a member can invoke the dispute settlement procedures. Members of WTO have
filed over 427 complaints in just fifteen years. The detailed procedure have to be followed by the
Dispute Settlement Body will be briefly explained under the following heads.15

8
Robert E. Hudec, “The New WTO Dispute Settlement Procedure: An Overview of the First Three Years”,
MINN.JOURNAL OF GLOBAL TRADE ,2 (1999).
9
Art III of the WTO Agreement.
10
M B RAO AND MANJULA GURU, WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, 38 (Lexis Nexis, New
Delhi, 2004).
11
Bryan Mercurio and Mitali Tyagi, “Treaty Interpretation in WTO Dispute Settlement: The Outstanding Question of
the Legality of Local Working Requirements”, 19, MINNESOTA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 275 ( 2010).
12
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes(DSU), Art 3.1: Members affirm their
adherence to the principles for the management of disputes heretofore applied under Articles XXII and XXIII of
GATT 1947, and the rules and procedures as further elaborated and modified herein.
13
GATT over WTO Dispute settlement mechanism, available at
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_e.html, last visited on (March 5, 2016).
14
John H. Jackson, “International Law Status of WTO Dispute Settlement Reports: Obligation to Comply or Option
to ‘Buy Out’?”, 98 , AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 109 (2004).
15
John H. Jackson, “The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding – Misunderstandings on the Nature of Legal
Obligation”, 91(1) AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 60 (Jan 1997).

10
 6. PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED BY DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BODY

Generally, when a dispute arises it seems to a member government that the member government
is violating an agreement or a commitment under WTO. The dispute settlement mechanism
proceeds through three important stages i) Consultation, ii) Formal Litigation and iii) Necessary
Implementation which is Settling dispute is the responsibility of the Dispute Settlement Body and
it is the sole authority to do four main functions:

i) Establish a panel of experts to consider the case,

ii) To accept or reject the report (findings) of the panel,

iii) To accept or reject the results of an appeal,

iv) To retaliate the parties which has failed to comply with the rulings.

7. CASE ANALYSIS

7.1. Cases Filed by Less Developed Countries

Developing countries account for seventy 75% of the WTO membership and they are increasingly
able to use their power to influence the negotiations which are traditionally dominated by
developed countries. Seven out of eleven, the most frequent complainants in the dispute settlement
process are the developing countries and they have also filed 40% of the total complaints. 16 From
the introduction, the dispute settlement mechanism under WTO the less developed countries,
particularly the developing nations, which are actively performed in the process. Brazil, Canada,
India and Mexico are noted to be as frequent complainants and the third parties as USA and EU
are the most frequent users of the settlement mechanism. The first case which was filed before the
WTO Dispute Settlement Body was by the Singapore against Malaysia on the prohibition of
imports products of the polyethylene and polypropylene which was then settled on mutual
agreement basis between the parties in 1995. The second case, which was filed by the Venezuela
and Brazil which was also an important one on the developing nation’s perspective, is the US
Gasoline case17 relating to some of the provisions of USA’s Clean Air Act, which also imposes
standards for the reformulated and the conventional gasoline. But, the fact was that USA’s policy
measures of the restricted imported gasoline and then treated it as a less favoured manner. The

16
GREGORY SHAFFER AND RICARDO MELENDEZ-ORTIZ , DISPUTE SETTLEMENT AT THE WTO: THE DEVELOPING
COUNTRY EXPERIENCE, 2 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010). also see: David Evans and Gregory
Shaffer, “The Developing Country Experience in WTO Dispute Settlement”, available at:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1743727, last visited on March 5, 2016.
17
DS2 (1995).

11
panel’s report was also in favour of the complainants but in an appeal, the DSB has slightly
modified the panel’s reasoning and then held the measures to be taken by the USA are not
justifiable. Next, the Brazil has also participated as a complainant in more than 25 cases and most
of cases are against the USA, the EU and Canada. Other important cases, which were initially
succeeded by Malaysia along with India, Pakistan and the Thailand against USA is the US- Shrimp
Case,18 in which USA’s guidelines were restricting certain countries from importing of shrimp
were questioned. Both, the panel and the AB also concluded that the measure at issue, of the import
prohibition on the shrimp and shrimp products was inconsistent with the provisions of GATT. The
same issue later, held that which is not in contravention with the agreement on considering certain
provisions on the preservation of natural resources. Though, the ruling was not complied with the
USA, but it was noted in the WTO report that the compliance proceedings completed without the
findings of non-compliance. Some other nations like Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Argentina
and Mexico also have filed many cases against the developed nations, but failed in most of cases.
Another success of the developing nations over the developed countries is the Chicken Cuts case.19
This case was filed by the Thailand and Brazil against the European Union on their certain
measures, which are relating to tariff classification imposing the duties on frozen boneless chicken
cuts and also the same measures were held to be violative of GATT provisions.

7.2.Cases Filed against Less Developed Countries

Developed Countries like the USA and EU are the nations which are very well using the dispute
settlement mechanism under WTO to enforce their economic rights. Starting from the first case
on Korean measures, which concerned the test and also inspection of the agricultural products, the
USA has filed about 98 cases as a complainant of which about 50% of the cases are against the
LDCs. As like USA, European Union has also filed 85 cases as a complainant against the LDCs.
The Canada’s Aircraft case against the Brazil’s export financing programme was also a good
example for the privileges, which were enjoyed by the wealthier nations in the Dispute Settlement
Body proceedings, where Brazil was held that violated the Agreement on the Subsidies and the
Countervailing Measures.

In Korea Beef case20, the measures were taken by the Korea to restrict the beef and beef products
imports from the Australia and USA on the domestic support programme, which was concluded
as against the GATT agreement and the measures, which accorded the less favoured treatment to

18
DS58 (2000).
19
DS269 and DS /286 (2003).
20
DS 161, 169(1999).

12
the imported beef and beef products. The Statistical information shows that more than 40% of the
cases, which were filed by the developing nations and in about 35% of the cases they are fit to be
as defendants. 21 It was observed by some of the scholars that in comparing the WTO dispute
settlement mechanism, the success rate of developing nations over the developed nation’s
defendants are more under the GATT settlement process.22

8. INDIA IN DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BODY

India as a member of WTO has filed about 19 cases before the Dispute Settlement Body and
involved in the consultation process in 72 cases as a third party. There were about 20 cases filed
against India till the date. The first case was filed by India on different import regimes for the
automobiles which were followed by the Poland23 and a mutually agreed solution was reached
between the members of parties during the consultation process itself. The first case filed in the
Dispute Settlement Body against India was by the USA in 1996 on India’s product patent stand.
India was about to rule the implement, in the patent laws, the mailbox rule and also the exclusive
market Right for the pharmaceutical and also agricultural chemical product patents. Another
important case, which was filed against India by the USA and European Union, is India Autos
case24 regarding the measures taken by the India to impose certain restrictions to use the imported
components on the automobile industry in order to encourage the domestic products was held to
be violation of Article XI of GATT. A similar case was also filed by USA on the India’s quantitative
import restrictions in order to protect the balance of payments under GATT provisions. The case
was decided by the Dispute Settlement Body in favour of USA, by stating that India's monetary
reserves were to be adequate, and, thus, the India's Balance of Payments measures were not
necessary to be forestall the threat of or to stop, the serious decline in its monetary reserves within
the meaning of the Article XVIII and the India had violated the Art. XVIII. This observation
clearly shows that the bias nature of the dispute settlement system in favour of wealthier nations.

Many other cases were brought by the developed countries against India like the case on additional
import duty which was imposed by India on alcoholic beverages 25, were decided against India.

21
Gregory Shaffer, “Developing Country Use of the WTO Dispute Settlement System: Why it Matters, the Barriers
Posed, and its Impact on Bargaining”, available at: http://ictsd.org/downloads/2008/05/shaffer_1.pdf, last visited on
(March 4, 2016).
22
Marc L. Busch and Eric Reinhardt, “Developing Countries and GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement”, available at:
http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~erein/research/Berkeley.pdf, last visited on (March 5, 2016).
23
DS19 (1995).
24
DS146 and DS175 (2000).
25
DS360 (2007).

13
On the other hand, cases filed by India like, shrimp case26, and textile case27 were also decided not
in favour of India. The one recent case, which was filed by India against the European Union,
particularly Netherlands, the case on seizure of the generic drugs, which manufactured in India in
transit. This case is on the repeated wrongful seizure of the generic drugs which is originating in
India while transiting through the ports and airports in Netherlands on the grounds of patent
infringement. The consultation process was started with third party nations like Canada, China,
Ecuador, Japan and Turkey. The consultation process was succeeded and then the EU had accepted
their seizure of generic drugs, which was wrong and their members will also amend their rules
soon and further India said it will withdraw the case when EU ratifies the amendment.28

9. CRITICISM

The criticism contends that the less developed countries in WTO exercise very little influence in
the dispute settlement mechanism and despite the WTO, which was aimed at protecting the
developed nations. The poorest nations in the WTO are almost completely disengaged from the
enforcement of their market to access rights through the formal dispute settlement litigation.29 It
was also observed by some of the scholars that the disputes filed by USA and EU appeared to have
been ended with the defendant in making the desired policy changes frequently under the WTO.30
The reason for the difference was very well analysed and explained by a scholar and the various
reasons given by him for the poor performance of Less Developed Countries in WTO dispute
settlement mechanism are lack of the legal and also political capacity in the international trade
and the fear of political or the trade reprisal of the Less Developed Countries.31 The reason for
low success rate of the Less Developed Countries are also well analysed in the same study and
also stated the reasons, which were pointed on the Less Developed Countries concerns regarding
experts, the need to hire the experts for research and the testimony to support their cases.32

26
Supra note 36.
27
DS243 (2002) – Rules of origin applied by US to restrict import of textiles from one nation in protecting domestic
industry.
28
Dispute Settlement Mechanism, available at http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-04-
06/news/29388612_1_multilateral-intellectualproperty-agreement-generic-drugs-valid-patents, last visited on
(March 6, 2016).
29
Chad P. Bown and Bernard M. Hoekman, “WTO Dispute Settlement and the Missing Developed Country Cases:
Engaging the Private Sector”, available at: http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/200505bown.pdf, last visited on
(March 6, 2016).
30
Marc L. Busch and Eric Reinhardt, “Transatlantic Trade Conflicts and GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement”,
available at: http://www.ppl.nl/bibliographies/wto/files/1546.pdf, last visited on March 6, 2016.
31
Kristin Bohl, “Problems of Developing Country Access to WTO Dispute Settlement”, 9 ,CHI.-KENT J. INT'L &
COMP. LAW JOURNAL,130 (2009).
32
Ibid.

14
Other two major issues attached with the WTO dispute settlement mechanism process are on the
transparency and right of the private parties in the settlement mechanism. Some of the scholars
have also emphasised on need for the participation of the public and also non-governmental
organisations in the dispute settlement mechanism process in order to provide a flat form for the
weaker economies to approach Dispute Settlement Body and to attain the better achievement in
liberalised and also in privatised global trade. 33 Several other approaches have also been
recognized by the experts in whom a private non-governmental party might also participate in the
system like the rights to observe, rights to submit the amicus briefs, and the rights to bring lawsuits
directly. 34 Opening the dispute mechanism procedures to the public scrutiny and the public
participation was also addressed by USA in the year 1998 itself in the ministerial meeting.35 At
the same time, it was also observed by other scholars that the public access to the documents and
also hearings will have some negative impact on legitimacy of the WTOs legal rulings. Regarding,
the bias nature of WTO against the developing countries, the main cause for this kind of situation
is that the developing countries are far less likely than the richer countries to induce a settlement
mechanism before the rulings is issued. 36 It was also observed by an expert, Breuss that the
settlement mechanism system has a tendency to lead the WTO members to shoot in their own feet
through the protectionary measures.37

In addition, there were some of the arguments on the involvement of the third parties in the dispute
settlement mechanism process which would complicate the dispute settlement mechanism and
would also make the process more costly with more number of voices and issues. 38 Another
argument was also regarding the powers of AB, to ignore certain issues, which was raised by the
parties, given under Article 17.12 of the dispute settlement understandings.39

33
Thomas J. Shcoenbaum, “WTO Dispute Settlement: Praise and Suggestions for Reform”, 47, INT’L & COMP. L.
Q.647(1998).
34
Joel P. Trachtman, Philip M. Moremen, “Costs and Benefits of Private Participation in WTO Dispute
Settlement:Whose Right is it Anyway?”, 44(1) HARVARD INT’L LAW JOURNAL, 221(2003).
35
The then president of USA Clinton’s address to the WTO Ministerial Meeting, May 19, 1998.
36
Trade Brief on the WTO Dispute Settlement by SIDA, available at:
www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/mlb66/SIDA.pdf, last visited on (March 6, 2016).
37
Wilhelm Kohler, “The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Battlefield or Cooperation?”, available at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=764168, last visited on (March 6, 2016).
38
Marc L. Busch and Eric Reinhardt, “Three’s a Crowd: Third Parties and WTO Dispute Settlement”, 58, WORLD
POLITICS LAW OF JOURNAL, 446(April 2006).
39
Art. 17.12 says that ‘the AB shall address each of the issues raised’. By exercising this power AB can simple
address few issues and neglect to consider other issues separately

15
SUGGESTIONS

The developed nations are bound to get the easy access of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism,
which has high voice and always binding and it prevails over the less developed nations. But, there
should be an equal platform for the developed nations, developing nations and the less developed
nations and the object should be achieved without any bias nature with the provisions of the GATT
and the Dispute settlement understanding.

CONCLUSION

WTO was established with the primary aim and objective to promote free trade and also to
stimulate the economic growth and the Dispute Settlement Understanding under the WTO, which
is providing an effective mechanism to enforce trade agreements which experience any violations
by its member governments. The dispute settlement mechanism itself has its own positive as well
as negative features. The Uruguay round and the Doha declarations were primarily focused on the
involvement of Less Development Countries in the dispute settlement process. The understanding
itself provides many provisions, which gives some superior status for the Less Developed
Countries to equal usage of the process, like Article 12.10 and 24 regarding the time extension
given for developing countries in consultation process. But, the reality learned from the decided
settlement disputes under the Dispute Settlement Understanding clearly mentions that the process
does not manage universal economy impartially. It generally focuses on commercial interest of
the profit making companies rather than the economic growth of all the nations.

Though, it is having many inherent defects, as an organization to encourage the trade and also
economic growth of the WTO and the Dispute Settlement Mechanism are well operating towards
the stimulation of the trade and also economic progress. Regarding, the developing nations
participation in the panel process, by the end of 2010, 63 % of the serving panellists were from
the developing countries. Due to active participation and the certain experience gained by certain
developing countries like India, Brazil, Argentina, Thailand, now there is a little shift in the
settlement mechanism. Now, the nations started understanding their rights and also obligations
under the WTO agreements. At present, ignoring of all the issues, the WTO Dispute Settlement
Body proceedings must be made in an impartial and more in the transparent manner keeping in
view with the economic progress and also interest of the humanity rather than having focus of
100% on trade.

16
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

• Gregory Shaffer and Ricardo Melendez-Ortiz (eds.), Dispute Settlement at the WTO: The
Developing Country Experience (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010).

• M B Rao and Manjula Guru, WTO Dispute Settlement and Developing Countries (Lexis
Nexis, New Delhi, 2004).

• Mitsuo Matsushita, Thomas J. Schoenbaum and et. al., The World Trade Organization-
Law, Practice and Policy (Oxford University Press, New York, 2nd edn., 2006).

• Surendra Bhandari, World Trade Organisation and Developing Countries (Deep & Deep
Publications Pvt. Ltd., 2001).

Articles

• Bryan Mercurio and Mitali Tyagi, “Treaty Interpretation in WTO Dispute Settlement: The
Outstanding Question of the Legality of Local Working Requirements”, 19 Minnesota
Journal of International Law 275 (Summer, 2010).

• Chad P. Bown and Bernard M. Hoekman, “WTO Dispute Settlement and the Missing
Developed Country Cases: Engaging the Private Sector”, available at:
http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/200505bown.pdf.

• Dan Kovenock and Marie Thursby, “GATT, Dispute Settlement and Cooperation”,
Working Paper available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w4071.pdf.

• Gregory Shaffer, “Developing Country Use of the WTO Dispute Settlement System: Why
it Matters, the Barriers Posed, and its Impact on Bargaining”, available at:
http://ictsd.org/downloads/2008/05/shaffer_1.pdf.

17
 • Henrick Horn, Petros C. Mavroidis and et. al., “Is the Use of the WTO Dispute Settlement
System Biased?”, available at: www.econlaw. se/Papers/Disputes000117.PDF.

• Joel P. Trachtman, Philip M. Moremen, “Costs and Benefits of Private Participation in

WTO Dispute Settlement: Whose Right is it Anyway?”, 44(1) Harv. Int’l L.J. 221(2003).

• John H. Jackson, “International Law Status of WTO Dispute Settlement Reports:

Obligation to Comply or Option to ‘Buy Out’?”, 98 American Journal of International Lsaw 109
(2004).

• John H. Jackson, “The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding – Misunderstandings on

the Nature of Legal Obligation”, 91(1) American Journal of International Law 60 (Jan
1997).

• Kristin Bohl, “Problems of Developing Country Access to WTO Dispute Settlement”, 9

Chi.-Kent J. Int'l & Comp. L. 130 (2009).

• Marc L. Busch and Eric Reinhardt, “Developing Countries and GATT/WTO Dispute
Settlement”, available at: http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~erein/research/Berkeley.

• Marc L. Busch and Eric Reinhardt, “Three’s a Crowd: Third Parties and WTO Dispute
Settlement”, 58 World Politics 446(April 2006).

• Marc L. Busch and Eric Reinhardt, “Transatlantic Trade Conflicts and GATT/WTO

Dispute Settlement”, available at: http://www.ppl.nl/bibliographies/wto/files/1546.pdf.

• Robert E. Hudec, “The New WTO Dispute Settlement Procedure: An Overview of the

18
First Three Years”, 8 Minn. Journal of Global Trade 2 (1999).

• Safia Gupta, “From GATT to WTO”, available at:

http://legalserviceindia.com/article/l378-From-GATT-to-WTO.html.

• Swapneshwar Goutam, “WTO & Development in Developing Countries Perspective”,

available at: http://legalserviceindia.com/article/l425-WTO-&-Development-In-
Developing-Countries-Perspective.html.

• Thomas J. Shcoenbaum, “WTO Dispute Settlement: Praise and Suggestions for Reform”,
47 Int’l & Comp. L. Q. 647(1998).

• Trade Brief on the WTO Dispute Settlement by SIDA, April 2004, available at:
www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/mlb66/SIDA.pdf.

19