WTO条约与其他国际法律文书和法庭的相互作用:WTO法学20年后的演变

Joost Pauwelyn
{"title":"WTO条约与其他国际法律文书和法庭的相互作用:WTO法学20年后的演变","authors":"Joost Pauwelyn","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2731144","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Positioning the WTO treaty in relation to other international legal instruments and tribunals is a complex, multi-faceted challenge on which reasoned opinions diverge. This contribution (i) describes how answering the question is, to some extent, an “interpretation choice”, (ii) summarizes the highlights of WTO jurisprudence to date, and (iv) identifies a number of trends and contradictions, and explains how the question itself, and the factors pushing in one or the other direction, have evolved over time. In its case law to date, the Appellate Body (AB) has solved some questions, and thereby made important interpretation choices. General international law, and its centralizing force, has played a key role. The impact of non-WTO treaties, including free trade agreements, and the de-centralizing pull they exert, remains less clear. The recent AB report on Peru – Agricultural Products provides useful clues and is surprisingly open to other international law. In other respects, it fails to convince and risks imposing an unrealistic straightjacket making it difficult for the WTO to adapt. Over time, the debate has shifted from non-trade to trade concerns and from other rules outside the WTO to instruments not part of WTO covered agreements but still concluded within the WTO. The pull toward other rules (broadly supported by the EU) shifted from a desire to legitimize the fledgling WTO dispute settlement system to an urge to find more recent expressions of membership voice. Regime independence and, later, an exaggerated focus on multilateralism have guided resistance against other rules (a trend generally supported by the US). Overall, the AB has preferred the avenue of treaty interpretation, and a pre-existing legal hook that can be found within the WTO treaty, to refer to other rules. Not always with legal support, the AB also tends to more easily accept other rules concluded inside rather than outside the WTO, and procedural deviations over substantive updating.","PeriodicalId":131289,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: Laws","volume":"65 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interplay between the WTO Treaty and Other International Legal Instruments and Tribunals: Evolution after 20 Years of WTO Jurisprudence\",\"authors\":\"Joost Pauwelyn\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2731144\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Positioning the WTO treaty in relation to other international legal instruments and tribunals is a complex, multi-faceted challenge on which reasoned opinions diverge. This contribution (i) describes how answering the question is, to some extent, an “interpretation choice”, (ii) summarizes the highlights of WTO jurisprudence to date, and (iv) identifies a number of trends and contradictions, and explains how the question itself, and the factors pushing in one or the other direction, have evolved over time. In its case law to date, the Appellate Body (AB) has solved some questions, and thereby made important interpretation choices. General international law, and its centralizing force, has played a key role. The impact of non-WTO treaties, including free trade agreements, and the de-centralizing pull they exert, remains less clear. The recent AB report on Peru – Agricultural Products provides useful clues and is surprisingly open to other international law. In other respects, it fails to convince and risks imposing an unrealistic straightjacket making it difficult for the WTO to adapt. Over time, the debate has shifted from non-trade to trade concerns and from other rules outside the WTO to instruments not part of WTO covered agreements but still concluded within the WTO. The pull toward other rules (broadly supported by the EU) shifted from a desire to legitimize the fledgling WTO dispute settlement system to an urge to find more recent expressions of membership voice. Regime independence and, later, an exaggerated focus on multilateralism have guided resistance against other rules (a trend generally supported by the US). Overall, the AB has preferred the avenue of treaty interpretation, and a pre-existing legal hook that can be found within the WTO treaty, to refer to other rules. Not always with legal support, the AB also tends to more easily accept other rules concluded inside rather than outside the WTO, and procedural deviations over substantive updating.\",\"PeriodicalId\":131289,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Institutions: Laws\",\"volume\":\"65 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-02-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Institutions: Laws\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2731144\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Institutions: Laws","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2731144","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

将WTO条约与其他国际法律文书和法庭的关系定位是一个复杂的、多方面的挑战,理性的意见存在分歧。这篇文章(i)描述了如何回答这个问题,在某种程度上,是一个“解释选择”,(ii)总结了迄今为止WTO法学的亮点,(iv)确定了一些趋势和矛盾,并解释了问题本身,以及推动一个或另一个方向的因素是如何随着时间的推移而演变的。迄今为止,上诉机构在其判例法中解决了一些问题,从而做出了重要的解释选择。一般国际法及其集中力量发挥了关键作用。包括自由贸易协定在内的非世贸组织条约的影响,以及它们所发挥的去中心化作用,仍不太清楚。最近关于秘鲁农产品的联合国报告提供了有用的线索,并出人意料地向其他国际法开放。在其他方面,它无法让人信服,而且有可能给WTO施加不切实际的束缚,使其难以适应。随着时间的推移,辩论从非贸易问题转向了贸易问题,从世贸组织以外的其他规则转向了不属于世贸组织协议但仍在世贸组织内缔结的文书。对其他规则的推动(得到欧盟的广泛支持)从希望使羽翼未丰的世贸组织争端解决机制合法化,转变为迫切希望找到更多成员国话语权的最新表达方式。政权独立以及后来对多边主义的过分关注,引导了对其他规则的抵制(这一趋势普遍得到美国的支持)。总的来说,仲裁机构更倾向于条约解释的途径,以及在世贸组织条约中可以找到的现有法律挂钩,以参考其他规则。上诉机构并不总是有法律支持,它也倾向于更容易接受WTO内部而非外部达成的其他规则,以及程序性偏差而非实质性更新。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Interplay between the WTO Treaty and Other International Legal Instruments and Tribunals: Evolution after 20 Years of WTO Jurisprudence
Positioning the WTO treaty in relation to other international legal instruments and tribunals is a complex, multi-faceted challenge on which reasoned opinions diverge. This contribution (i) describes how answering the question is, to some extent, an “interpretation choice”, (ii) summarizes the highlights of WTO jurisprudence to date, and (iv) identifies a number of trends and contradictions, and explains how the question itself, and the factors pushing in one or the other direction, have evolved over time. In its case law to date, the Appellate Body (AB) has solved some questions, and thereby made important interpretation choices. General international law, and its centralizing force, has played a key role. The impact of non-WTO treaties, including free trade agreements, and the de-centralizing pull they exert, remains less clear. The recent AB report on Peru – Agricultural Products provides useful clues and is surprisingly open to other international law. In other respects, it fails to convince and risks imposing an unrealistic straightjacket making it difficult for the WTO to adapt. Over time, the debate has shifted from non-trade to trade concerns and from other rules outside the WTO to instruments not part of WTO covered agreements but still concluded within the WTO. The pull toward other rules (broadly supported by the EU) shifted from a desire to legitimize the fledgling WTO dispute settlement system to an urge to find more recent expressions of membership voice. Regime independence and, later, an exaggerated focus on multilateralism have guided resistance against other rules (a trend generally supported by the US). Overall, the AB has preferred the avenue of treaty interpretation, and a pre-existing legal hook that can be found within the WTO treaty, to refer to other rules. Not always with legal support, the AB also tends to more easily accept other rules concluded inside rather than outside the WTO, and procedural deviations over substantive updating.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
International Law of State Responsibility and COVID-19: an Ideology Critique Deferred Pay in Financial Services: Compliance, Productivity and Attracting Talent International Investment Law and Domestic Investment Rules: Tracing the Upstream and Downstream Flows On The Contribution of Investment Arbitration to Issues of Evidence and Procedure Before Other International Courts and Tribunals Human Rights Issues in Cameroon in the Case of the Independentists Arrested in Nigeria and Extradited to Cameroon
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1