Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Administration of Justice in the World Trade Organization: Did the WTO Appellate Body Commit 'Grave Injustice'?

Administration of Justice in the World Trade Organization: Did the WTO Appellate Body Commit... <jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Judicial administration of justice through reasoned interpretation, application and clarification of legal principles and rules is among the oldest paradigms of 'constitutional justice'. The principles of procedural justice underlying WTO dispute settlement procedures, like the conformity of WTO dispute settlement rulings with principles of 'substantive justice', remain controversial. This contribution criticizes the recent, harsh condemnation of the WTO dispute settlement rulings in the Brazil Tyres case as 'committing grave injustice'. After recalling the customary law requirement of interpreting treaties and settling international disputes 'in conformity with principles of justice' and human rights, the contribution examines the WTO Appellate Body case-law from the perspective of diverse conceptions of 'conservative' and 'reformative justice', 'general' and 'particular justice', procedural and substantive justice, national and multilevel 'constitutional justice', and judicial protection of transnational rule-of-law for the benefit of citizens. The article concludes that the panel, appellate and arbitration reports in the Brazil Tyres dispute, like many other WTO Appellate Body reports, reflect a growing concern 'to administer justice' in WTO dispute settlement proceedings. WTO judges and investor-state arbitrators should follow the example of the ICJ and of European courts and clarify the 'principles of justice' justifying their settlement of international economic disputes so that 'justice is not only done, but also seen to be done', albeit subject to 'trial and error'. Legal practitioners should support – and, as part of the 'invisible college of international lawyers', hold accountable – the emergence of an 'international judiciary' as an 'epistemic community' committed to defending rule of law, peaceful settlement of disputes and 'principles of justice' in mutually beneficial economic cooperation among citizens across national frontiers.</jats:p> </jats:sec> http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals Brill

Administration of Justice in the World Trade Organization: Did the WTO Appellate Body Commit 'Grave Injustice'?

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/administration-of-justice-in-the-world-trade-organization-did-the-wto-KFHCWm2l7Y

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 2009 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
1569-1853
eISSN
1571-8034
DOI
10.1163/156918509X12537882648507
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

<jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Judicial administration of justice through reasoned interpretation, application and clarification of legal principles and rules is among the oldest paradigms of 'constitutional justice'. The principles of procedural justice underlying WTO dispute settlement procedures, like the conformity of WTO dispute settlement rulings with principles of 'substantive justice', remain controversial. This contribution criticizes the recent, harsh condemnation of the WTO dispute settlement rulings in the Brazil Tyres case as 'committing grave injustice'. After recalling the customary law requirement of interpreting treaties and settling international disputes 'in conformity with principles of justice' and human rights, the contribution examines the WTO Appellate Body case-law from the perspective of diverse conceptions of 'conservative' and 'reformative justice', 'general' and 'particular justice', procedural and substantive justice, national and multilevel 'constitutional justice', and judicial protection of transnational rule-of-law for the benefit of citizens. The article concludes that the panel, appellate and arbitration reports in the Brazil Tyres dispute, like many other WTO Appellate Body reports, reflect a growing concern 'to administer justice' in WTO dispute settlement proceedings. WTO judges and investor-state arbitrators should follow the example of the ICJ and of European courts and clarify the 'principles of justice' justifying their settlement of international economic disputes so that 'justice is not only done, but also seen to be done', albeit subject to 'trial and error'. Legal practitioners should support – and, as part of the 'invisible college of international lawyers', hold accountable – the emergence of an 'international judiciary' as an 'epistemic community' committed to defending rule of law, peaceful settlement of disputes and 'principles of justice' in mutually beneficial economic cooperation among citizens across national frontiers.</jats:p> </jats:sec>

Journal

The Law & Practice of International Courts and TribunalsBrill

Published: Jan 1, 2009

Keywords: EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS; JUDICIAL COMITY; INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA; INVESTOR-STATE ARBITRATION; JUDICIAL GOVERNANCE; ECJ; PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE; INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTS; ICJ; WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES; EFTA COURT

There are no references for this article.