DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM: A CRITICAL

ANALYSIS

INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW

SAURABH SOOD

G. NAGA LAHARI

ROLL NO: 2013048

VI SEMESTER

1
PLAGARISM

2
CERTIFICATE

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I consider myself lucky that I got the chance to do a work on this topic that was to “WTO
Settlement Mechanism: A Critical Analysis.”

I thank the subject teacher, Saurabh Sood, for letting me choose the topic.

4
 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.

5
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE Page No
CERTIFICATE 03
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
DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BODY
7. CASE ANALYSIS 11
7.1. Cases Filed by Less Developed Countries 11
7.2. Cases against Less Developed Countries 12
8. INDIA IN DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BODY 13
9. CRITICISM 14
10. SUGGESTIONS 15

CONCLUSION 16
BIBLIOGRAPHY 16
Books
Articles

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

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
the Dispute Settlement Body, 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 alternative measure to the retaliation, less than two provisions.2 Retaliation can be

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).

8
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 procedure.8 WTO was established
with four main tasks under the agreement: i) to provide a forum for negotiations among

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
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
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
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
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
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 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-

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

12
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 beverages25, were decided
against India. 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

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).
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.

13
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
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

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
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
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.

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
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.
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).

16
  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.

 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).

17
 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
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.

18