جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « Dispute Settlement Body » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

For the first time, after World War II, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) made effort to pursue free trade between members in the form of tariff reduction. Besides, it was tried to counter trade destructive approaches like subsidies, dumping and overt tariffs and find solution for them. In 1994, World Trade Organization was established in the UN framework as the most inclusive organization in international trade field and replaced GATT. The organization targeting expansion of world trade on the basis of work division system, has based several principles among which mention can be made to guarantee of fairness in free trade between members. WTO has followed GATT attitude toward free trade and fairness in free trade. Assuming the necessity of supporting members by the organization, fairness in free trade relations and prevention of malicious competitions, the present paper has tried to explore available approaches in the organization’s documents and its dispute settlement body practice for reparation of damages which members incur in unfair competitions and concludes that WTO regulations and practice could succeed to make a good balance between import and safeguard measures, between dumping and anti-dumping measures, and between subsidies and countervailing measures

Humankind has always experienced conflicts of interests in his life. He has suffered from loss of health and environment resources meanwhile reaching economic profits. New technologies have  facilitate people affairs and at the same time have caused unknown risks which are so ambiguous and complicated to be realized by scientists. So, it needs to adjust obtaining economic interests and protection of public health and environment. This concern is pursuit by putting forward and supporting precautionary principle to apply in WTO system. Dispute settlement body has claimed that the principle is reflected provisional measures (based on article 5.7) and also in appropriate level of protection (ALOP) in different  provisions  of sanitary and phytosanitary measures agreement ( including paragraph 6 of preamble and Article 3.3 of that agreement). This paper will examine that claim and clarify the relationship Between the precautionary principle and the appropriate level of protection in WTO legal system.

Legitimate expectations protect the negotiated tariff concessions from being adversely modified. The principle of legitimate expectations considered as a ‘well-established’ principle specific to WTO is implicitly stated in Article III of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). It is also explicitly codified in paragraph 3 of Article XVII of General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) which considers the modification of conditions of competition as a violation of the non-discrimination obligation.The dispute settlement body in the WTO recognizes the legitimate expectations as a “conditions of competition” where foreign markets trust domestic markets based on the negotiated tariff concessions.So, any actions inconsistent with the overall level of negotiated commitments which have not become enforceable and predictable may constitute the violation of legitimate expectations. In conclusion, the principle of good faith is a tool to accommodate under the protection of legitimate expectations that “impaired benefits” could be claimed under a non-violation type complaint. Furthermore, this article demonstrates how the principle of legitimate expectations, in addition to protecting tariff consolidation, works effectively to fill the void and guarantee competitive opportunities.

The aim of this article is to explore the WTO jurisdiction in terms of human rights. WTO resources and legal opinions, the authors have concluded that WTO law is a self-contained system of law and its dispute settlement body (DSB) shall consider only the member’s disputes in terms of the rights and obligations provided in WTO agreements and it does not have the capacity to examine those disputes which fall under the jurisdiction of other systems of law such as human rights However, despite this fragmentation and separation between WTO law and human rights law, the DSB may make use of the relevant rules of International law, including human rights law, to clarify the provisions of WTO agreements.