The Role of International Law Rules in Interpretation of the WTO Agreements

Document Type : Scientific research

Authors

• Asma Salari ¹
• Sasan Seyrafi ²

¹ assistant professor

² Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law and political science, University of Tehran

https://doi.org/10.22067/economlaw.2023.78102.1204

Abstract

Implementation of a legal rule requires its interpretation. According to the documents of the World Trade Organization, this should be done based on the customary rules of interpretation in international law. Among the effective components in the interpretation of the organization's agreements are other rules of international law provided that they are relevant and applicable to the relations of the members of the treaty under interpretation. The components of this component are analyzed by examining the opinions of the organization's dispute resolution panel and the opinions of legal scholars in order to answer the important question of whether other rules of international law are actually applied in the interpretation of the organization's documents with the mentioned conditions.
The sources of this research are library and include the reports of jurists, opinions of international authorities and documents of international law, and the research method is descriptive-analytical.
The results of this study show that the Dispute Settlement Body of the organization, mainly with extreme reliance on the text and wording of the rule under interpretation, as well as a narrow understanding of the word "members", are resistant to the effectiveness of other related international law rules that can be applied among members.
 

Keywords

• : Article 31 (C) (3) of the Convention on Law of the Treaties
• Panels and Appeal Body
• Interpretation
• World Trade Organization

References

 

 

Books & Articles

[1] Cook, G. (2015), A digest of WTO jurisprudence on public international law concepts and principles, Cambridge University Press

[2] Dörr, O., & Schmalenbach, K. (2018), Vienna convention on the law of treaties, Springer

[3] Franken, L., &  Burchardi, J. E., (2007), Assessing the WTO Panel Report in EC-Biotech, Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, Vol. 4, No. 1

[4] Gruszczynski, L., (2012), Customary Rules of Interpretation in the Practice of WTO Dispute Settlement Bodies in Nollkaemper, A., Fauchald, O. K. (eds.),The Practice of International and National Courts and (De) Fragmentation of International Law, Hart Publishing, Oxford

[5] Henckels, C., (2006), GMOs in the WTO: A Critique of the Panel’s Legal Reasoning in EC- Biotech, Melbourne Journal of International Law, Vol. 7

[6] Linderfalk, U., (2007), On the Interpretation of Treaties, Springer, Dordrecht,

[7] McGrady, B., (2008), Fragmentation of International Law or Systemic Integration of Treaty Regimes: EC Biotech Products and the Proper Interpretation of Article 31 (3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Journal of World Trade, Vol. 42

[8] Quereshi, Ah., (2015), Interpreting WTO Agreement: Problems and Perspective, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

[9] Van den Bossche, P. & Werner zdouc, W., (2022), The law and policy of the World Trade Organization: text, cases and materials. 5th ed, Cambridge University Press

[10] Villiger, M. E. (2009), Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Brill

[11] Young, M. A., (2007), The WTO's Use of Relevant Rules of International Law: An Analysis of the Biotech Case , International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 4

[12]Ansari, A., Hajian, M., (2017), Principles of Law and Interpretation of WTO Regulations, Private Law Research, Vol. 14 (in Persian)

[13]Falsafi, H., (2011), International Law of Treaties, Tehran, Farhang Nashr No Pub, 3^rd Edition.(in Persian)

[14]Karimi, S., (2019), The Comparative Study of the of the Bona Fide Application in the Process of Interpretation of Agreements before Dispute Resolution Bodies of WTO, Quarterly of Legal Encyclopedia, Vol. 7 (in Persian)

[15]Shamsaee, M., (2012), Word Trade Organization and International Legal Order, Public Law Research, No. 37 (in Persian)

 

Cases & Instruments

[1] Agreement on Sustainable and Countervailing Measures (SCM), 1994

[2] Antigua and Barbuda v. US, WT/DS285/AB/R, 7 April 2005

[3] Argentina v. Chile, WT/DS207/R, 3 May 2002

[4] Argentina v. Uruguay, ICJ, judgment of 20 April 2010

[5] Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, ICJ, judgment of 26 February 2007

[6] Botswana v. Namibia, , ICJ, judgment of 13 December 1999

[7] Brazil v. EC, WT/DS269/AB/R, 12 September 2005

[8] Brazil v. EC, WT/DS69/AB/R, 13 July 1998

[9] China v. US, WT/DS379/AB/R, 11 March 2011

[10] China v. US, WT/DS379/R, 22 October 2010

[11] Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 1993

[12] Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, 1979

[13] Costa Rica v. Nicaragua, ICJ, Judgment of 13 July 2009

[14] EC & others v. US, WT/DS316/AB/R, 18 May 2011

[15] EC & others v. US, WT/DS316/R, 30 June 2010

[16] EC v. Japan, WT/DS8/AB/R, 4 October 1996

[17] EC v. US, WT/DS160/R, 15 June 2000

[18] Germany v. US, ICJ, judgment of 27 June 2001

[19] Guatemala v. Peru, WT/DS457/AB/R, 20 July 2015

[20] Guinea-Bissau v Senegal, ICJ, Judgment of 12 November of 1991

[21] Hassan v. UK, ECtHR, App No 29750/09, ECHR, Judgment of 16 September 2014

[22]ILC Report on Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and [23]Expansion of International Law, 2006

[24] India& others v. US, WT/DS58/AB/R, 12 October 1998

[25] Korea v. EC, WT/DS301/R, 22 April 2005

[26] Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa, ICJ, Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971

[27] Libya v Chad, ICJ, judgment of 3 February 1994

[28] Mexico v. US, ICJ, judgment of 31 March 2004

[29] Mexico v. US, WT/DS344/AB/R, 30 April 2008

[30] Nicaragua and Colombia ICJ, Preliminary Objections of 17 March 2016

[31] Peru v Chile, ICJ, Judgment of 27 January 2014

[32] Somalia v Kenya, ICJ, Preliminary Objections of, 2 February 2017

[33] The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Work, 1886

[34] The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2000

[35] Understanding on Rules and Procedure Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU)

[36] US v. China, WT/DS363/AB/R, 21 December 2009

[37] US v. China, WT/DS394/R, 5 July 2011

[38] US v. China, WT/DS431/R, 26 March 2014

[39] US v. EC, WT/DS26/AB/R, 16 January 1998

[40] US v. EC, WT/DS291/R, 29 September 2006

[41] US v. India, WT/DS50/AB/R, 19 December 1997

[42] US v. Mexico, WT/DS308/R, 7 October 2005

[43] Venezuela & Bolivarian v. US, WT/DS2/AB/R, 29 April 1996

[44] Venezuela & Bolivarian v. US, WT/DS2/AB/R, 29 April 1996