International Trade Law and Domestic Policy: Canada, the United States and the WTO by Jacqueline D. Krikorian (review)
D. Steger
2014-10-23
Abstract:This book, examining the efficacy of the dispute settlement system of the World Trade Organization (WTO), is very timely. The WTO negotiating machinery is on “life support” because of the failure of the Doha Round and the increasing propensity of its members to negotiate trade agreements outside the WTO. However, the number of cases initiated by members in the past year has increased significantly, and the dispute settlement system, viewed by many commentators and members as the “jewel in the crown” of the WTO, has remained robust and strong. In this interesting book, Jacqueline D. Krikorian examines the WTO dispute settlement system through a unique prism. Rather than looking at it as an international legal system, she adopts a “law and politics” approach, which essentially means examining the WTO panel system and Appellate Body as if they were “courts” conducting “judicial review” in a domestic legal system, and she assesses the impact of their decisions on domestic political systems. She assumes that the Uruguay Round signalled a major shift from a “non-binding” to a “binding” dispute settlement system and asks why WTO members would have been keen to adopt a strong, binding dispute settlement system if it would affect their ability to regulate in the future. She sets out to examine whether, in fact, the experience with the WTO panels and the Appellate Body in the cases involving the United States and Canada from 1995 to 2011 limited those countries’ abilities to regulate in their interests. While it may be fashionable in some circles to apply domestic administrative and constitutional law concepts when analyzing the functioning of international treaties and dispute settlement systems, several of the assumptions that Krikorian makes relating to the WTO dispute settlement system simply do not apply. Terms such as judicial review and courts have a specific meaning and do not apply in the WTO context. Judicial review relates to a court’s authority to review a legislative or executive act under administrative law or constitutional law. WTO panels and the Appellate Body do not conduct judicial review; they resolve disputes as requested by members. Nor can panels and the Appellate Body be characterized as courts. The Appellate Body is not permanent; it is composed of part-time members, and it has jurisdiction (like panels) only to hear specific appeals on a case-by-case basis. It does not have continuing jurisdiction (e.g., it cannot enforce its own orders). It does not have jurisdiction to (1) decide what cases to accept on appeal, (2) decide what legal questions to address, (3) decide what laws to apply, or (4) decide the appropriate remedy. In fact, panels and the Appellate Body may not order a remedy and almost never HUMANIT IES 425
Law,History,Political Science