Article contents
The Future of Amicus Participation at the WTO: Implications of the Sardines Decision and Suggestions for Further Developments
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2019
Extract
In today's increasingly interdependent global society, international institutions formerly committed to operating as insular systems recognizing only states as legitimate participants have come under pressure to open their processes to public view and participation. The World Trade Organization (WTO) in particular has been widely criticized for its lack of transparency and democratic participation. Nowhere has this criticism been more prevalent than in the arena of dispute settlement. The controversy over the acceptance of amicus briefs at the WTO reflects the tensions among WTO members and non-members concerning greater public access to dispute settlement proceedings. This battle has been fought primarily through the Appellate Body and its important series of decisions on amicus briefs.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2005 by the International Association of Law Libraries
References
1 Steve Charnovitz, WTO Cosmopolitics, 34 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol. 299 at 348 (2002); Robert Howse, Membership and its Privileges: The WTO, Civil Society, and the Amicus Brief Controversy, Outline/Incomplete Draft; John A. Ragosta, Unmasking the WTO—Access to the DSB System: Can the WTO DSB Live up to the Moniker “World Trade Court”?, 31 Law & Pol'y Int'l Bus. 739, 756 (2000); Michael Laidhold, Private Party Access to the WTO: Do Recent Developments in International Trade Dispute Resolution Really Give Private Organizations a Voice in the WTO?.Google Scholar
2 Id.; See also Andrea Kupfer Schneider, Institutional Concerns of an Expanded Trade Regime: Where Should Global Social and Regulatory Policy be Made?: Unfriendly Actions: The Amicus Brief Battle at the WTO, 7 Wid. L. Symp. J. 87 at 91 (2001).Google Scholar
3 See Donald McRae, Trade and the Environment: Competition, Cooperation or Confusion?, 41 Alberta L. Rev. 745; Kim Van der Borght, The Review of the WTO Understanding on Dispute Settlement: Some Reflections on the Current Debate, 14 Am. U. Int'l L. Rev. 1223; Duncan B. Hollis, GLOBALIZATION & THE EROSION OF SOVEREIGNTY IN HONOR OF PROFESSOR LICHTENSTEIN: Private Actors in Public International Law: Amicus Curiae and the Case for the Retention of State Sovereignty, 25 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 235.Google Scholar
4 Appellate Body Report, United States-Import Prohibitions of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products (“Shrimp-Turtle”), WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 12 October 1998; Appellate Body Report, European Communities-Trade Description of Sardines (“Sardines”), WT/DS231/AB/R, adopted 26 September 2002.Google Scholar
5 See www.wto.org for a complete summary of the dispute settlement system at the WTO as described in the introduction of this article.Google Scholar
6 Appellate Body Report, European Communities-Trade Description of Sardines (“Sardines”), WT/DS231/AB/R, adopted 26 September 2002.Google Scholar
7 Appellate Body Report, United States-Import Prohibitions of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products (“Shrimp-Turtle”), WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 12 October 1998.Google Scholar
8 Id. at ¶89.Google Scholar
9 Art. 13.Google Scholar
10 Shrimp-Turtle at ¶108.Google Scholar
11 For a critique of this decision and its method of interpretation, See Josh Robbins, False Friends: Amicus Curiae and Procedural Discretion in WTO Appeals under the Hot-Rolled Lead/Asbestos Doctrine, 44 Harv. Int'l L.J. 317 (2003).Google Scholar
12 Appellate Body Report, United States-Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom (“Carbon Steel”), WT/DS138/AB/R, adopted 10 May 2000.Google Scholar
13 Id. at ¶39.Google Scholar
14 Id. at ¶9.Google Scholar
15 Appellate Body Report, European Communities-Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos Containing Products (“Asbestos”), WT/DS135/AB/R, adopted 12 March 2001.Google Scholar
16 Id. at ¶52.Google Scholar
17 Id. at ¶56.Google Scholar
18 See Howse, supra note 1 at 15.Google Scholar
19 See Dispute Settlement Body, Minutes of the Meeting, WTO Doc. WT/DSB/M/83 (June 7, 2000). See also Decision by the Appellate Body Concerning Amicus Briefs, Statement by Uruguay at the General Council, WTO Doc. WT/GC/38, at 3 (Nov. 22, 2000).Google Scholar
20 Steve Charnovitz, WTO Cosmopolitics, 34 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol. 299 at 348 (2002). (Citing WTO General Council, Minutes of Meeting Held in the Centre William Rappard on 22 November 2000, WT/GC/M/60, para. 1 (Jan. 23, 2001).Google Scholar
21 Sardines, supra note 1.Google Scholar
22 Id. at ¶154.Google Scholar
23 Id. at. ¶161.Google Scholar
24 Id. at. ¶157; ¶164.Google Scholar
25 Id. at ¶163.Google Scholar
26 Id. at ¶164.Google Scholar
27 US Lead and Bismuth II, WT/DS138/AB/R, adopted 7 June 2000.Google Scholar
28 For an opposing view, see Robbins, supra note 9.Google Scholar
29 Sardines, supra note 1 at ¶167.Google Scholar
30 Sardines at ¶166.Google Scholar
31 DSU 3.2.Google Scholar
32 Robert Howse, Membership and its Privileges: The WTO, Civil Society, and the Amicus Brief Controversy, Outline/Incomplete Draft.Google Scholar
33 Contribution of the European Communities and its Member States to the Improvement of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding: Communication from the European Communities, TN/DS/W/1, 13 March 2002.Google Scholar
34 Id. at ¶2Google Scholar
35 See McRae, supra note 3.Google Scholar
36 See John A. Ragosta, Unmasking the WTO—Access to the DSB System: Can the WTO DSB Live up to the Moniker “World Trade Court? “, 31 Law & Pol'y Int'l Bus. 739, 756 (2000).Google Scholar
37 See Michael Laidhold, Private Party Access to the WTO: Do Recent Developments in International Trade Dispute Resolution Really Give Private Organizations a Voice in the WTO?, 12 Transnational Law 427, 443 (1999). Laidhold discusses the negative effects of private parties lobbying WTO members to join in disputes as a third party.Google Scholar
38 See Maura Blue Jeffords, TURNING THE PROTESTER INTO A PARTNER FOR DEVELOPMENT: THE NEED FOR EFFECTIVE CONSULTATION BETWEEN THE WTO & NGOs, 28 Brooklyn J. Int'l L. 937; David J. Bederman, National Security: Globalization, International Law and United States Foreign Policy, 50 Emory L.J. 717 (2001).Google Scholar
39 Maki Tanaka, Bridging the Gap Between Northern NGOs and Souther Sovereigns in the Trade-Environment Debate: The Pursuit of Democratic Dispute Settlements in the WTO Under the Rio Principles, 30 Ecology L.Q. 113 (2003).Google Scholar
40 Andrew T. Guzman, Global Governannce and the WTO, 45 Harv. Int'l L.J. 303 (2004).Google Scholar
41 Lori M. Wallach, Accountable Governance in the Era of Globalization: The WTO, NAFTA, and International Harmonization of Standards, 50 Kan. L. Rev. 823 (2002).Google Scholar
42 Michael Laidhold, Private Party Access to the WTO: Do Recent Developments in International Trade Dispute Resolution Really Give Private Organizations a Voice in the WTO? 12 Transnat'l Law 427 (1999).Google Scholar
43 See Dispute Settlement Body, Minutes of the Meeting, WTO Doc. WT/DSB/M/83 (June 7, 2000). See also Decision by the Appellate Body Concerning Amicus Briefs, Statement by Uruguay at the General Council, WTO Doc. WT/GC/38, at 3 (Nov. 22, 2000).Google Scholar
44 Jeffrey L. Dunoff, International Law Weekend Proceedings: Civil Society at the WTO: The Illusion of Inclusion?, 7 ILSA J Int'l & Comp L 275 at 281 (2001).Google Scholar
45 Id. at 282.Google Scholar
46 Jeffrey L. Dunoff, The Misguided Debate Over NGO Participation at the WTO, 1 J. of Int'l Econ. L. 433 (1998).Google Scholar
47 Charnovitz, supra note 9 at 324.Google Scholar
48 Steve Charnovitz, Opening the WTO to Nongovernmental Interests, 24 Fordham Int'l L.J. 173, 205-206 (2000).Google Scholar
49 Id. Google Scholar
50 See the Preamble to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, which contains references to “raising standards of living, ensuring full employment and a large and steadily growing volume of real income and effective demand.”Google Scholar
51 Report of the Panel, United States—Sections 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974 (“S. 301 “), WT/DS152/R at ¶7.73, 22 December 1999.Google Scholar
52 Id. at ¶7.74-7.75.Google Scholar
53 Id. at ¶7.76, (quoting DSU art. 3.2).Google Scholar
54 Id. at ¶7.77-7.78.Google Scholar
55 See Howse, supra note 16.Google Scholar
56 See S. 301, supra note 28.Google Scholar
57 Appellate Body Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, adopted 16 January 1998.Google Scholar
58 See Eric Stein, International Integration and Democracy: No Love at First Sight, 95 A.J.I.L. 489 (2001).Google Scholar
59 Andrea Kupfer Schneider, Institutional Concerns of an Expanded Trade Regime: Where Should Global Social and Regulatory Policy be Made?: Unfriendly Actions: The Amicus Brief Battle at the WTO, 7 Wid. L. Symp. J. 87 at 91 (2001).Google Scholar
60 Id. at 102.Google Scholar
61 See Jacqueline Peel, Giving the Public a Voice in the Protection of the Global Environment: Avenues for Participation by NGO ‘s in Dispute Resolution at the European Court of Justice and World Trade Organization, 12 Colo. J. Int'l Envtl. L. & Pol'y 47 (2001).Google Scholar
62 See Bederman, supra note 37.Google Scholar
63 See Charnovitz, supra note 9.Google Scholar
64 Id. at 301, (quoting Kant).Google Scholar
65 Kal Raustiala, AEI Conference Trends in Global Governance: Do They Threaten American Sovereignty? Article and Response: Sovereignty and Multilateralism, 1 Chi. J. Int'l L. 401 at 413 (2000).Google Scholar
66 Charnovitz, supra note 9 at 303.Google Scholar
67 That is, they should participate in the WTO dispute settlement process where no express provision exists denying access for prospective amicus participantsGoogle Scholar
68 See Tanaka, supra note 38.Google Scholar
69 Communication from the European Communities, supra note 17.Google Scholar
70 Id. at ¶1.Google Scholar
71 Id. at ¶3.Google Scholar
72 Gabriele Marceau & Matthew Still well, Practical Suggestions for “Amicus Curiae” Briefs Before WTO Adjudicating Bodies, 4 J. Int'l Econ. L. 155 at 179 (2001).Google Scholar
73 Communication from the European Communities, supra note 17 at ¶3(c).Google Scholar
74 Petros C. Mavroidis, Amicus Curiae Briefs Before the WTO: Much Ado About Nothing, Jean Monnet Working Paper at 12 (Feb. 2001), at http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/01/010201.html.Google Scholar
75 See Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, Improvements of the WTO Dispute Settlement System, Conference Report. Petersmann's Report summarizes the main arguments made in the discussions of eight papers presented at the conference on Improvements and Clarifications of the Dispute Settlement Understanding of the World Trade Organization-WTO Negotiators Meet Academics, at European University Institute in Florence from 13-14 September 2002.Google Scholar
76 Mavroidis, supra note 39.Google Scholar
77 Howse, supra note 16.Google Scholar
78 Communication from the European Communities, supra note XYZ at ¶5.Google Scholar
79 Id. at ¶7.Google Scholar
80 Id. at ¶3.Google Scholar
81 Gabriele Marceau & Matthew Stillwell, Practical Suggestions for “Amicus Curiae” Briefs Before WTO Adjudicating Bodies, 4 J. Int'l Econ. L. 155 at 182-183 (2001).Google Scholar
82 Id. Google Scholar
83 Upton Sinclar, The Jungle (1906).Google Scholar
84 See Kal Raustiala, supra note 34 at 415.Google Scholar
85 See Jeffrey L. Dunoff, supra note 21 at 280 for discussion of this development.Google Scholar
86 Robert Howse, Lecture Comments on 9/26/02. (Accompanied by guest speaker Petros Mavroidis).Google Scholar
87 Appellate Body Report, European Communities-Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos Containing Products (“Asbestos”), WT/DS135/AB/R, adopted 12 March 2001.Google Scholar
88 Id. Google Scholar
89 Award of Arbitrator, Australia-Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, WT/DS18/9, 23 February 1999.Google Scholar
90 Petros C. Mavroidis, Amicus Curiae Briefs Before the WTO: Much Ado About Nothing, Jean Monnet Working Papers, available at http://www.worldtradelaw.net/articles/mavroidisamicus.pdf.Google Scholar
91 Carbon Steel, supra note 11.Google Scholar
92 Sardines, supra note 4.Google Scholar
93 Communication from the European Communities, supra note XYZ.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by