臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

摘要

在過去幾十年以來，隨著各類特殊法規範體系的大量產生、以及各個國際法庭的齊頭發展，國際法的破碎現象（包括規範意義與組織意義的破碎）已然引發多方的關切。然而，若能予以善加運用，國際法中的調和原則可資用以確保某種程度的協調性、並在各種國際法規範中尋求一個有意義的關連性。其中，維也納條約法公約第31(3)(c)條可用以確保國際法實體規範的系統性整合，而在各個規範間因有真實的衝突而無法加以協調時，國際法亦含有若干衝突解決規範，可依個案狀況用以在各個彼此衝突的規範中找出一個優先順序。從而，國際法規範的破碎現象得以緩和，而國際法秩序的協調性亦得獲得確保。
就國際法組織的破碎現象而言，其中一個環節，乃係各個國際法庭間缺乏充分協調及互動所致。其結果，最嚴重者，莫過於各個國際法庭就同一事件做出不一致、甚至相互衝突的判決。
為了提升各個依條約成立的國際法庭間的協調性，一般而言，國際法庭可仰賴若干管轄權規範（例如一事不再理原則）用以解決各個法庭間的管轄權衝突問題。然而，在世界貿易組織（WTO）裁決機構與區域貿易協定（RTA）下裁決機構間的關係中，管轄權衝突問題乃係一個益加困難的現象。本文就不同的RTA管轄權條款加以分析、分類後，發現其中有幾類管轄權條款，不但規定RTA裁決機構就若干事項具有專屬管轄權，並進而禁止當事國就此等事項提起WTO訴訟。在若干情況下，一個WTO會員國可能甘冒違反此等RTA管轄權條款之風險，就若干事項提起WTO訴訟；此等訴訟相當有可能被認定為相關訴訟權利的濫用。類此情況，在過去已有先例（如墨西哥軟性飲料稅捐案），且在未來發生的可能性，亦可能隨著RTA的大量增加而提升。當此種情況發生時，WTO裁決機構處理的方式即帶有根本、系統性的影響。若WTO裁決機構對於原告國起訴乃係明顯違反RTA管轄權條款、且有權利濫用的事實，予以完全漠視、進而就實體問題加以裁決，不但有違國際法下的調和原則，更有可能影響其正當性，蓋其裁決相當可能與RTA裁決機構就同一案件所做認定嚴重扞格。另一方面，若WTO裁決機構意欲積極處理此一問題，並展現開放的態度，欲考量相關RTA管轄權條款以及國際法下的管轄權規範，則WTO裁決機構即必須面對一個具有高度爭議性的問題：在WTO相關法規範以外，WTO裁決機構是否有權適用其他國際法規範？持平而言，WTO裁決機構所面臨的問題是相當困難的。
為解決此等問題，本文首先探究WTO裁決機構的管轄權範圍，並特別處理幾個基本原則，包括：WTO裁決機構的管轄權，係基於爭端當事國的同意；以及指出管轄權及案件可受理性兩個概念間的差異性。在此方面，本文特別強調：雖然WTO會員國依爭端解決瞭解書（DSU）第23.1條享有提起WTO訴訟之權利，此等起訴之權利並非完全沒有限制。
就爭議性極大的適用法規範範圍問題，本文仔細分析各種差異性極大的學術見解，並在其差異中，尋求折衷的立場。本文達到的重要結論是：若就一個程序問題而言，DSU並未設有任何明文規範，則WTO裁決機構為了適當地履行其作為司法裁決機關的功能，得以超越WTO法規範的範圍，援引其他相關的國際法規範。從而，WTO裁決機構乃有權援引相關RTA管轄權條款、以及國際法下的管轄權規範，用以評估此等國際法規範對於WTO裁決機構的管轄權究竟發揮了何等影響。
為了幫助WTO裁決機構能夠有系統地處理此類問題，本文基於現有的WTO法律體系，提出一套雙軌架構，或可提供若干解決方案。依此架構，若原告國提起WTO訴訟因明顯違反RTA管轄權條款、或因其他因素而認有權利濫用之情形，WTO裁決機構應可直接駁回訴訟，而其駁回之理由可能是WTO裁決機構就該爭端無管轄權、亦可能是雖有管轄權但無法受理。必須強調的是：WTO裁決機構駁回訴訟，並不代表向RTA裁決機構退讓或低頭；在此等狀況下，WTO裁決機構若能駁回訴訟，乃係展現其發現、認知到相關當事國間的真意、並就當事國的真意賦予法律上的意義。若此，則WTO裁決機構不但能減低國際法規範面及制度面的破碎程度，更能有效地促進國際法體系的協調性。

ABSTRACT

The phenomenon of fragmentation of international law, both in its normative and institutional aspects, has generated much concern over the past decades, together with the surge of specialized rule-systems and various treaty-based international tribunals. Albeit that, the principle of harmonization in international law seeks to secure certain level of coherence and identify a meaningful relationship between different norms of international law. This is achieved mainly through the systemic integration as promoted by Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, as well as relevant conflict-resolution techniques that would serve to justify a choice of priority to norms of international law that genuinely conflict. As such, the normative aspect of fragmentation in international law can be alleviated, and coherence of the international legal system secured.
As a specific facet of the institutional fragmentation in international law, the fragmentation between international tribunals is resulted from poor levels of coordination and interaction between different tribunals created by different treaty regimes. The most acute consequence is the risk of inconsistent and mutually conflicting judgments/rulings that may be rendered by different tribunals in respect to the same or similar matters.
To increase coherence, international tribunals generally can resort to certain traditional jurisdiction-regulating norms, such as lis alibi pendens, res judicata and comity, so as to minimize jurisdictional conflicts. However, in the context of jurisdictional conflicts between the WTO Tribunal and RTA Tribunals, particular difficulties are encountered. As identified and classified in this thesis, certain types of RTA jurisdictional clauses not only preserve jurisdiction exclusively to RTA Tribunals, but also preclude RTA parties from instituting WTO litigation over a matter which is amendable to the jurisdiction of RTA Tribunals. In certain circumstances, a WTO Member may decide to initiate WTO litigation even though doing so would breach such RTA jurisdictional clauses, and upon legal analysis, the manner in which such WTO litigation is instituted may be considered to be genuinely abusive. Indeed, this is a real possibility, in light of past cases (e.g. Mexico – Taxes on Soft Drinks) as well as the proliferation of RTAs. When that happens, the manner in which the WTO Tribunal approaches such problem would be of cardinal and systemic importance. If the WTO Tribunal entertains such claims without paying any regard whatsoever to the abusive manner in which the WTO litigation is instituted, it would seem to depart from the principle of harmonization in international law and thereby undermine its own legitimacy, as the WTO Tribunal may ultimate rule in a way that is irreconcilable with a ruling by the relevant RTA Tribunal over the same dispute. On the other hand, if the WTO Tribunal wishes to confront this issue and take into consideration the abusive manner in which the WTO litigation is filed, the RTA jurisdictional clauses in question as well as contemplate the possibility of applying jurisdiction-regulating norms, the WTO Tribunal would need to face another highly controversial issue that has long divided commentators: whether, and if yes to what extent, can the WTO Tribunal apply these norms of international law that stand outside the four corners of the WTO legal system. Indeed, it appears that the WTO Tribunal would easily find its own hands tied up.
To address these issues, this thesis first examines the jurisdictional scope of the WTO Tribunal. In the course of this, several significant points are made, including that the jurisdiction of the WTO Tribunal, as a treaty-based international tribunal, is also consent-based, and that there is a need to maintain a distinction between jurisdiction and admissibility, both of which can serve as legal basis for preliminary objections that would, if sustained, preclude the WTO Tribunal from entering into the merits of a dispute. Also, this thesis submits that the right to initiate WTO litigation, as provided for in Article 23.1 of the DSU, is by no means an absolute one.
Turning to one of the most controversial issue concerning the applicable law in WTO dispute settlement, this thesis surveys relevant academic views that seem to stand diametrically opposed to each other, and, upon engaging in critical analysis of these divergent views, this thesis seeks to identify unity within diversity and endeavors to bridge the chasm. The conclusion thus attained is: in the determination of procedural issues that are not dealt with anywhere in the DSU, the WTO Tribunal, for the purpose of discharging its judicial functions, is in the position to have recourse to norms of international law external to the WTO legal system. Though this, the WTO Tribunal is fully capable of applying certain jurisdiction-regulating norms as well as relevant RTA jurisdictional clauses for the purpose of ascertaining whether and how its jurisdiction is affected in situations where WTO litigation is being abused.
In light of the desirability that the WTO Tribunal confront these issues of systemic importance, this thesis aims to present a framework, consisting of two tracks of analysis, that can hopefully serve to offer solutions on the basis of the current WTO legal system as it stands today. Under this framework, where WTO proceedings are initiated in a genuinely abusive manner, the WTO Tribunal would be able to, and indeed expected to dismiss the WTO complaint for lack of jurisdiction or on the grounds of inadmissibility. To do this is not to show a general deference to RTA Tribunals, but, rather, would reflect the WTO Tribunal’s cognizance of the relevant WTO Members’ true intentions; by giving effect to the Members’ true intentions, the WTO Tribunal could mitigate fragmentation of international law in both the normative sense and the institutional sense, thereby securing and promoting the coherence in the international legal system.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xi
LIST OF WTO CASES xiii
LIST OF GATT CASES xxix


CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION 1
I. FRAGMENTATION AND COHERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEM 1
A. International Law as a Legal System 1
B. No Intrinsic Hierarchy between Norms of International Law 2
C. Fragmentation of International Law: Normative and Institutional Aspects 4
D. Coherence of International Law: the Principle of Harmonization 8
II. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF WTO AND RTAS 11
A. WTO Law and RTA Law as Part of the International Legal System 12
B. No Intrinsic Hierarchy between Customary International Law, WTO Law and RTA Law 17
1. RTAs (both substantive rights/obligations and dispute settlement mechanisms) as expressly recognized under the WTO 17
2. RTAs as “inter se modifications” in the sense of Article 41 of the VCLT 20
3. The “primacy” of WTO law over RTA law by virtue of Article 41 of the VCLT? 24
C. Jurisdictional Conflicts between the WTO Tribunal and RTA Tribunals as a More Complicated Issue 27
1. A classification and preliminary analysis of divergent RTA jurisdictional clauses 31
a) Type 1: RTA jurisdictional clauses providing for RTA jurisdiction on a permissive basis, but excluding RTA jurisdiction when a dispute involves WTO rights/obligations 32
b) Type 2: RTA jurisdictional clauses providing for RTA jurisdiction on a permissive basis, without excluding RTA jurisdiction even when a dispute involves WTO rights/obligations 33
c) Type 3: RTA jurisdictional clauses providing for choice of forum (RTA Tribunal or WTO Tribunal), but requiring that the chosen forum be used “to the exclusion of” the other 35
d) Type 4: RTA jurisdictional clauses providing for exclusive jurisdiction to RTA Tribunals, without specifically barring WTO litigation 39
e) Type 5: RTA jurisdictional clauses providing for exclusive jurisdiction to RTA Tribunals, and specifically barring WTO litigation 40
2. The difficulty arising out of the diametrically opposed views on the scope of applicable law in the WTO dispute settlement system 43
III. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH 44
A. Scope of Research 44
B. Methodology of Research 45
IV. CENTRAL ISSUE PRESENTED 46

CHAPTER TWO – THE JURISDICTION OF THE WTO TRIBUNAL AND ITS (POTENTIAL) CONFLICT WITH RTA TRIBUNALS 49
I. JURISDICTION OF INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS GENERALLY 50
A. Consent as a Requisite Basis for Jurisdiction 51
B. Inherent Jurisdiction 53
C. Jurisdiction and Admissibility as Legally Distinct Concepts 55
D. Jurisdiction Ratione Materiae and Applicable Law as Legally Distinct Concepts 58
II. JURISDICTION OF THE WTO TRIBUNAL 60
A. Personal Jurisdiction (Jurisdiction Ratione Personae) of the WTO Tribunal 61
B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Jurisdiction Ratione Materiae) of the WTO Tribunal 63
1. Terms of reference 64
2. Other DSU provisions relevant to the WTO Tribunal’s subject matter jurisdiction 67
3. Other aspects of the WTO Tribunal’s subject matter jurisdiction 68
a) Subject matter jurisdiction of the Appellate Body 68
b) Subject matter jurisdiction of other DSU proceedings over compliance and remedies 69
4. RTAs as a particular aspect of the WTO Tribunal’s subject matter jurisdiction 70
5. Interim conclusion on the subject matter jurisdiction of the WTO Tribunal 75
C. Automatic and Compulsory Jurisdiction of the WTO Tribunal 76
D. Exclusive Jurisdiction by virtue of Article 23.1 of the DSU? 80
1. Exclusive jurisdiction of the WTO Tribunal over WTO claims? 80
2. WTO Members’ “absolute” right to initiate WTO litigation? 84
a) WTO Members’ right to initiate WTO litigation 85
b) WTO Members’ right to initiate WTO litigation: absolute or not? 87
E. Inherent Jurisdiction of the WTO Tribunal 92
III. IDENTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE WTO TRIBUNAL AND RTA TRIBUNALS 95
A. Jurisdictional “Overlap” between the WTO Tribunal and RTA Tribunals 97
1. Different definitions of jurisdictional “overlap” 97
2. Analysis of jurisdictional “overlap” between the WTO Tribunal and RTA Tribunals 99
B. (Potential) Jurisdictional “Conflict” between the WTO Tribunal and RTA Tribunals 103
1. The concept of “conflict” under international law generally 106
a) Different types of conflicts 107
b) Techniques for the avoidance of conflicts and resolution of conflicts 110
2. The concept of “conflict” under the WTO legal system 111
3. Identification of (potential) jurisdictional conflict between the WTO Tribunal and RTA Tribunals 118
IV. CONCLUSION ON CHAPTER TWO 120

CHAPTER THREE – NON-WTO NORMS AS APPLICABLE LAW IN WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW, GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND NON-WTO TREATIES 123
I. APPLICABLE LAW DEFINED 124
II. APPLICABLE LAW IN THE WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM: WTO LAW 128
A. WTO Covered Agreements 128
B. Non-WTO Treaties Incorporated into, or Referenced by, or Concluded under, the WTO 129
C. Other “Secondary” WTO Authorities 132
III. APPLICABLE LAW IN THE WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM: NON-WTO NORMS 133
A. Relevant DSU Provisions on Applicable Law in the WTO Dispute Settlement System 135
1. Article 1.1 of the DSU 135
2. Article 3.2 of the DSU 136
3. Article 7 of the DSU 136
4. Article 11 of the DSU 137
5. Article 19.2 of the DSU 138
B. Different Approaches to the Applicability of Non-WTO Norms in the WTO Dispute Settlement System 138
1. Restrictive Approach: Only WTO covered agreements are applicable law, and non-WTO norms are altogether inapplicable in the WTO dispute settlement system 138
2. Liberal Approach: All norms of international law are (potentially) applicable in the WTO dispute settlement system 143
3. Approach adopted in this thesis 149
a) Critical analysis of the Restrictive Approach and the Liberal Approach 149
b) In search of common ground between the Restrictive Approach and the Liberal Approach 162
c) RTAs as a “special class” of non-WTO norms 166
IV. CANDIDATES OF NON-WTO LAW AS APPLICABLE LAW IN THE WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM 168
A. The Notion of Good Faith and Its Corollaries 170
1. Good faith 170
2. Abuse of rights (abus de droit) / abuse of process 175
3. Estoppel 179
B. Jurisdiction-Regulating Norms concerning Parallel Proceedings: Lis Alibi Pendens 182
C. Jurisdiction-Regulating Norms concerning Subsequent Proceedings: Res Judicata 183
D. Others (Im)possible Candidates 186
1. Forum non conveniens? 186
2. Comity? 188
V. CONCLUSION ON CHAPTER THREE 189

CHAPTER FOUR – THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF RTA JURISDICTIONAL CLAUSES UPON THE JURISDICTION OF THE WTO TRIBUNAL: FRAMEWORK PRESENTED AND EXPLAINED 193
I. FRAMEWORK PRESENTED: TWO-TRACK ANALYSIS 195
II. FIRST TRACK: LAW OF TREATIES APPROACH 199
A. Avoidance of Conflict through Treaty Interpretation: Article 31(3)(c) of the VCLT 199
1. Ascertainment of Article 31(3)(c) of the VCLT: relevant “rules of international law” applicable in the relations between the “parties” 200
2. Interpretation of Article 23.1 of the DSU by recourse to non-WTO norms in the sense of Article 31(3)(c) of the VCLT 209
3. (Possible) Immediate legal implications: the WTO Tribunal lacks jurisdiction 212
B. Resolution of Conflicts 213
1. Resolution of conflicts by recourse to conflict clauses 213
2. Resolution of conflicts by recourse to lex posterior and lex specialis 217
3. Immediate legal implications: complaining Member lacks the right to initiate WTO litigation 221
III. SECOND TRACK: INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH 223
A. Application of Jurisdiction-Regulating Norms 223
B. Immediate Legal Implications: Complaining Member Lacks the Right to Initiate WTO Litigation 223
IV. FURTHER LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 224
A. Revisiting the Distinction between Jurisdiction and Admissibility 224
B. Negative Jurisdictional Conflict? 234
V. CONCLUSION ON CHAPTER FOUR 236

CHAPTER FIVE – CONCLUSION 237

REFERENCES 241
TABLE 1: CLASSIFICATION OF RTA JURISDICTIONAL CLAUSES………..………42
TABLE 2: CONFLICTS IN THE APPLICABLE LAW………………………..………109
FLOWCHART: FRAMEWORK OF TWO-TRACK ANALYSIS ON WTO/RTA
JURISDICTIONAL CONFLICTS…………………………………………198

REFERENCES

Books
AUST, ANTHONY (2000), MODERN TREATY LAW AND PRACTICE.
Bartels, Lorand & Ortino, Federico (eds.) (2006), REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS AND THE WTO LEGAL SYSTEM.
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (8th ed. 2004).
BOYLE, ALAN & CHINKIN, CHRISTINE (2007), THE MAKING OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.
BROWNLIE, IAN (2008), PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW.
CASSESE, ANTONIO (2001), INTERNATIONAL LAW.
CHENG, BIN (1993), GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW AS APPLIED BY INTERNATIONAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS.
COLLIER, JOHN & LOWE, VAUGHAN (1999), THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW.
COOKE, ELIZABETH (2003), THE MODERN LAW OF ESTOPPEL.
FOOTER, MARY E. (2006), AN INSTITUTIONAL AND NORMATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION.
GARDINER, RICHARD (2008), TREATY INTERPRETATION.
HIGGINS, ROSALYN (1999), PROBLEMS AND PROCESS: INTERNATIONAL LAW AND HOW WE USE IT.
JACKSON, JOHN H. (1997), THE WORLD TRADING SYSTEM.
JACKSON, JOHN H. (2006), SOVEREIGNTY, THE WTO AND CHANGING FUNDAMENTALS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.
Jennings, Robert & Watts, Arthur (eds.) (1996), OPPENHEIM’S INTERNATIONAL LAW.
LO, CHANG-FA (1999), KUO-CHI MAO-YI FA [INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW].
LOWENFELD, ANDREAS F. (2008), INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW.
MATHIS, JAMES H. (2002), REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS IN THE GATT/WTO: ARTICLE XXIV AND THE INTERNAL TRADE REQUIREMENT.
MATSUSHITA, MITSUO ET AL. (2006), THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION.
MAVROIDIS, PETROS C. (2005), THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE: A COMMENTARY.
MCNAIR, ARNOLD DUNCAN (1961), THE LAW OF TREATIES.
MITCHELL, ANDREW D. (2008), LEGAL PRINCIPLES IN WTO DISPUTES.
OESCH, MATTHIAS (2003), STANDARDS OF REVIEW IN WTO DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
ORAKHELASHVILI, ALEXANDER (2006), PEREMPTORY NORMS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW.
PALMETER, DAVID & MAVROIDIS, PETROS C. (2004), DISPUTE SETTLEMENT IN THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION.
PANIZZON, MARION (2006), GOOD FAITH IN THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE WTO.
PAUWELYN, JOOST (2003), CONFLICTS OF NORMS IN PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW.
PETERSMANN, ERNST-ULRICH (1998), THE GATT/WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM.
QURESHI, ASIF H. (2006), INTERPRETING WTO AGREEMENTS.
SANDS, PHILIPPE & KLEIN, PIERRE (2001), BOWETT’S LAW OF INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.
SHANY, YUVAL (2004), THE COMPETING JURISDICTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS.
TAMS, CHRISTIAN J. (2005), ENFORCING OBLIGATIONS ERGA OMNES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW.
TREBILCOCK, MICHAEL J. & HOWSE, ROBERT (2005), THE REGULATION OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE.
WAINCYMER, JEFF (2002), WTO LITIGATION: PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF FORMAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT.
WILKEN, SEAN (2006), THE LAW OF WAIVER, VARIATION AND ESTOPPEL.
Articles / Shorter Works in Collection
Abbott, Frederick M. (2000), The North American Integration Regime and Its Implications for the World Trading System, in THE EU, THE WTO, AND THE NAFTA 169 (J.H.H. Weiler ed., 2000).
Abi-Saab, Georges (2006), The Appellate Body and Treaty Interpretation, in THE WTO AT TEN: THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM 453 (Giorgio Sacerdoti et al. eds., 2006).
Bartels, Lorand & Ortino, Federico (2006), Introduction, in REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS AND THE WTO LEGAL SYSTEM 1 (Lorand Bartels & Federico Ortino eds., 2006)
Bartels, Lorand (2001), Applicable Law in WTO Dispute Settlement Proceedings, 35(3) J. WORLD TRADE 499 (2001).
Cameron, James & Gray, Kevin R. (2001), Principles of International Law in the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, 50 INT''L & COMP. L.Q. 248 (2001).
Cottier, Thomas & Foltea, Marina (2006), Constitutional Functions of the WTO and Regional Trade Agreements, in REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS AND THE WTO LEGAL SYSTEM 43 (Lorand Bartels & Federico Ortino eds., 2006).
Cottier, Thomas & Oesch, Matthias (2007), WTO Law, Precedents and Legal Change, reprinted in THE CHALLENGES OF WTO LAW: COLLECTED ESSAYS 57 (Thomas Cottier ed., 2007).
Cottier, Thomas & Schefer, Krista Nadakavukaren (2007), Good Faith and the Protection of Legitimate Expectations in the WTO, reprinted in THE CHALLENGES OF WTO LAW: COLLECTED ESSAYS 123 (Thomas Cottier ed., 2007).
Cuniberti, Gilles (2006), Parallel Litigation and Foreign Investment Dispute Settlement, 21 ICSID REV. FOREIGN INVESTMENT L.J. 381 (2006).
Damme, Isabelle van (2006), What Role is there for Regional International Law in the Interpretation of the WTO Agreements?, in REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS AND THE WTO LEGAL SYSTEM 553 (Lorand Bartels & Federico Ortino eds., 2006).
Damro, Chad (2006), The Political Economy of Regional Trade Agreements, in REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS AND THE WTO LEGAL SYSTEM 21 (Lorand Bartels & Federico Ortino eds., 2006).
Do, Viet D. & Watson, William (2006), Economic Analysis of Regional Trade Agreements, in REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS AND THE WTO LEGAL SYSTEM 7 (Lorand Bartels & Federico Ortino eds., 2006).
Francioni, Francesco (2006), WTO Law in Context: The Integration of International Human Rights and Environmental Law in the Dispute Settlement Process, in THE WTO AT TEN: THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM 143 (Giorgio Sacerdoti et al. eds., 2006).
Gao, Henry & Lim, C.L. (2008), Saving the WTO from the Risk of Irrelevance: The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism as a “Common Good” for RTA Disputes, 11 J. INT’L ECON. L. 899 (2008).
Gonzalez-Calatayud, Alexandra & Marceau, Gabrielle (2002), The Relationship between the Dispute-Settlement Mechanisms of MEAs and Those of the WTO, 11(3) REV. EUR. COMMUNITY & INT''L ENVTL. L. 275 (2002).
Graewert, Tim (2008), Conflicting Laws and Jurisdiction in the Dispute Settlement Process of Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO, 1 CONTEMP. ASIA ARB. J. 287 (2008).
Guillaume, Gilbert (2006), Methods and Practice of Treaty Interpretation by the International Court of Justice, in THE WTO AT TEN: THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM 465 (Giorgio Sacerdoti et al. eds., 2006).
Guruswamy, Lakshman D. (1998), Should UNCLOS or GATT/WTO Decide Trade and Environment Disputes?, 7 MINN. J. GLOBAL TRADE 287 (1998).
Henckels, Caroline (2008), Overcoming Jurisdictional Isolationism at the WTO-FTA Nexus: A Potential Approach for the WTO, 19 EUR. J. INT’L L. 571 (2008).
Higgins, Rosalyn (2003), The ICJ, the ECJ and the Integrity of International Law, 52 INT''L & COMP. L.Q. 1 (2003).
Hilf, Meinhard (2001), Power, Rules and Principles – Which Orientation for WTO/GATT Law?, 4 J. INT''L ECON. L. 111 (2001).
Horovitz, Dan (2005), Review of Trade Remedy Measures in the EU and the WTO – Two Alternative Options?, in CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS FOR THE WTO 269 (Andrew D. Mitchell ed., 2005).
Kuyper, Pieter J. (1994), The Law of the GATT as a Special Field of International Law: Ignorance, Further Refinement or Self-Contained System of International Law, 25 NETH. Y.B. INT’L L. 227 (1994).
Kwak, Kyung & Marceau, Gabrielle (2006), Overlaps and Conflicts of Jurisdiction between the World Trade Organization and Regional Trade Agreements, in REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS AND THE WTO LEGAL SYSTEM 465 (Lorand Bartels & Federico Ortino eds., 2006).
Leal-Arcas, Rafael (2007), Choice of Jurisdiction in International Trade Disputes: Going Regional or Global?, 16 MINN. J. INT’L L. 1 (2007).
Lennard, Michael (2002), Navigating by the Stars: Interpreting the WTO Agreements, 5 J. INT''L ECON. L. 17 (2002).
Lindroos, Anja & Mehling, Michael (2006), Dispelling the Chimera of “Self-Contained” Regimes: International Law and the WTO, 16 EUR. J. INT''L L. 857 (2006).
Lo, Chang-fa (2007), Dispute Settlement under Free Trade Agreements: Its Interaction and Relationship with WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures, in THE WTO IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: DISPUTE SETTLEMENT, NEGOTIATIONS AND REGIONALISM IN ASIA 457 (Yasuhei Taniguchi et al. eds., 2007).
Lockhart, Nicolas JS & Mitchell, Andrew D. (2005), Regional Trade Agreements under GATT 1994: An Exception and Its Limits, in CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS FOR THE WTO 217 (Andrew D. Mitchell ed., 2005).
Lowe, Vaughan (1996), Res Judicata and the Rule of Law in International Arbitration, 8 AFRICAN J. INT’L L. 38 (1996).
Lowe, Vaughan (1999), Overlapping Jurisdiction in International Tribunals, 20 AUSTL. Y.B. INT’L L. 191 (1999).
Marceau, Gabrielle & Reiman, Cornelis (2001), When and How is a Regional Trade Agreement Compatible with the WTO?, 28(3) LEGAL ISSUES ECON. INTEGRATION 297 (2001).
Marceau, Gabrielle (1999), A Call for Coherence in International Law: Praises for the Prohibition against “Clinical Isolation” in WTO Dispute Settlement, 33(5) J. WORLD TRADE 87 (1999).
Marceau, Gabrielle (2001), Conflicts of Norms and Conflicts of Jurisdictions: The Relationship between the WTO Agreement and MEAs and other Treaties, 35(6) J. WORLD TRADE 1081 (2001).
Marceau, Gabrielle (2002), WTO Dispute Settlement and Human Rights, 13 EUR. J. INT''L L. 753 (2002).
Marceau, Gabrielle (2006), Balance and Coherence by the WTO Appellate Body: Who Could Do Better?, in THE WTO AT TEN: THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM 326 (Giorgio Sacerdoti et al. eds., 2006).
Marceau, Gabrielle (2007), The Adoption of “Best Practices” for Regional and Free Trade Agreements in APEC: A Road Towards More WTO-Consistent Regional Trade Agreements?, in THE WTO IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: DISPUTE SETTLEMENT, NEGOTIATIONS AND REGIONALISM IN ASIA 409 (Yasuhei Taniguchi et al. eds., 2007).
McLachlan, Campbell (2005), The Principle of Systemic Integration and Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention, 54(2) INT''L & COMP. L.Q. 279 (2005).
McRae, Donald M. (2000), The WTO in International Law: Tradition Continued or New Frontier?, 3 J. INT’L ECON. L. 27 (2000).
McRae, Donald M. (2004), What Is the Future of WTO Dispute Settlement?, 7 J. INT’L ECON. L. 3 (2004).
McRae, Donald M. (2006), Treaty Interpretation and the Development of International Trade Law by the WTO Appellate Body, in THE WTO AT TEN: THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM 360 (Giorgio Sacerdoti et al. eds., 2006).
Palmeter, David & Mavroidis, Petros C. (1998), The WTO Legal System: Sources of Law, 92 AM. J. INT’L L. 398 (1998).
Pauwelyn, Joost & Salles, Luiz Eduardo (2009), Forum Shopping before International Tribunals: (Real) Concerns, (Im)Possible Solutions, 42 CORNELL INT’L L.J. 77 (2009).
Pauwelyn, Joost (2001), The Role of Public International Law in the WTO: How Far Can We Go?, 95 AM. J. INT’L L. 535 (2001).
Pauwelyn, Joost (2003), How to Win a World Trade Organization Dispute Based on Non-World Trade Organization Law? – Questions of Jurisdiction and Merits, 37(6) J. WORLD TRADE 997 (2003).
Pauwelyn, Joost (2004a), Going Global, Regional or Both? Dispute Settlement in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and Overlaps with the WTO and Other Jurisdictions, 13 MINN. J. GLOBAL TRADE 231 (2004).
Pauwelyn, Joost (2004b), The Jurisdiction of the World Trade Organization: Remarks by Joost Pauwelyn, 98 AM. SOC’Y INT’L L. PROC. 135 (2004).
Pauwelyn, Joost (2004c), The Puzzle of WTO Safeguards and Regional Trade Agreements, 7 J. INT’L ECON. L. 109 (2004).
Pauwelyn, Joost (2005), Human Rights in WTO Dispute Settlement, in HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE 205 (Thomas Cottier et al. eds., 2005).
Pauwelyn, Joost (2006), Adding Sweeteners to Softwood Lumber: The WTO-NAFTA “Spaghetti Bowl” Is Cooking, 9 J. INT’L ECON. L. 197 (2006).
Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich (1999), Dispute Settlement in International Economic Law – Lessons for Strengthening International Dispute Settlement in Non-Economic Areas, 2 J. INT’L ECON. L.189 (1999).
Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich (2006), Justice as Conflict Resolution: Proliferation, Fragmentation and Decentralization of Dispute Settlement in International Trade, 27 U. PA. J. INT’L ECON. L. 273 (2006).
Rutsel, Martha (2001), The Duty to Exercise Judgment on the Fruitfulness of Actions in World Trade Law, 35(5) J. WORD TRADE 1035 (2001).
Schoenbaum, Thomas J. (1998), WTO Dispute Settlement: Praise and Suggestions for Reform, 47 INT’L & COMP. L.Q. 647 (1998).
Smitmans, Hector A. Millan (2006), Unresolved Issues in the WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the settlement of Disputes (DSU), in REFORM AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM 247 (Dencho Georgiev & Kim Van der Borght eds., 2006).
Steger, Debra P. & Lester, Simon N. (2004), WTO Dispute Settlement: Emerging Practice and Procedure in Decisions of the Appellate Body, in DUE PROCESS IN WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT 119 (Philippe Ruttley et al. eds., 2004).
Steger, Debra P. (2004), The Jurisdiction of the World Trade Organization: Remarks by Debra P. Steger, 98 AM. SOC’Y INT’L L. PROC. 142 (2004).
Steinmann, Arthur (2006), Article 23 DSU, in WTO – INSTITUTIONS AND DISPUTE SETTLEMENT 557 (Rudiger Wolfrum et al. eds., 2006).
Stoll, Peter-Tobias (2006), Article 3 DSU, in WTO – INSTITUTIONS AND DISPUTE SETTLEMENT 281 (Rudiger Wolfrum et al. eds., 2006).
Tevini, Anna G. (2006), Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, in WTO – INSTITUTIONS AND DISPUTE SETTLEMENT 240 (Rudiger Wolfrum et al. eds., 2006).
Trachtman, Joel P. (1999), The Domain of WTO Dispute Resolution, 40 HARV. INT’L L.J. 333 (1999).
Trachtman, Joel P. (2002), Institutional Linkages: Transcending “Trade and . . .”, 96 AM. J. INT’L L. 77 (2002).
Trachtman, Joel P. (2004), Book Review of Joost Pauwelyn, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law, 98 AM. J. INT’L L. 855 (2004).
Trachtman, Joel P. (2005), Jurisdiction in WTO Dispute Settlement, in KEY ISSUES IN WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: THE FIRST TEN YEARS 132 (Rufus Yerxa & Bruce Wilson eds., 2005).
Trachtman, Joel P. (2007), International Trade: Regionalism, in RESEARCH HANDBOOK IN INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW 151 (Andrew T. Guzman & Alan O. Sykes eds., 2007).
Trachtman, Joel P. (2008), Regulatory Jurisdiction and the WTO, in THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW 193 (William J. Davey & John Jackson eds., 2008).
Trakman, Leon E. (2008), The Proliferation of Free Trade Agreements: Bane or Beauty?, 42(2) J. WORLD TRADE 367 (2008).
Treves, Tullio (2006), The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: Applicable Law and Interpretation, in THE WTO AT TEN: THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM 490 (Giorgio Sacerdoti et al. eds., 2006).
Weiler, J.H.H. (2001), The Rule of Lawyers and the Ethos of Diplomats: Reflections on the Internal and External Legitimacy of WTO Dispute Settlement, 35(2) J. WORLD TRADE 191 (2001).
Weiss, Wolfgang (2003), Security and Predictability under WTO Law, 2 WORLD TRADE REV. 183 (2003).
Yanovich, Alan & Voon, Tania (2005), What Is the Measure at Issue?, in CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS FOR THE WTO 115 (Andrew D. Mitchell ed., 2005).
Treaties
WTO Covered Agreements
Agreement on Agriculture, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, Legal Instruments – Results of the Uruguay Round, 1867 U.N.T.S. 410.
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, Legal Instruments – Results of the Uruguay Round, 1867 U.N.T.S. 14.
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, Legal Instruments – Results of the Uruguay Round, 33 ILM 1197 (1994) [hereinafter TRIPs Agreement].
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Oct. 30, 1947, 61 Stat. A-11, 55 U.N.T.S. 194 [hereinafter GATT 1947].
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, Legal Instruments – Results of the Uruguay Round, 33 I.L.M. 1153 (1994). [hereinafter GATT 1994].
General Agreement on Trade in Services, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1B, Legal Instruments – Results of the Uruguay Round, 33 ILM 1167 (1994) [hereinafter GATS].
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Apr. 15, 1994, Legal Instruments – Results of the Uruguay Round, 33 I.L.M. 1144 (1994) [hereinafter WTO Agreement].
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 2, Legal Instruments – Results of the Uruguay Round, 33 I.L.M. 1125 (1994) [hereinafter DSU].
Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, Legal Instruments – Results of the Uruguay Round, 33 I.L.M. 1161 (1994) [hereinafter RTA Understanding].
RTAs
Andean Subregional Integration Agreement (Cartagena Agreement), May 26, 1969, available at http://www.comunidadandina.org/INGLES/normativa/ande_trie1.htm [hereinafter Cartagena Agreement].
ASEAN Protocol on Enhanced Dispute Settlement Mechanism, Nov. 29, 2004, available at http://www.aseansec.org/16754.htm (last visited Aug. 1, 2009) [hereinafter ASEAN Protocol on Enhanced Dispute Settlement].
Association Agreement, E.U.-Chile, Oct. 3, 2002, available at http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/bilateral/countries/chile/euchlagr_en.htm [hereinafter E.U.-Chile FTA].
Closer Economic Partnership Agreement, Malay.-Pak., Nov. 8, 2007, available at http://www.commerce.gov.pk/PMFTA/PAk-Malaysia-FTA(TXT).pdf [hereinafter Malay.-Pak. CEPA].
Closer Economic Partnership Agreement, Thail.-N.Z., Apr. 19, 2005, available at http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/thailand/thainzcep-december2004.pdf [hereinafter Thail.-N.Z. CEPA].
Cochabamba Protocol Amending the Treaty Creating the Court of Justice of the Cartagena Agreement, May 28, 1996, available at http://www.comunidadandina.
org/INGLES/normativa/ande_trie2.htm.
E.C.-Mexico Joint Council Decision No. 2/2000 of 23 Mar. 2000, 2000 O.J. (L157) 10 [hereinafter E.C.-Mex. FTA].
Economic Partnership Agreement, Japan-Brunei, June 18, 2007, available at http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/brunei/epa0706/agreement.pdf [hereinafter Japan-Brunei EPA].
Economic Partnership Agreement, Japan-Indon., Aug. 20, 2007, available at http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/indonesia/epa0708/agreement.pdf [hereinafter Japan-Indon. EPA].
Economic Partnership Agreement, Japan-Malay., Dec. 13, 2005, available at http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/malaysia/epa/content.pdf [hereinafter Japan-Malay. EPA].
Economic Partnership Agreement, Japan-Mex., Sept. 17, 2004, available at http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/latin/mexico/agreement/agreement.pdf [hereinafter Japan-Mex. EPA].
Economic Partnership Agreement, Japan-Phil., Sept. 9, 2006, available at http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/philippine/epa0609/main.pdf [hereinafter Japan-Phil. EPA].
Economic Partnership Agreement, Japan-Thail., Apr. 3, 2007, available at http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/thailand/epa0704/agreement.pdf [hereinafter Japan-Thail. EPA].
Free Trade Agreement, Can.-Chile, Dec. 5, 1996, available at http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/chile-chili/menu.aspx?lang=en [hereinafter Can.-Chile FTA].
Free Trade Agreement, Can.-Costa Rica, Apr. 23, 2001, available at http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/costarica/Costa_Rica_toc.aspx?lang=en&menu_id=2&menu=R [hereinafter Can.-Costa Rica FTA].
Free Trade Agreement, Chile-Costa Rica, Oct. 18, 1999, notified to the WTO in WT/REG136 (May 14, 2002) [hereinafter Chile-Costa Rica FTA].
Free Trade Agreement, Chile-El Sal., Oct. 19, 1999, notified to the WTO in WT/REG165 (Feb. 16, 2004) [hereinafter Chile-El Sal. FTA].
Free Trade Agreement, Chile-Mex., Apr. 17, 1998, Notified to the WTO in WT/REG125 (Mar. 8, 2001) [hereinafter Chile-Mex. FTA].
Free Trade Agreement, EFTA-Chile, June 26, 2003, available at http://www.efta.int/content/legal-texts/third-country-relations (follow “Chile” hyperlink) [hereinafter EFTA-Chile FTA].
Free Trade Agreement, EFTA-Mex., Nov. 27, 2000, available at http://www.efta.int/content/legal-texts/third-country-relations (follow “Mexico” hyperlink) [hereinafter EFTA-Mex. FTA].
Free Trade Agreement, EFTA-SACU, June 26, 2006, available at http://www.efta.int/content/legal-texts/third-country-relations (follow “Southern African Customs Union (SACU)” hyperlink) [hereinafter EFTA-SACU FTA].
Free Trade Agreement, EFTA-Sing., June 26, 2002, available at http://www.efta.int/content/legal-texts/third-country-relations (follow “Singapore” hyperlink) [hereinafter EFTA-Sing. FTA].
Free Trade Agreement, EFTA-S. Korea, Dec. 15, 2005, available at http://www.efta.int/content/legal-texts/third-country-relations (follow “Republic of Korea” hyperlink) [hereinafter EFTA-S. Korea FTA].
Free Trade Agreement, Mex.-Isr., Apr. 10, 2000, notified to the WTO in WT/REG124 (Mar. 8, 2001) [hereinafter Mex.-Isr. FTA].
Free Trade Agreement, Pan.-El. Sal., art. 20.04, Mar. 6, 2002, notified to the WTO in WT/REG196 (Mar. 18, 2005) [hereinafter Pan.-El Sal. FTA].
Free Trade Agreement, P.R.C.-Pak., Nov. 24, 2006, available at http://www.commerce.gov.pk/PK-CN(FTA)/Pak-China_FTA_Agreement.pdf [hereinafter P.R.C.-Pak. FTA].
Free Trade Agreement, P.R.C.-N.Z., Apr. 7, 2008, available at http://chinafta.govt.nz/1-The-agreement/2-Text-of-the-agreement/0-downloads/NZ-ChinaFTA-Agreement-text.pdf [hereinafter P.R.C.-N.Z. FTA].
Free Trade Agreement, Sing.-Jordan, May 16, 2004, available at http://www.fta.gov.sg/fta_sjfta.asp?hl=5 (follow “legal text” hyperlink) [hereinafter Sing.-Jordan FTA].
Free Trade Agreement, Sing.-Pan., Mar. 1, 2006, available at http://www.fta.gov.sg/fta_psfta.asp?hl=10 (follow “legal text” hyperlink) [hereinafter Sing.-Pan. FTA].
Free Trade Agreement, Taiwan-El Sal.-Hond., May 7, 2007, available at http://cweb.trade.gov.tw/kmi.asp?xdurl=kmif.asp&cat=CAT514 [hereinafter Taiwan-El Sal.-Hond. FTA].
Free Trade Agreement, Taiwan-Guat., Sept. 22, 2005, available at http://ekm92.trade.gov.tw/BOFT/web/report_list.jsp?data_base_id=DB009&category_id=CAT3515 [hereinafter Taiwan-Guat. FTA].
Free Trade Agreement, Taiwan-Nicar., June 16, 2006, available at http://ekm92.trade.gov.tw/BOFT/web/report_list.jsp?data_base_id=DB009&category_id=CAT3910 [hereinafter Taiwan-Nicar. FTA].
Free Trade Agreement, Taiwan-Pan., Aug. 21, 2003, available at http://ekm92.trade.gov.tw/BOFT/web/report_list.jsp?data_base_id=DB009&category_id=CAT2412 [hereinafter Taiwan-Pan. FTA].
Free Trade Agreement, Thail.-Austl., July 5, 2004, available at http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/aust-thai/aus-thai_FTA_text.pdf [hereinafter Thail.-Austl. FTA].
Free Trade Agreement, U.S.-Austl., May 18, 2004, available at http://tcc.export.gov/static/AFTA.full_text.pdf [hereinafter U.S.-Austl. FTA].
Free Trade Agreement, U.S.-Bahr., Sept. 4, 2004, available at http://tcc.export.gov/Trade_Agreements/All_Trade_Agreements/exp_006966.asp [hereinafter U.S.-Bahr. FTA].
Free Trade Agreement, U.S.-Cent. Am.-Dominica, Aug. 5, 2004, State Dept. No. 06-63 [hereinafter CAFTA-DR].
Free Trade Agreement, U.S.-Chile, June 6, 2003, available at http://tcc.export.gov/Trade_Agreements/All_Trade_Agreements/exp_000984.asp [hereinafter U.S.-Chile FTA].
Free Trade Agreement, U.S.-S. Korea, June 30, 2007, available at http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/korus-fta/final-text [hereinafter U.S.-S. Korea FTA].
Free Trade Agreement, U.S.-Morocco, June 15, 2004, available at http://tcc.export.gov/static/final_text_Morocco_FTA.pdf [hereinafter U.S.-Morocco FTA].
Free Trade Agreement, U.S.-Sing., May 6, 2003, available at http://tcc.export.gov/static/text_final.pdf [hereinafter U.S.-Sing. FTA].
New-Age Economic Partnership Agreement, Japan-Sing., Jan. 13, 2002, available at http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/singapore/jsepa-1.pdf [hereinafter Japan-Sing. New-Age EPA].
North American Free Trade Agreement, U.S.-Can.-Mex., Dec. 17, 1992, 32 I.L.M. 289 (1993) [hereinafter NAFTA].
Protocolo de Brasília [Brasilia Protocol for the Settlement of Disputes], Dec. 17, 1991, translated in 2145 U.N.T.S. 282 [hereinafter Protocol of Brasilia].
Protocolo de Olivos [Olivos Protocol for the Settlement of Disputes in Mercosur], Feb. 18, 2002, translated in 2251 U.N.T.S. 288 [hereinafter Protocol of Olivos].
Protocol on Dispute Settlement Mechanism, Nov. 20, 1996, available at http://www.aseansec.org/16654.htm (last visited Aug. 1, 2009) [hereinafter ASEAN Protocol on Original Dispute Settlement].
Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement, Japan-Chile, Mar. 27, 2007, available at http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/latin/chile/joint0703/agreement.pdf [hereinafter Japan-Chile SEPA].
Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement, opened for signature July 18, 2005, available at http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/main-agreement.pdf [hereinafter Trans-Pacific Strategic EPA].
Treaty Establishing the European Community (Consolidated Version), 2006 O.J. (C 321 E) 37 [hereinafter E.C. Treaty].
Others
Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, opened for signature Sept. 22, 1992, 32 I.L.M. 1228 [hereinafter OSPAR Convention].
Statute of the International Court of Justice, June 26, 1945, 59 Stat. 1055 (1945), T.S. No. 993 [hereinafter ICJ Statute].
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397 [hereinafter UNCLOS].
U.N. Charter.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 [hereinafter VCLT].
Cases & Briefs
GATT/WTO (see List of GATT Cases & List of WTO Cases)
World Court
PCIJ
Administration of the Prince von Pless (F.R.G. v. Pol.), 1933 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 52 (Feb. 4).
Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (F.R.G. v. Pol.), 1925 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 6 (Aug. 25).
Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (F.R.G. v. Pol.), 1926 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 7 (May 25).
Factory at Chorzow (F.R.G. v. Pol.), 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 9 (July 26).
Factory at Chorzow (F.R.G. v. Pol.), 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 17 (Sept. 13) (dissenting opinion of Judge Ehrlich).
Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex (Fr. v. Switz.), 1932 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 46 (June 7).
Interpretation of Judgments Nos. 7 and 8 (F.R.G. v. Pol.), 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 13 (Dec. 16).
Interpretation of Judgments Nos. 7 and 8 (F.R.G. v. Pol.), 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 13 (Dec. 16) (dissenting opinion of Judge Anzilotti).
Lotus (Fr. v. Turk.), 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 10 (Sept. 7).
Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Greece v. U.K.), 1924 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 2 (Aug. 30).
Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway (Est. v. Lith.), 1939 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 76 (Feb. 28).
Polish Postal Service in Danzig, Advisory Opinion, 1925 P.C.I.J. (ser. B) No. 11 (May 16).
Rights of Minorities in Upper Silesia (F.R.G. v. Pol.), 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 15 (Apr. 26).
Societe Commerciale de Belgique (Belg. v. Greece), 1939 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 78 (June 15).
ICJ
Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (U.K. v. Iran), 1952 I.C.J. 93 (July 22) (individual opinion of Judge McNair).
Arbitral Award Made by the King of Spain on 23 December 1906 (Hond. v. Nicar.), 1960 I.C.J. 192 (Nov. 18).
Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Belg.), 2002 I.C.J. 3 (Feb. 14) (joint separate opinion of Judges Higgins, Kooijmans & Buergenthal).
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belg. v. Spain), 1970 I.C.J. 3 (Feb. 5).
Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicar. v. Hond.), 1988 I.C.J. 69 (Dec. 20).
Certain Norwegian Loans (Fr. v. Nor.), 1957 I.C.J. 9 (July 6) (separate opinion of Judge Lauterpacht).
Corfu Channel (U.K. v. Alb.), 1949 I.C.J. 4 (Apr. 9).
Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (U.S. v. Italy), 1989 I.C.J. 15 (July 20).
Interhandel (Switz. v. U.S.), 1959 I.C.J. 6 (Mar. 21) (dissenting opinion of Judge Lauterpacht).
Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, Advisory Opinion, 1950 I.C.J. 221 (July 18).
LaGrand (F.R.G. v. U.S.), 2001 I.C.J. 466 (June 27).
Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nig.), 1998 I.C.J. 275 (June 11).
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Sal. v. Hond.), 1990 I.C.J. 92 (Sept. 13).
Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, 1971 I.C.J. 16 (June 21).
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 I.C.J. 226 (July 8).
Legality of Use of Force (Serb. & Mont. v. Belg.), 2004 I.C.J. 279 (Dec. 15) (separate opinion of Judge Higgins).
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), 1984 I.C.J. 392 (Nov. 26).
Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. Fr.), 1954 I.C.J. 19 (June 15).
North Sea Continental Shelf (F.R.G. v. Den. / F.R.G. v. Neth.), 1969 I.C.J. 3 (Feb. 20).
Nuclear Test (Austl. v. Fr.), 1974 I.C.J. 253 (Dec. 20).
Oil Platforms (Iran v. U.S.), 2003 I.C.J. 161 (Nov. 6).
Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libya v. U.K.), 1998 I.C.J. 9 (Feb. 27).
Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Port. v. India), 1957 I.C.J. 125 (Nov. 26).
South West Africa (Eth. v. S. Afr.; Liber. v. S. Afr.), 1962 I.C.J. 319 (Dec. 21).
South West Africa (Eth. v. S. Afr.; Liber. v. S. Afr.), 1966 I.C.J. 6 (July 18).
Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thail.), 1962 I.C.J. 6 (June 15) (dissenting opinion of Judge Spender).
ICSID
Amco Asia v. Indonesia, ICSID (W. Bank) Case No. ARB/81/1, Decision on Jurisdiction (Sept. 25, 1983).
Marvin Feldman v. Mexico, ICSID (W. Bank) Case No. ARB(AF)/99/1, Award of the Tribunal (Dec. 16, 2002).
SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Republic of the Philippines, ICSID (W. Bank) Case No. ARB/02/6), Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction (Jan. 29, 2004).
Other International Tribunals
Access to Information under Article 9 of the OSPAR Convention (Ire. v. U.K.), Final Award of July 2, 2003 (Perm. Ct. Arb. 2005), available at http://www.pca-cpa.org/upload/files/OSPAR%20Award.pdf (last visited July 29, 2009).
Bankovic v. Belgium, 2001-XII Eur. Ct. H.R.
Case C-459/03, Comm''n v. Ire., available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri
Serv.do?uri=CELEX:62003J0459:EN:HTML (May 30, 2006).
Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID (W. Bank) Case No. ARB/97/3, Award of the Tribunal (Nov. 21, 2000).
McElhinney v. Ireland, 2001-XI Eur. Ct. H.R.
MOX Plant (Ir. v. U.K.), Order No. 3 (Arb. Trib. under Annex VII of UNCLOS 2003), available at http://www.pca-cpa.org/upload/files/MOX%20Order%20no3.pdf (last visited July 25, 2009).
MOX Plant (No. 10) (Ir. v. U.K.) (Req. for Provisional Measures), Order of Dec. 3, 2003 (Int’l Trib. L. of the Sea 2003), available at http://www.itlos.org/case_documents/2001/
document_en_197.pdf (last visited July 25, 2009).
Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-I, Decision on Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction (Oct. 2, 1995).
Rainbow Warrior (N.Z. v. Fr.), 20 R. Int’l Arb. Awards 217 (Fr.-N.Z. Arb. Trib. 1990).
Southern Bluefin Tuna (Austl. & N.Z. v. Japan), Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 39 I.L.M. 1359 (Arb. Trib. under Annex VII of UNCLOS 2000).
Other International Documents
WTO Documents
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements, Decision of 6 February 1996, WT/L/127 (Feb. 7, 1996).
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements, Note by the Secretariat, Synopsis of “Systemic” Issues Related to Regional Trade Agreements, WT/REG/W/37 (Mar. 2, 2000).
World Trade Organization, Ministerial Declaration of 14 November 2001, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1, 41 I.L.M. 746 (2002) [hereinafter Doha Declaration].
U.N. Documents
International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts with Commentaries, [2001] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 31, U.N. Doc. A/56/10 [hereinafter ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility with Commentaries].
International Law Commission, Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with Commentaries, [1966] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 187, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/191 [hereinafter ILC Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with Commentaries].
International Law Commission, Study Group, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/L.682 (Apr. 13, 2006) (finalized by Martti Koskenniemi) [hereinafter ILC Report on Fragmentation of International Law].
International Law Commission, Study Group, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/L.702 (July 18, 2006) [hereinafter ILC Conclusion on Fragmentation of International Law].
Unpublished Manuscripts, Internet and Other Sources
Joost Pauwelyn, Legal Avenues to “Multilateralizing Regionalism”: Beyond Article XXIV (paper presented at the Conference on Multilateralizing Regionalism, Sept. 10-12, 2007, Geneva, Switzerland), available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/region_e/
con_sep07_e/pauwelyn_e.pdf (last visited July 29, 2009).
Martin Lovell, Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1114770 (2007).
Pascal Lamy, Dir.-Gen., WTO, Opening Address at the Conference on Multilateralizing Regionalism (Sept. 10, 2007), http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl67_e.htm (last visited July 25, 2009).
World Trade Organization, Regional Trade Agreements, http://www.wto.org/english/
tratop_e/region_e/region_e.htm (last visited July 25, 2009).
World Trade Organization, The Doha Declaration Explained, http://www.wto.org/english/
tratop_e/dda_e/dohaexplained_e.htm#regional (last visited July 25, 2009).