International Trade Law
Exercise 2: Reaping the benefts ennorcing the rules
1. Without frst having had consultations with the responding party (in
line with Article 4 on the DSU), the DSB will dismiss the request nor
a Panel to be established on the matter. Hence, in line with Article
4.3 on the DSU, Alexandria should request consultations with
Welland (and notiny the DSB in line with Article 4.4 on the DSU),
and in Welland does not reply to this request within ten days,
Alexandria can request a Panel to be established. In however,
Welland confrms the request nor consultations and nails to enter
into consultations within thirty days on the receipt on such request,
Alexandria can also request a Panel to be established in the DSB.
Nonetheless, in Welland is willing to have consultations with
Alexandria and responds within ten days on the request and the
consultations start within thirty days anter the request, the
consultations shall last until the sixtieth day anter the request nor
such consultations was received by Welland (in line with Article 4.7
on the DSU) and the complainant shall request a Panel.
2. The lawyers on the ACBPA can be seen as private legal counsel, and
as seen in the AB report on EC – Bananas III (1997) nothing in the
WTO Agreement, nor the DSU, nor customary IL precludes a WTO
member nrom composing its own delegation in WTO dispute
settlement proceedings. Hence, private legal counsel is allowed to
be part on the delegation to the WTO dispute settlement
proceedings on Alexandria, and as a developing country, it should
make use on this opportunity. The private counsel needs to act in
line with the DSU (i.e. be confdential and adhere to customary
rules on conduct nor private WTO legal counsel).
ACBPA as an organisation can also get involved in the dispute
settlement proceedings between Alexandria and Welland (and it
already has done so, by indirectly challenging the Wellandian
measures against cofee beans and bringing this under the
1
, attention on the Alexandrian government), and that is more
specifcally through writing an Amicus Curiae Brien. As currently
only WTO members can have a right to become a third party to
WTO proceedings, this is the only possibility to express the
sentiment that the ACBPA has about the dispute, and the Panel has
the right (not an obligation!) to consider it in line with Article 13 on
the DSU (as ruled in US – Shrimp (1998)).
3. In Alexandria can bring norward violations (or
non-violations/situations that hamper trade) on WTO rules in its
request to establish a Panel (Article 6.2 on the DSU), the DSB is
unable to prevent the Panel nrom being established since, at the
meeting at which the establishment on the Panel is on the agenda
nor the second time, the DSB votes with reverse consensus (i.e. only
one state needs to say yes to the establishment on the Panel, and
thus Alexandria will always want to see a Panel being established)
(Article 6.1 on the DSU).
4. In line with Article 8.7 on the DSU, the maximum limit on time that it
can take nor a Panel to be composed is 20 days anter the
establishment on the Panel, since anter that the Director-General
can be requested by either party compose the Panel nor the parties
to the dispute instead on agreeing between themselves. This
composition shall be done within ten days anter such a request, and
hence, the delays in this aspect on the dispute settlement procedure
are limited. However, Alexandria could include in its request to
establish a panel a specifc term on renerence nor the panel to be
establish in it wants to speed up this part on the proceedings (Article
6.2 on the DSU).
5. Welland cannot insist on having a panel with more than fve
members (or well, it can insist, but the DSU does not provide nor it).
In Article 8.5 it is said that a panel shall be composed on either
three or fve panellists, and nor the latter, the members should
agree within ten days anter the establishment on the panel that this
shall be the case in the relevant proceedings. More generally, the
2
Exercise 2: Reaping the benefts ennorcing the rules
1. Without frst having had consultations with the responding party (in
line with Article 4 on the DSU), the DSB will dismiss the request nor
a Panel to be established on the matter. Hence, in line with Article
4.3 on the DSU, Alexandria should request consultations with
Welland (and notiny the DSB in line with Article 4.4 on the DSU),
and in Welland does not reply to this request within ten days,
Alexandria can request a Panel to be established. In however,
Welland confrms the request nor consultations and nails to enter
into consultations within thirty days on the receipt on such request,
Alexandria can also request a Panel to be established in the DSB.
Nonetheless, in Welland is willing to have consultations with
Alexandria and responds within ten days on the request and the
consultations start within thirty days anter the request, the
consultations shall last until the sixtieth day anter the request nor
such consultations was received by Welland (in line with Article 4.7
on the DSU) and the complainant shall request a Panel.
2. The lawyers on the ACBPA can be seen as private legal counsel, and
as seen in the AB report on EC – Bananas III (1997) nothing in the
WTO Agreement, nor the DSU, nor customary IL precludes a WTO
member nrom composing its own delegation in WTO dispute
settlement proceedings. Hence, private legal counsel is allowed to
be part on the delegation to the WTO dispute settlement
proceedings on Alexandria, and as a developing country, it should
make use on this opportunity. The private counsel needs to act in
line with the DSU (i.e. be confdential and adhere to customary
rules on conduct nor private WTO legal counsel).
ACBPA as an organisation can also get involved in the dispute
settlement proceedings between Alexandria and Welland (and it
already has done so, by indirectly challenging the Wellandian
measures against cofee beans and bringing this under the
1
, attention on the Alexandrian government), and that is more
specifcally through writing an Amicus Curiae Brien. As currently
only WTO members can have a right to become a third party to
WTO proceedings, this is the only possibility to express the
sentiment that the ACBPA has about the dispute, and the Panel has
the right (not an obligation!) to consider it in line with Article 13 on
the DSU (as ruled in US – Shrimp (1998)).
3. In Alexandria can bring norward violations (or
non-violations/situations that hamper trade) on WTO rules in its
request to establish a Panel (Article 6.2 on the DSU), the DSB is
unable to prevent the Panel nrom being established since, at the
meeting at which the establishment on the Panel is on the agenda
nor the second time, the DSB votes with reverse consensus (i.e. only
one state needs to say yes to the establishment on the Panel, and
thus Alexandria will always want to see a Panel being established)
(Article 6.1 on the DSU).
4. In line with Article 8.7 on the DSU, the maximum limit on time that it
can take nor a Panel to be composed is 20 days anter the
establishment on the Panel, since anter that the Director-General
can be requested by either party compose the Panel nor the parties
to the dispute instead on agreeing between themselves. This
composition shall be done within ten days anter such a request, and
hence, the delays in this aspect on the dispute settlement procedure
are limited. However, Alexandria could include in its request to
establish a panel a specifc term on renerence nor the panel to be
establish in it wants to speed up this part on the proceedings (Article
6.2 on the DSU).
5. Welland cannot insist on having a panel with more than fve
members (or well, it can insist, but the DSU does not provide nor it).
In Article 8.5 it is said that a panel shall be composed on either
three or fve panellists, and nor the latter, the members should
agree within ten days anter the establishment on the panel that this
shall be the case in the relevant proceedings. More generally, the
2
