The Consultation with Experts Procedure in WTO Dispute Settlement System
Vol 2 No 1 (2011), Articles
Vol 2 No 1 (2011)

The Consultation with Experts Procedure in WTO Dispute Settlement System

Articles
https://doi.org/10.22146/jwts.v2i1.803
Published November 1, 2011
Xin Xu
WTO School of Research and Education, Shanghai Institute of Foreign Trade, Shanghai, China
Lei Zhang
WTO School of Research and Education, Shanghai Institute of Foreign Trade, Shanghai, China
PDF

Keywords

consultation with experts procedure
expert review group
individual expert due

Abstract

Followed the rules of WTO covered agreements became more and more technical, and more and more disputes involved the expertise in the field of science or technology, the consultation with experts procedure became increasingly important. However, although the Panel is authorized by the WTO rules to start such a procedure, there are no detailed rules guiding the Panel as how to operate in the practice. Under such a circumstance, the Panel had to establish the temporary rules for this procedure after consultation with the parties to the dispute in each case. Many problems relevant to the due process then arose from such temporary rules. This paper tries to analysis the major problems thereof that receiving the most controversy and accusation, and will give suggestions as for how to reform and perfect this procedure.

https://doi.org/10.22146/jwts.v2i1.803
PDF

References

Appellate Body Report (2008), Canada-Contin- ued Suspension of obligation in EC Hormones, para. 439, WT/DS321/ AB, 31 Mar.
Christopher T. Timura, (2002) “Cross-exam- ining Expertise in the WTO Dispute Settlement Process”, Mich. J. Int’l L. Vol. 23 (3), 709
John V. Orth (2006) translated by Yang Mingcheng, Chen Shuanglin, Due Pro- cess of Law: A Brief History, Beijing: Commercial Press
Joost, Pauwelyn, (2002), “The Use of Expert in WTO Dispute Settlement”, in Int’l & Comp. L. Q. Vol. 51, 325, 327.
Panel Report, (1997), “Argentina-Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Tex- tiles, Apparel and other Items, para.III.C.2, WT/DS56/R, 25 November.
Panel Report, (2010) “Australia—Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples from New Zealand, .para. 7.11-7.21, WT/DS367/R, 9 August.
Panel Report, (2010), “Australia-Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples from New Zealand”, WT/DS367/R, 17 December.
Panel Report (2010), “Australia-Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples from New Zealand”, p. 197, WT/ DS367/R, 9 August.
Panel Report (1998), “Australia-Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmon, WT/DS18/R, 6 November.
Panel Report, (2000), “European Communities-Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products”, para. 5.3, WT/DS135/R, 18 September.
Panel Report, (1997), “European Communi- ties-measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)”, para. VI, WT/DS26/R, WT/DS48/R, 18 Aug.
Panel Report, (1999), “Japan-Measures Affect- ing Agricultural Products, WT/DS76/ R, 19 March.
Panel Report, (1998) “US-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Prod- ucts”, para. VA, WT/DS58/R, 15 May
Sandifer, Durward, (1975), Evidence before international tribunals, Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, (1998) para. 5.11, WT/DS58/R, 15 May.
White, Gillian, (1965) The Use of Experts by International Tribunals, New York: Syracuse University Press.
Witenberg, (1951), “Onus Probandi devant Jes Jurisdictions Arbitrales,” 55 Rev. Gen D. Droit Int’l Pub 321, 335.
Zhang Xiaojian, (2007) “Expert Decision and Public Participation in WTO Dispute Settlement System”, Hebei Law Science, Vol. 25, No. 3, March.