|
 Principles: equitable, fast, effective, mutually acceptable
WTO members have agreed that if they believe fellow members are violating trade rules, they will use the multilateral system of settling disputes instead of taking action unilaterally. That means abiding by the agreed procedures, and respecting judgements.
Typically, a dispute arises when one country adopts a trade policy measure or takes some action that one or more fellow-WTO members considers to be breaking the WTO agreements, or to be a failure to live up to obligations. A third group of countries can declare that they have an interest in the case and enjoy some rights.
A procedure for settling disputes existed under the old GATT, but it had no fixed timetables, rulings were easier to block, and many cases dragged on for a long time inconclusively. The Uruguay Round agreement introduced a more structured process with more clearly defined stages in the procedure. It introduced greater discipline for the length of time a case should take to be settled, with flexible deadlines set in various stages of the procedure. The agreement emphasizes that prompt settlement is essential if the WTO is to function effectively. It sets out in considerable detail the procedures and the timetable to be followed in resolving disputes. If a case runs its full course to a first ruling, it should not normally take more than about one year — 15 months if the case is appealed. The agreed time limits are flexible, and if the case is considered urgent (e.g., if perishable goods are involved), then it is accelerated as much as possible.
The Uruguay Round agreement also made it impossible for the country losing a case to block the adoption of the ruling. Under the previous GATT procedure, rulings could only be adopted by consensus, meaning that a single objection could block the ruling. Now, rulings are automatically adopted unless there is a consensus to reject a ruling — any country wanting to block a ruling has to persuade all other WTO members (including its adversary in the case) to share its view.
Although much of the procedure does resemble a court or tribunal, the preferred solution is for the countries concerned to discuss their problems and settle the dispute by themselves. The first stage is therefore consultation between the governments concerned, and even when the case has progressed to other stages, consultation and mediation are still always possible. More... (click “more” takes user to “Introduction to dispute settlement from TIF”)
Role of the CD/WTO
The Legal Research and Analysis Department, through feedback from other government agencies or the private sector, monitors Egypt’s partners’ compliance with trade agreements and can initiate discussions with those partners about their trade measures. The Department also responds to requests for clarifications or consultations from trading partners.
In addition, the CD/WTO participates in coordinating Egypt’s position in the Doha-mandated negotiations on clarifying and improving the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU).
Egypt in Dispute Settlement
The WTO system provides a mechanism for the settlement of disputes when a country believes that another country is in breach of the WTO rules, and efforts to resolve the issue through bilateral consultations fail. Egypt has only been party to one dispute in which Turkey complained that certain aspects of Egypt’s anti-dumping investigation on Turkish steel re-bar did not comply with the WTO’s Anti-Dumping Agreement.
Other dispute settlement documents and links of interest:
|