Os órgãos que compõem o Sistema de Solução de Controvérsias da OMC possuem competência para analisar reclamações fundadas nos denominados acordos abrangidos e formular conclusões e recomendações sobre a conformidade das medidas impugnadas com os referidos acordos. Para interpretar as disposições destes acordos, estes órgãos podem recorrer às regras costumeiras de interpretação previstas na Convenção de Viena sobre o Direito dos Tratados de 1969. Estas regras de interpretação, por sua vez, permitem àqueles órgãos recorrer a espécies normativas produzidas fora do contexto da OMC como subsídios para esclarecer o sentido dos termos das disposições dos acordos abrangidos. Ao se valer destas espécies normativas, os referidos órgãos estarão também, inevitavelmente, interpretando as disposições destes. Nesse contexto, esta pesquisa teve por objetivo analisar de que forma as espécies normativas tradicionais de Direito Internacional do Meio Ambiente (convenções, costumes e princípios gerais de direito) foram interpretadas pelos órgãos do OSC em três casos escolhidos para representar o problema. Os resultados da análise dos casos demonstraram que espécies normativas do Direito Internacional do Meio Ambiente são efetivamente admitidas no processo interpretativo dos acordos abrangidos, o que pode se dar de forma vinculante ou não, bem como podem influenciar efetivamente na interpretação destes acordos, confirmando-lhes o significado ou lhes atribuindo um significado não explícito, embora as conclusões desta interpretação nem sempre resultem em posicionamentos totalmente favoráveis às medidas unilaterais adotadas pelos Membros da OMC a título de preocupação ambiental. / The organs that make up the dispute settlement system of the WTO have power to examine complaints founded in so-called covered agreements and formulate conclusions and recommendations on the compliance of the contested measures with the agreements. To interpret the provisions of these agreements, these organs may make use of interpretation customary rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969. These rules of interpretation, in turn, allow those organs resort to normative species produced outside the context of WTO as subsidies to clarify the meaning of the terms of the provisions of the covered agreements. By borrowing these normative species, those bodies will also inevitably interpreting the provisions of these. In this context, this study aimed to examine how traditional normative species of International Law of the Environment (conventions, customs and general principles of law) were interpreted by the DSB organs in three cases chosen to represent the problem. The case analysis results showed that normative species of International Law of the Environment are effectively admitted in the interpretive process of the covered agreements, which can occur in binding or not, and can effectively influence the interpretation of these agreements, confirming them the meaning or assigning them a no explicit meaning, although the conclusions of this interpretation does not always result in favorable positions to fully unilateral measures adopted by WTO Members in respect of environmental concern.

Os órgãos que compõem o Sistema de Solução de Controvérsias da OMC possuem competência para analisar reclamações fundadas nos denominados acordos abrangidos e formular conclusões e recomendações sobre a conformidade das medidas impugnadas com os referidos acordos. Para interpretar as disposições destes acordos, estes órgãos podem recorrer às regras costumeiras de interpretação previstas na Convenção de Viena sobre o Direito dos Tratados de 1969. Estas regras de interpretação, por sua vez, permitem àqueles órgãos recorrer a espécies normativas produzidas fora do contexto da OMC como subsídios para esclarecer o sentido dos termos das disposições dos acordos abrangidos. Ao se valer destas espécies normativas, os referidos órgãos estarão também, inevitavelmente, interpretando as disposições destes. Nesse contexto, esta pesquisa teve por objetivo analisar de que forma as espécies normativas tradicionais de Direito Internacional do Meio Ambiente (convenções, costumes e princípios gerais de direito) foram interpretadas pelos órgãos do OSC em três casos escolhidos para representar o problema. Os resultados da análise dos casos demonstraram que espécies normativas do Direito Internacional do Meio Ambiente são efetivamente admitidas no processo interpretativo dos acordos abrangidos, o que pode se dar de forma vinculante ou não, bem como podem influenciar efetivamente na interpretação destes acordos, confirmando-lhes o significado ou lhes atribuindo um significado não explícito, embora as conclusões desta interpretação nem sempre resultem em posicionamentos totalmente favoráveis às medidas unilaterais adotadas pelos Membros da OMC a título de preocupação ambiental. / The organs that make up the dispute settlement system of the WTO have power to examine complaints founded in so-called covered agreements and formulate conclusions and recommendations on the compliance of the contested measures with the agreements. To interpret the provisions of these agreements, these organs may make use of interpretation customary rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969. These rules of interpretation, in turn, allow those organs resort to normative species produced outside the context of WTO as subsidies to clarify the meaning of the terms of the provisions of the covered agreements. By borrowing these normative species, those bodies will also inevitably interpreting the provisions of these. In this context, this study aimed to examine how traditional normative species of International Law of the Environment (conventions, customs and general principles of law) were interpreted by the DSB organs in three cases chosen to represent the problem. The case analysis results showed that normative species of International Law of the Environment are effectively admitted in the interpretive process of the covered agreements, which can occur in binding or not, and can effectively influence the interpretation of these agreements, confirming them the meaning or assigning them a no explicit meaning, although the conclusions of this interpretation does not always result in favorable positions to fully unilateral measures adopted by WTO Members in respect of environmental concern.

International conventions signifies international trade, which in itself would be ineffective if there were no dispute settlement mechanisms. This essay intends to examine how dispute settlement mechanisms between states have developed over the years and a large emphasis is placed on the World Trade Organizations (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body since it’s had great significance for the efficiency of international law. In order to show the need for dispute settlement mechanisms, a background to the conventions that have called for the development of the DSB is in order. This essay focuses on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), and the agreement that currently regulate intellectual property rights, Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), but also its connection to the DSB. The current negotiations between the EU and the USA for a free trade agreement, Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is also mentioned since it intends to serve as a global model once settled. The purpose of this paper is to investigate and analyze the emergence of the TRIPS agreement, and its relation to the dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement system is facing unprecedented challenges, following the United States (US) decision to block the appointment of all Appellate Body members. The US has justified its blocking tactic, already implemented since 2017 by raising several procedural and substantive concerns with the Appellate Body's failure to follow WTO rules. On 10 December 2019, the Appellate Body was forced to suspend its activities after the second terms of two of the remaining three members expired. While the WTO dispute settlement system continues to function at the panel stage, the Appellate Body is currently unable to review appeals because it lacks the minimum number of three members required to establish a division. In addition, the collapse of the Appellate Body means that any party to a dispute can block the adoption of a panel report by filing a notice to appeal which is likely to remain in limbo for an indefinite period. Numerous studies have discussed the Appellate Body crisis and its implications for the WTO dispute settlement system. Few, however, have critically analysed the validity of the concerns that the US has raised about the Appellate Body's work over the past few years. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to discuss and critically analyse these concerns to determine whether the Appellate Body has indeed strayed from its limited mandate. In addition, the research will provide recommendations on how to save the appellate stage and ensure that appeals are resolved while WTO members attempt to find permanent solutions to this unprecedented crisis.

Magister Legum - LLM / The World Trade Organisation (WTO) deals with regulation of trade in goods, services and intellectual property between participating countries by providing a framework for negotiating trade agreements.1 Furthermore, it has implemented a dispute resolution process aimed at enforcing participants' adherence to WTO agreements. Ideally, all WTO member states have ‘a level playing field’ in terms of access and equal rights under the dispute settlement mechanism. Disputes should be resolved in a fair and impartial manner. However, the WTO’s DSS has been criticised for being undemocratic, non-transparent and accountable to none. 2

En tant qu’organisation qui a vocation à réguler les échanges commerciaux mondiaux et qui promeut le libre-échange, l’OMC désigne naturellement l’une des principales, voire l’unique, structure internationale capable d’incarner l’approche multilatérale qui s’impose devant la mondialisation des pratiques anticoncurrentielles et des opérations de concentration. Les règles de concurrence présentes dans son corpus juridique, ainsi que la jurisprudence issue de leur mise en œuvre, grâce notamment à l’existence d’un mécanisme contraignant de règlement des différends, forment un droit primaire de la concurrence. Toutefois, un tel droit ne régit que les comportements des acteurs étatiques et n’appréhende les agissements des particuliers que de manière indirecte. Par conséquent, il nécessite d’être complété et adapté aux nouvelles réalités procédant de la mondialisation des économies, ce par le biais d’une adoption d’un accord multilatéral portant sur la concurrence. Le système de règlement des litiges devrait aussi subir une mutation, en renforçant ses techniques de sanction et en s’ouvrant aux personnes privées / As an organization which goal is to regulate international trade exchanges and to promote free trade, the World Trade Organization refers naturally to one of the main international structures or even the only one which can embody the multilateral approach needed to face the globalization of anti-competitive practices and concentration operations. The competition rules mentioned in its legal corpus as well as the case law from their implementation, are a primary competition law thanks to the existence of a coercing mechanism to solve problems in particular. However, a such rule only governs the states actors’ behaviours and is not directly apprehensive of the acting of the individuals. Therefore, it needs to be completed and adapted to the new realities of the situation by proceeding the globalization of the economies by means of the adoption of an multilateral agreement over the competition. The settlement of dispute system would need some change, by strengthening its technical punishments and by opening its gates to the private individuals

Le but de la recherche est d'identifier la stratégie de l'Union européenne dans le cadre du règlement des différends à l'OMC et de déterminer le rôle que jouent les différends commerciaux internationaux au niveau interne communautaire. La spécificité de la participation de l'UE par rapport aux autres Etats membres de l'OMC et les raisons de sa participation sont étudiées plus particulièrement dans le cadre d'une réflexion sur la manière dont les litiges internationaux s'inscrivent dans sa politique externe. Nous analysons en outre l'apport des litiges de l'Union européenne dans le développement du droit international. Le travail est articulé autour de deux axes qui contribuent à l'étude de la cohérence de la stratégie de l'UE au sein de l'ORD. Les politiques de l'Union européenne sont fréquemment mises en cause devant l'Organe de règlement des différends de l'OMC. L'UE utilise les litiges commerciaux internationaux comme un instrument de sa politique commercial, notamment dans le but de promouvoir à l'international ses valeurs non-commerciales et les intérêts primordiaux, ainsi que pour défendre son acquis historique selon les lignes directrices de ses politiques. Ces ambitions de l'Union expliquent la particularité de ses litiges commerciaux internationaux. La première partie analyse la nature spécifique des litiges commerciaux internationaux de l'UE et vise à répondre à la question de savoir par quels moyens l'UE essaye d'imposer son expérience de libéralisation des échanges au niveau international (Partie I). Dans la seconde partie nous procédons à l'analyse du choix des modalités de règlement de différends par l'Union en fonction de différents critères. Ainsi, le mode de règlement d'un différend dépend des parties impliquées dans le conflit et des enjeux en cause. En outre, nous examinons si les conditions institutionnelles de sa participation au règlement des différends commerciaux et les mécanismes spéciaux de la PCC existant au sein de l'UE sont compatibles avec les exigences du droit de l'OMC, et s'ils sont par conséquent « rentables » pour la défense efficace des intérêts de l'UE tant commerciaux que non commerciaux (Partie II). / The main purpose of the research is to identify the European Union's strategy in the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO and to determine the role that international trade disputes play on the European level. Particularly, the EU participation specificity, compared to other Members of the WTO and the reasons for its involvement, are examined in the frame of an analysis on the manner in which international disputes inscribe into its external policy. We also analyze the EU disputes contribution to the development of international law. The research articulates around two main parts which contribute to the study of coherence of the EU strategy in the DSB. EU policies are frequently attacked in front of the DSB. The EU uses recourse to international trade disputes as an instrument to promote to the international level its non trade values and essential interests and to defend its historical acquis according to main directions of its policies. These EU ambitions explain the specificity of its international trade disputes. The first part of the research analyses the particular nature of international trade disputes of the EU and intends to answer the question to know by what means the EU tries to impose its own experience of trade liberalization onto international level (Part I). In the second part we are analyzing the EU choice of modes of dispute settlement depending on different criteria. So, the dispute settlement means depends on the parties to the conflict and the stakes of the dispute. We also examine if institutional conditions for its participation to settlement of international trade disputes and special mechanisms of Common Commercial Policy existing in the EU are compliant with WTO law requirements, and if they are consequently profitable for efficient defense of the EU trade and non trade interests (Part II).

No description available.

No description available.

Le but de la recherche est d'identifier la stratégie de l'Union européenne dans le cadre du règlement des différends à l'OMC et de déterminer le rôle que jouent les différends commerciaux internationaux au niveau interne communautaire. La spécificité de la participation de l'UE par rapport aux autres Etats membres de l'OMC et les raisons de sa participation sont étudiées plus particulièrement dans le cadre d'une réflexion sur la manière dont les litiges internationaux s'inscrivent dans sa politique externe. Nous analysons en outre l'apport des litiges de l'Union européenne dans le développement du droit international. Le travail est articulé autour de deux axes qui contribuent à l'étude de la cohérence de la stratégie de l'UE au sein de l'ORD.Les politiques de l'Union européenne sont fréquemment mises en cause devant l'Organe de règlement des différends de l'OMC. L'UE utilise les litiges commerciaux internationaux comme un instrument de sa politique commercial, notamment dans le but de promouvoir à l'international ses valeurs non-commerciales et les intérêts primordiaux, ainsi que pour défendre son acquis historique selon les lignes directrices de ses politiques. Ces ambitions de l'Union expliquent la particularité de ses litiges commerciaux internationaux. La première partie analyse la nature spécifique des litiges commerciaux internationaux de l'UE et vise à répondre à la question de savoir par quels moyens l'UE essaye d'imposer son expérience de libéralisation des échanges au niveau international (Partie I).Dans la seconde partie nous procédons à l'analyse du choix des modalités de règlement de différends par l'Union en fonction de différents critères. Ainsi, le mode de règlement d'un différend dépend des parties impliquées dans le conflit et des enjeux en cause. En outre, nous examinons si les conditions institutionnelles de sa participation au règlement des différends commerciaux et les mécanismes spéciaux de la PCC existant au sein de l'UE sont compatibles avec les exigences du droit de l'OMC, et s'ils sont par conséquent « rentables » pour la défense efficace des intérêts de l'UE tant commerciaux que non commerciaux (Partie II). / The main purpose of the research is to identify the European Union's strategy in the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO and to determine the role that international trade disputes play on the European level. Particularly, the EU participation specificity, compared to other Members of the WTO and the reasons for its involvement, are examined in the frame of an analysis on the manner in which international disputes inscribe into its external policy. We also analyze the EU disputes contribution to the development of international law. The research articulates around two main parts which contribute to the study of coherence of the EU strategy in the DSB.EU policies are frequently attacked in front of the DSB. The EU uses recourse to international trade disputes as an instrument to promote to the international level its non trade values and essential interests and to defend its historical acquis according to main directions of its policies. These EU ambitions explain the specificity of its international trade disputes. The first part of the research analyses the particular nature of international trade disputes of the EU and intends to answer the question to know by what means the EU tries to impose its own experience of trade liberalization onto international level (Part I).In the second part we are analyzing the EU choice of modes of dispute settlement depending on different criteria. So, the dispute settlement means depends on the parties to the conflict and the stakes of the dispute. We also examine if institutional conditions for its participation to settlement of international trade disputes and special mechanisms of Common Commercial Policy existing in the EU are compliant with WTO law requirements, and if they are consequently profitable for efficient defense of the EU trade and non trade interests (Part II).