« China, national security, and investment treaties | Blog home | Unfair Consumer Contracts Law Reform in Australia (at last), Japan and Europe »

business learning training articles new learning business training opportunities finance learning training deposit money learning making training art loan learning training deposits make learning your training home good income learning outcome training issue medicine learning training drugs market learning money training trends self learning roof training repairing market learning training online secure skin learning training tools wedding learning training jewellery newspaper learning for training magazine geo learning training places business learning training design Car learning and training Jips production learning training business ladies learning cosmetics training sector sport learning and training fat burn vat learning insurance training price fitness learning training program furniture learning at training home which learning insurance training firms new learning devoloping training technology healthy learning training nutrition dress learning training up company learning training income insurance learning and training life dream learning training home create learning new training business individual learning loan training form cooking learning training ingredients which learning firms training is good choosing learning most training efficient business comment learning on training goods technology learning training business secret learning of training business company learning training redirects credits learning in training business guide learning for training business cheap learning insurance training tips selling learning training abroad protein learning training diets improve learning your training home security learning training importance

Professor Yasuhei Taniguchi presented a public lecture on this topic on 30 July at Sydney Law School, as part of the 2009 Distinguished Speakers series commemorating the inauguration of its new building in February. Drawing on his experience as a world-renowned civil law professor, arbitrator and WTO adjudicator, Taniguchi-sensei focused mainly on points of similarity and difference between the WTO dispute resolution system and national courts. His conclusion was a qualified "yes", despite the main challenges still afflicting trade law litigation among states through the WTO system - the topic of a one-day symposium on 14 August, also at Sydney Law School.

By Professor Yasuhei Taniguchi (former Chair of the WTO Appellate Body; Of Counsel, Matsuo and Kosugi; Emeritus Professor, Kyoto University):

The WTO dispute settlement system has been acclaimed as having brought a true “judiciary” into international society, where power had often prevailed over justice. In modern states like Australia and Japan, individuals and small firms now often succeed in litigation against large firms or the government. Similar situations sometimes arise nowadays under the WTO dispute settlement system, underway since 1995. Examples of small countries (and small industries) succeeding against much larger interests include Antigua v US (internet gambling) and Peru v EC (sardines). Such outcomes would have been inconceivable under the previous regime, centred on diplomatic settlement of disputes.
The WTO system does share many characteristics with a national judiciary. It has compulsory jurisdiction, lacking even in the International Court of Justice (despite the latter’s grandiose name and appearance). It involves full adversarial hearings and fact finding by a Panel. The “reverse consensus” rule means that in practice a Panel’s report is as final as a national court’s judgment (despite the formality of its adoption by the DSB, an assembly of all WTO member states). There is review on points of law by the Appellate Body, whose report is similarly final. There are also certain mechanisms for enforcement of an adopted report. All these features indicate “judicialisiation” of international trade dispute settlement through the WTO.

It is true, however, that the weakest aspect of the WTO system lies in the enforcement phase. The WTO has no supranational authority, and the system lacks means for direct coercion against a sovereign member state. Nevertheless, compliance by losing states is reasonably high (eg 83% over 1995-2004, compared to 68% in the ICJ – even without compulsory jurisdiction).

These are all positive elements in WTO dispute settlement. But there remain many challenges. The vast majority of (over 150) member states, especially developing countries, have never used the system because of lack of resources - human, material and otherwise. Business-government relationships can also affect the use of WTO dispute settlement as only a state can initiate action against another, even though the real party in interest may be certain businesses in both states. Expertise in WTO law is still limited to a narrow group. Transparency in public affairs also leads to a paradox: the more transparent a government strives to be overall, the more vulnerable it can become when subject to a specific WTO claim. And there are also certain in-built problems in the system. These involve the lack of retroactive effect for recommendations and rulings, difficulties in compliance panel proceedings, cumbersome and ineffective retaliation mechanisms, and so on.

Dispute settlement is also limited by WTO agreements’ scope (although a non-violation claim is possible, as in the Kodak-Fuji dispute). For example, there is no WTO agreement on investment in general, after it was dropped during the Uruguay Round. So bilateral (and now regional) investment treaties, or chapters in Free Trade Agreements, are increasingly relied upon. These often now allow a private investor to claim directly against the host state, usually through ICSID arbitration. Although current developments in investment arbitration are extremely interesting, the whole emerging field would be dramatically changed if a WTO investment agreement were realised in the present Doha Round.

Generally, despite its many current shortcomings, WTO dispute settlement has proved remarkably significant. It has provided the first permanent transnational mechanism helping considerably in bringing about the rule of law in economic affairs, while underpinning rapid growth in the world economy. Both Australia and Japan have been major beneficiaries of this system, and share responsibility to keep improving it.

***

Professor Taniguchi is renowned in Japan and world-wide – particularly throughout the US, Europe and China – for his expertise in insolvency law, civil procedure, arbitration and the World Trade Organization. He taught mainly at Kyoto University, advising on major law reform initiatives in Japan. He has arbitrated dozens of cross-border commercial disputes (especially under ICC Rules), was a judge on the WTO Appellate Body over 2000-7, and is Of Counsel in Matsuo & Kosugi (Tokyo). Professor Taniguchi is an ICCA Council member, president of the Japan Association of Arbitrators, and a former Vice-President of the International Association of Procedural Law. He has been a Visiting Professor at numerous leading universities in four countries, advises the Sydney Centre of International Law, and is the ANJeL/CAPLUS Research Visitor at Sydney Law School over July-August 2009. His other speaking engagements include keynote presentations at the ANZSIL conference in July, the symposium of the Australasian Forum for International Arbitration on 7 August, and the one-day symposium reviewing the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Understanding on 14 August.

About the Blog

Japanese Law in Asia-Pacific Socio-Economic Context
More