{"title":"WTO争端解决程序","authors":"T. Jahan","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvqr1f5g.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The World trade organization’s (WTO) Dispute settlement Understanding (DSU) is the legally-binding agreement promising WTO members to settle their international trades related disputes. An important presumption in the WTO is that States are expected to comply with their obligations in line with Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties(VCLT). However, the WTO dispute settlement process is a debatable instrument of compromise as there is option for political flexibility in resolving disputes, on the other side of the coin, under Article 3.2 of the DSU it must provide legal integrity, security and predictability of WTO law. Nevertheless, WTO provisions are not clear and need to clarification. This article will examine the burden of proof considering the DSU and WTO jurisprudence, specifically Panels decisions and Appellate division decisions.","PeriodicalId":13360,"journal":{"name":"Imperial journal of interdisciplinary research","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"WTO Dispute Settlement Process\",\"authors\":\"T. Jahan\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/j.ctvqr1f5g.6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The World trade organization’s (WTO) Dispute settlement Understanding (DSU) is the legally-binding agreement promising WTO members to settle their international trades related disputes. An important presumption in the WTO is that States are expected to comply with their obligations in line with Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties(VCLT). However, the WTO dispute settlement process is a debatable instrument of compromise as there is option for political flexibility in resolving disputes, on the other side of the coin, under Article 3.2 of the DSU it must provide legal integrity, security and predictability of WTO law. Nevertheless, WTO provisions are not clear and need to clarification. This article will examine the burden of proof considering the DSU and WTO jurisprudence, specifically Panels decisions and Appellate division decisions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13360,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Imperial journal of interdisciplinary research\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Imperial journal of interdisciplinary research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvqr1f5g.6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Imperial journal of interdisciplinary research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvqr1f5g.6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The World trade organization’s (WTO) Dispute settlement Understanding (DSU) is the legally-binding agreement promising WTO members to settle their international trades related disputes. An important presumption in the WTO is that States are expected to comply with their obligations in line with Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties(VCLT). However, the WTO dispute settlement process is a debatable instrument of compromise as there is option for political flexibility in resolving disputes, on the other side of the coin, under Article 3.2 of the DSU it must provide legal integrity, security and predictability of WTO law. Nevertheless, WTO provisions are not clear and need to clarification. This article will examine the burden of proof considering the DSU and WTO jurisprudence, specifically Panels decisions and Appellate division decisions.