US Suddenly Discovers Why Supranational Tribunals Are A Problem, Just As It Starts Losing In Them
from the probably-just-a-coincidence dept
There's a bit of a battle going on in an obscure part of the World Trade Organization (WTO) called the Appellate Body, which has extremely wide-ranging powers within the WTO:
It is a standing body of seven persons that hears appeals from reports issued by panels in disputes brought by WTO Members. The Appellate Body can uphold, modify or reverse the legal findings and conclusions of a panel, and Appellate Body Reports, once adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), must be accepted by the parties to the dispute.
Here's what's been happening, as reported by Bloomberg:
The U.S. won't support the reappointment of Seung Wha Chang of South Korea to the World Trade Organization (WTO) appellate body, a U.S. official said at a meeting in Geneva.
As the article explains, that's not going down too well with other WTO members, including Brazil, the European Union, Japan, and South Korea, who are traditionally allies of the US in trade matters. So what exactly has Chang done to incur the wrath of the US?
"We do not consider that his service reflects the role assigned to the appellate body by WTO members in the WTO agreements," Deputy U.S. Permanent Representative Chris Wilson told members of the WTO dispute settlement body (DSB) May 23. "Any failure to follow scrupulously the role we members have assigned through these agreements undermines the integrity of, and support for, the WTO dispute settlement system."The U.S. said it was troubled by four recent panel decisions that Chang was involved in because they "raised systemic concerns about the disregard for the proper role of the appellate body and the WTO dispute settlement system."
Which seems to be a polite way of saying that Chang hasn't been toeing the US line. That's confirmed by the following section from a WTO news item about the DSB meeting where this argument took place:
Canada, the European Union, India and Viet Nam added that the United States' statement of opposition [to Chang] based on previous Appellate Body decisions could create a dangerous precedent for other reappointment proceedings and affect an Appellate Body member's decision-making during their first term.
Here's one of those panel decisions that the US doesn't like:
In the fourth ruling -- which upheld China's allegations about U.S. duties on non-market economies -- the appellate panel "took a very problematic and erroneous approach" that risks turning the DSB into "one that would substitute the judgment of WTO adjudicators for that of a member's domestic legal system as to what is lawful under that member's domestic law," Wilson said.
The interesting part is the bit at the end there, where the US complains that the WTO's dispute settlement system is effectively overruling national law. Techdirt readers will recognize that as a common complaint about the tribunals that adjudicate on disputes between investors and governments -- the so-called "investor-state dispute settlement" (ISDS) system, aka corporate sovereignty. Until now, the US has been a solid supporter of these tribunals, so it's rather significant to see it moaning about the problem of uppity adjudicators here. It raises the question why the US is unhappy with the DSB tribunal, but doesn't seem to have a problem with those used in ISDS.
It might have something to do with the fact that the US has never lost a corporate sovereignty case -- something it uses to justify the inclusion of ISDS in TPP and TAFTA/TTIP -- but is increasingly on the wrong end of decisions at the WTO. As to why the US never loses ISDS cases, Ante Wessels, writing on the FFII.org blog, has a provocative theory: he says the "Investor-to-state dispute settlement is a rigged system" that is tilted in favor of the US. Whether or not you agree with his analysis, it's certainly interesting to see how the US seems to be changing its mind on the value of supranational tribunals that can ride roughshod over domestic legal systems now that it finds itself on the losing side.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: corporate sovereignty, isds, seung wha chang, trade agreements, tribunals, us, wto
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I find it rather amusing that the U.S. is bitching about the WTO Panels rulings when they were part of the process that brought in NAFTA AND other trade agreements.
The U.S. agreed as did the other countries who signed the agreement to the dispute mechanism way back when, but when the U.S is found to be in violation of the trade agreement they dont like the rules all of a sudden and the way the disputes are adjudicated.
Maybe if the U.S. didn't let lobbyists and special interest groups throw gobs of money at the members of senators and congress as a means to protectionism of those groups profits to stifle the competition the U.S. wouldnt be crying about how many times they have violated those trade agreements rules and got smacked on the hand by the WTO panel.
I can only wait to see how TPP is going to go, it is going to be some of the same B.S. and we are alll going to get screwed because of it being forced down are throats
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"We think it is problematic that US national law is treated the same as the national law of other countries. We are special, after all."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There, fixed that for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They aren't just wiping their ass with foreigners' laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USEXIT anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump can save us!
/s :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trump can save us!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The emperor doesn't like...
Must reboot roman empire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The emperor doesn't like...
So, just before the Empire invaded (de-Brexited?) Britain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The emperor doesn't like...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clarify something for me?
That is to say, who appoints them? And who dismisses them if they aren't doing a good job?
Is there a Supranational Judicial Appointments Commission that makes the decision? If so, who appoints THEM?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nope, as before the response will undoubtedly be 'If there are problems resulting from the law that can only be because it's not strong enough, so ratchet up the laws some more!'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
techdirt rules
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For Little Big Horn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kangaroo Courts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arrogance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This American citizens fault for not paying attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A governments admition to "influence" their representatives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]