Journal of Arbitration Studies (한국중재학회지:중재연구)

The Korean Association of Arbitration Studies (한국중재학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Problems and Implications of the Dispute Settlement System in the WTO Regime With a Particular Reference to the Appellate Body -

WTO체제 분쟁해결제도의 문제점과 시사점 -상소기구를 중심으로-

  • Hong, Sung-Kyu (Major in International Business & Commerce, Korea National University of Transportation)
  • 홍성규 (한국교통대학교 국제통상전공)
  • Received : 2020.09.28
  • Accepted : 2020.11.30
  • Published : 2020.12.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The WTO's dispute settlement system has played a significant role in settling trade disputes between countries, and its function and role have been expanded by handling about 596 disputes since its establishment in 1995. This shows that the WTO's dispute settlement system is gaining enormous trust among member countries that it recognizes as a fair, effective, and efficient system for resolving trade disputes. The U.S. remains uncooperative in the WTO dispute settlement system, citing disregard for the 90-day deadline for appeals, continued service by persons who are no longer A.B. members, issuing advisory opinions on issues not necessary to resolve a dispute, A.B. review of facts, and review of a member's domestic law de novo. The A.B. claims its reports are entitled to be treated as a precedent. These problems should be gradually improved through various discussions and agreements by establishing a multilateral forum for resolving disputes and gradually ending the problems through reform of the DSU.

Keywords

References

  1. 공수진, "WTO 상소기관(Appellate Body)의 위기와 개정을 위한 논의 동향", 국제법 동향과 실무, 제18권 제2호(통권 제53호), 외교부, 2019, pp.19-32.
  2. 곽동철, "WTO 상소기구의 위기와 개혁방안에 대한 연구", 무역학회지, 제45권 제2호, 한국무역학회, 2020, pp.177-189.
  3. 김용일, "ICSID 상소제도의 도입 필요성", 중재연구, 제29권 제4호, 2019, pp.187-210.
  4. 이재민, WTO 개혁 쟁점 연구: 분쟁해결제도, 대외경제정책연구원, 2019.
  5. 이하경, "Examining the Operation of the WTO Appellate Body: Focusing on the Composition," 서울대학교 국제대학원 석사학위논문, 2018.
  6. 이효영, "WTO 상소기구 제도의 성과와 한계", 통상법률, 제146권, 법무부 국제법무과, 2020, pp.94-124.
  7. 한꿈통상법연구회, WTO 분쟁사례연구, 한국무역협회, 1999.
  8. 홍성규, "WTO분쟁해결제도에 있어서 이행확보의 실태와 개선방안", 국제상학, 제32권 제1호, 한국국제상학회, 2017, pp.23-43.
  9. 홍성규, "WTO분쟁해결제도에서 일방적 보복조치의 특성과 시사점", 통상정보연구, 제19권 제1호, 한국통상정보학회, 2017, pp.155-187.
  10. 홍성규, "국제투자중재판정의 집행에 있어서 구제조치의 개선방안", 중재연구, 제27권 제1호, 2017, pp.131-160. https://doi.org/10.16998/JAS.2017.27.1.131
  11. 홍성규, "국제투자협정에서 이행요건 부과금지에 관한 비교연구", 중재연구, 제29권 제2호, 2019, pp.35-63.
  12. 홍성규, "미국의 통상규제정책에 따른 한국의 대응방안", 국제상학, 제34권 제1호, 한국국제상학회, 2019, pp.3-27.
  13. 홍성규, "WTO체제에서 안보예외와 무역규제," 국제상학, 제34권 제3호, 한국국제상학회, 2019, pp.3-30.
  14. 홍성규.황혜정, "국제무역에서 식품안전규제를 위한 국제규범화와 예방원칙에 관한 연구", 무역연구, 한국무역연구원, 제16권 제4호, 2020, pp.213-228.
  15. Hoekman, Bernard M. and Petros Mavroidis, "Dispute Settlement at the WTO: Now What?," Centre for International Governance Inovation, 2020, pp.1-3.; https://www.cigionline.org/articles/dispute-settlement-wto-now-what (검색일: 2020.09.27.)
  16. Kawase, Tsuyoshi, et al. "Reforming the WTO AB: Short-term and Mid-term Options for DSU Reform, and Alternative Approaches in a Worst Case Scenario." T20 Japan 2019 Policy Brief. 2019, pp.1-23. https://www.g20-insights.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/t20-japantf8-3-reforming-the-wto-ab.pdf (검색일: 2020, 09.22.)
  17. Lang, Andrew, "The Judicial Sensibility of the WTO Appellate Body," The European Journal of International Law, Vol.27. No.4, 2016, pp.1095-1105. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chw065
  18. McDougall, Robert, "Crisis in the WTO Restoring the WTO Dispute Settlement Function," CIGI Papers No. 194, 2018, pp.1-19.; https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/documents/Paper%20no.194.pdf (검색일: 2020.09.12.)
  19. Murphy, Stephanie, "Without an Appellate Body, What's Next for the WTO?." INSIDE U.S. TRADE, Dec. 11, 2019.
  20. Pauwelyn, Joost, "WTO Dispute Settlement Post 2019: What to Expect?." Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.22, Issue 3., 2019, pp.297-321. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgz024
  21. Sacerdoti, Giorgio, "The WTO Dispute Settlement System: Consolidating Success and Confronting New Challenges," Bocconi Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2809122, (June 1, 2016).; https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2809122 (검색일: 2020.08.29.).
  22. Shaffer G., Elsig M. and Puig S., "The Extensive (but fragile) Authority of the WTO Appellate Body," Law & Contemporary Problems, Vol.79. No.1, 2016, pp.237-273.
  23. USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report ("2018 Trade Policy Agenda"), 2018, pp.22-28.;https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Press/Reports/2018/AR/2018%20Annual%20Report%20I.pdf (검색일: 2020.09.25.)
  24. USTR, Report on the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization ("AB Report"), 2020.; https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Report_on_the_Appellate_Body_of_the_World_Trade_Organization.pdf (검색일: 2020.09.25.)
  25. WTO, WTO Annual Report for 2019-2020: Appellate Body, Geneva, Switzerlands, 2020. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/appellate_body_e.htm (검색일: 2020.09.25.)