무역학회지 (Korea Trade Review)

한국무역학회 (Korea Trade Research Association)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

WTO 상소기구의 위기와 개혁방안에 대한 연구

A Study on the Crises and Reforms of World Trade Organization Appellate Body

  • 곽동철 (한국무역협회 통상지원센터)
  • Dongchul Kwak (Center for Trade Studies and Cooperation, Korea International Trade Association)
  • 투고 : 2020.03.31
  • 심사 : 2020.04.25
  • 발행 : 2020.04.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

The dispute settlement mechanism of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is in great peril. The Appellate Body has ceased to function last December as the United States has blocked the appointment of new Appellate Body members since 2017. The focus of this study is on the examination of US's discontent on the Appellate Body and various efforts to reform the Appellate Body. In a recent report, the US Trade Representative raises its concerns on the Appellate Body including 90 days mandatory deadline, transitional rules for outgoing Appellate Body members, scope of appeal, advisory opinions, precedent, recommendation, and overreach without offering any viable solutions. Some of WTO members and experts proposed several Appellate Body reform measures but agreement between WTO members is unlikely in a foreseeable future. Alternative dispute settlement mechanisms should be seriously considered such as interim appeal arbitration arrangements, separate dispute settlement mechanisms for trade remedies, unilateral retaliatory measures without WTO authorization. Rules-based multilateral dispute settlement system is imperative to small open economies like Korea. The Korean government should actively participate in Appellate Body reform discussions with other WTO members to keep the WTO dispute settlement system from collapsing.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Bacchus, J. and S. Lester (2019), Of Precedent and Persuasion: The Crucial Role of an Appeals Court in WTO Disputes (Free Trade Bulletin, No. 74), Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute. Available from https://www.cato.org/publications/free-trade-bulletin/precedent-persuasion-crucial-role-appeals-court-wto-disputes (accessed March 29, 2020).
  2. Bown, C. and S. Keynes (2020), Why Trump Shot the Sheriffs: The End of WTO Dispute Settlement 1.0 (Working Paper, 20-4), Washington, D.C.: Peterson Institute for International Economics. Available from https://www.piie.com/publications/working-papers/why-trump-shot-sheriffs-end-wto-dispute-settlement-10 (accessed March 29, 2020).
  3. Chun, Cheong-Ghi (2015), "A Study on the World Trade Organization Dispute Cases Complaint by China: A Focus on the US-Poultry Case", Korea Trade Review, 40(4), 263-286.
  4. Chung, Man Sik and Sung-Kyu Hong (1996), "Unilateral Retaliation of U.S. International Trade Law S. 301 in the World Trade Organization", Korea Trade Review, 21(1), 307-332.
  5. CSIS (2017), U.S. Trade Policy Priorities: Robert Lighthizer, United States Trade Representative (transcript), Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and International Studies. Available from https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-trade-policy-priorities-robert-lighthizer-united-states-trade-representative (accessed March 29, 2020).
  6. European Commission (2019, December 12), Commission Reinforces Tools to Ensure Europe's Interests in International Trade (Press Release), Brussels: Author. Available from https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=2091&title=Commission-reinforces-tools-to-ensure-Europes-interests-in-international-trade (accessed March 29, 2020).
  7. European Commission (2020a, March 27), EU and 15 World Trade Organization members establish contingency appeal arrangement for trade disputes (Press Release), Brussels: Author. Available from https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=2127 (accessed March 29, 2020).
  8. European Commission (2020b), Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement Pursuant to Article 25 of the DSU (draft text). Available from https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2020/march/tradoc158685.pdf (accessed March 29, 2020).
  9. Fortnam, B. (2020, March 5), "U.S.: Chinese WTO Appellate Body member is ineligible, not impartial", Inside US Trade. Available from https://insidetrade.com/daily-news/us-chinese-wto-appellate-body-member-ineligible-not-impartial (accessed March 29, 2020).
  10. Hillman, J. (2018), Three Approaches to Fixing the World Trade Organization's Appellate Body: the Good the Bad and the Ugly?, Washington, D.C.: Washington International Trade Association. Available from https://www.wita.org/atp-research/three-approaches-to-fixing-the-world-trade-organizations-appellate-body-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/ (accessed March 29, 2020).
  11. Lee, Hyo-young (2020), "Success and Limitations of the WTO Appellate Body", International Trade Law, 146, 94-124.
  12. Lester, S. (2020), WTO Dispute Settlement Misunderstandings: How To Bridge the Gap Between the United States and the Rest of the World (International Economic Law and Policy Blog). Available from https://ielp.worldtradelaw.net/2020/04/wto-dispute-settlement-misunderstandings-how-to-bridge-the-gap-between-the-united-states-and-the-res.html (accessed March 29, 2020).
  13. Monicken, H. (2019, October 16), "As U.S. Presses the 'Why Question' at the WTO, Others Demand Solutions", Inside US Trade. Available from https://insidetrade.com/daily-news/us-presses-%E2%80%98why-question-wto-others-demand-solutions (accessed March 29, 2020).
  14. USTR (2020), Report on the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization, Washington, D.C.: Author. Available from https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Report_on_the_Appellate_Body_of_the_World_Trade_Organization.pdf (accessed March 29, 2020).
  15. WTO (2018a), Communication from the European Union, China, Canada, India, Norway, New Zealand, Switzerland, Australia, Republic of Korea, Iceland, Singapore, Mexico, Costa Rica and Montenegro to the General Council, WT/GC/W/752/Rev.2, December 11, 2018.
  16. WTO (2018b), Communication from the European Union, China, India and Montenegro to the General Council, WT/GC/W/753/rev.1, December 11, 2018.
  17. WTO (2019a), Indonesia - Safeguard on Certain Iron and Steel Products - Understanding between Indonesia and Viet Nam Regarding Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU, WT/DS496/14, March 27, 2019.
  18. WTO (2019b), Statement on a mechanism for Developing, Documenting and Sharing Practices and Procedures in the Conduct of WTO Disputes, JOB/DSB/1/Add.11/Suppl.1, October 21, 2019.
  19. WTO (2019c), Statement on a mechanism for Developing, Documenting and Sharing Practices and Procedures in the Conduct of WTO Disputes, JOB/DSB/1/Add.11/Rev.1, October 22, 2019.
  20. WTO (2019d), Draft Decision - Functioning of the Appellate Body, WT/GC/W/791, November 28, 2019.
  21. Yin, Zi-Hui and Chang-Hwan Choi (2019), "Is the U.S. Trade Expansion Act Section 232 Consistent with GATT/WTO Rules?", Korea Trade Review, 44(1), 177-191. https://doi.org/10.22659/KTRA.2019.44.1.177