Legal Challenges and Developments in the WTO Dispute Resolution Mechanism

Bagdat Amandossuly, Karlygash Baizhomartova, Zhanat Zhailau, Lyazzat Nyssanbekova, Aidana Otynshiyeva

Abstract


The WTO dispute settlement mechanism plays a critical role in maintaining the stability and fairness of international trade law, offering member states a structured process for resolving trade conflicts. Its relevance is underscored by its capacity to enforce multilateral agreements and ensure compliance with trade obligations, thereby protecting the interests of both developed and developing nations. However, significant challenges, such as procedural delays and the lack of interim economic protections for claimants, reveal the mechanism's limitations, especially for economically weaker states. This study focuses on the legal aspects of the WTO dispute settlement system, particularly its effectiveness in addressing disputes and safeguarding the rights of member states. The research emphasizes the weaknesses in compensation mechanisms and procedural fairness, while also evaluating the role of the Appellate Body and its recent paralysis as critical challenges to the system's functionality. The study employs a qualitative analysis of WTO agreements, case studies, and statistical data to examine the practical implications of the dispute settlement mechanism's limitations. By evaluating specific cases such as DS530 (Ukraine v. Kazakhstan) and DS611 (EU v. China), the research highlights the legal complexities and procedural shortcomings that affect equitable dispute resolution. The findings reveal the urgent need for reforms, including the introduction of interim relief measures, improved compensation mechanisms, and enhanced representation for developing countries. Recommendations also address the optimization of Appellate Body functionality and adapting the WTO legal framework to emerging trade challenges, such as digital commerce and sustainability. These reforms are essential for ensuring the continued relevance and equity of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism in a rapidly evolving global trade environment.

Keywords


International trade activity, World market, Republic of Kazakhstan, European Union, Legal regulation, Protection of national interests

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abdraimov, B., Suleimenova, S., & Saimova, S. (2013). Theoretical and methodological basis for the economic mechanism of land rent in foreign countries. Actual Problems of Economics, 145(7), 217-225.

Abdrasulov, E. B., Shalabaev, S. R., & Mugauova, A. I. (2015). Interpretation of the constitution and of law-transforming principles within activity of courts and the agency of constitutional control in the republic of Kazakhstan. European Research Studies Journal, 18(4), 93-102.

Agreement Establishment the World Trade Organization. (1995). https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/04-wto.pdf.

Amelin, O. Yu., Kyslyi, A. M., Viacheslav, P., Rovnyi, V., & Surzhyk, Y. (2024). Independence of Prosecutors and Judges in Criminal Proceedings in Ukraine and Foreign Countries in the Context of International Practices. Pakistan Journal of Criminology, 16(3), 191-207. https://doi.org/10.62271/pjc.16.3.59.74

Bannerman, S. (2020). The World Intellectual Property Organization and the sustainable development agenda. Futures, 122, article number: 102586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2020.102586,

Barlow, P., & Thow, A. M. (2021). Neoliberal discourse, actor power, and the politics of nutrition policy: A qualitative analysis of informal challenges to nutrition labelling regulations at the World Trade Organization, 2007-2019. Social Science & Medicine, 273, article number: 113761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113761.

Breuss, F. (2022). Who wins from an FTA induced revival of world trade? Journal of Policy Modeling, 44(3), 653-674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2022.05.003.

Burmistrov, A. N., Melikova, E. F., Kolosova, T. S., & Melnikova, L. (2024). Digital transformation of the business model of russian food retailers during the covid-19 pandemic through the lens of frugal innovation. In: Navigating Digital Transformation: Original Research Across Smart Cities, Sustainable Development and Beyond (pp. 83–98). Hauppauge, New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Sinan, H., Nguyen, T., Da Rocha, J. M.,

Sumaila, U. R., Skerritt, D. J., Schuhbauer, A., Sanjurjo, E., & Bailey, M. (2022). A constructive critique of the World Trade Organization draft agreement on harmful fisheries subsidies. Marine Policy, 135, article number: 104872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104872.

Dankevych, A., Dankevych, V., & Levchenko, Y. (2023). EU integration and the business efficiency of the quality control system of dairy products: The dilemma of ukrainian enterprises. In: Recent Trends in Business and Entrepreneurial Ventures (pp. 61–83). Hauppauge, New York: Nova Science Publishers. https://doi.org/10.52305/KZZV1105

de Lange, D. D., Walsh, D. P., & Paul, D. S. (2022). UK-Canada Trade Post-Brexit: Leading with Circular Economy Trade. Resources, Conservation & Recycling Advances, 14, article number: 200081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcradv.2022.200081.

Dispute Settlement Activity – Some Figures. (2021). https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispustats_e.htm.

DS530: Kazakhstan – Anti-dumping Measures on Steel Pipes. (2017). https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds530_e.htm#top

DS611: China – Enforcement of intellectual property rights. (2022). https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds611_e.htm

Ezzat, A., & Zaki, C. (2022). On the political economy of trade agreements: A de jure and de facto analysis of institutions. International Economics, 172, 143-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inteco.2022.09.006.

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. (1994). https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/06-gatt_e.htm.

General Agreement on Trade in Services. (1995). https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/gatsintr_e.htm.

Grant, R., & Yaffe, L. (2020). Trade, International. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, 2, 341-349. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10142-8.

Grübler, J., & Reiter, O. (2021). Characterising non-tariff trade policy. Economic Analysis and Policy, 71, 138-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2021.04.007.

Hartigan, J. C., & McMahon, J. A. (2022). A fuzzy look at a fuzzy agreement: Risk management under the WTO SPS Agreement. Economic Analysis and Policy, 73, 272-284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2021.11.010.

Hu, Q., Li, W., Lin, C., & Wei, L. (2022). Trade-induced competition and ownership dynamics. Journal of Development Economics, 160, article number: 102979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2022.102979.

Johannesson, L., & Mavroidis, P. C. (2017). The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995-2016: A Data Set and Its Descriptive Statistics. Journal of World Trade, 51(3), 357-408.

Jönsson, O. M., Presberger, D., Pfister, S., & Bernauer, T. (2022). How to estimate whether preferential trade agreements contribute to international environmental impact shifting. A new methodology and empirical illustration for Switzerland. Ecological Economics, 205, article number: 107690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107690.

Khamzina, Z. A., Buribayev, Y. A., Oryntayev, Z. K., & Kuttygalieva, A. (2015). Problems of overcoming poverty in the Republic of Kazakhstan. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(3), 169-176. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n3s5p169

Ladychenko, V., Hulak, O., Artemenko, O., Svitlychnyi, O., & Volkova, L. (2023). Judicial practice of Ukraine on consideration of public procurement disputes from the perspective of European Union standards. Law. Human. Environment, 14(1), 63-76. https://doi.org/10.31548/law/1.2023.63

Llazo, E., Ryspaeva, A., Kubiczek, J., Mehdiyev, V., & Ketners, K. (2024). Trends and Prospects of Financial System Development in the Context of Digitalization. Theoretical and Practical Research in the Economic Fields, 15(4), 783-797. https://doi.org/10.14505/tpref.v15.4(32).01

Malskyi, O. (2006). Resolution of conflicts in the WTO system. https://pravo.ua/articles/razreshenie-konfliktov-v-sisteme-vto/.

Matsumura, N. (2018). Third Party States and Implementation of the WTO Rulings. Kobe University Law Review, 51, 1-21.

Mayis, G. G., Shahin, B. V., Shafa, G. T., Yegana, A. J., & Mehpare, O. S. (2021). Granger causality analysis of foreign trade impact on economic growth and some socioeconomic indicators: Case of Azerbaijan. WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics, 18, 276-283. https://doi.org/10.37394/23207.2021.18.28

Musayeva, N., Atakishiyeva, N., Mammadova, U., Tanriverdiyeva, G., & Lemishko, O. (2024). The impact of trade policy on the export of agricultural products of Azerbaijan. Scientific Horizons, 27(11), 141-152. https://doi.org/10.48077/scihor11.2024.141

Petersone, M., & Ketners, K. (2017). Improvement of customs and tax administration ict system performance. Research for Rural Development, 2, 263-269. https://doi.org/10.22616/rrd.23.2017.077

Robertson, S. L. (2022). The World Trade Organization. International Encyclopedia of Education, 4, 503-509. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.01058-7.

Semeen, H., & Islam, M. A. (2021). Social impact disclosure and symbolic power: Evidence from UK fair trade organizations. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 79, article number: 102182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2020.102182.

Shchokina, O. O., Sabadash, I. V., Ivashkovskyi, D. V., & Fedchenko, D. I. (2019). The dispute settlement procedure within the wto: experience of Ukraine. Legal Scientific Electronic Journal, 3, 106-110.

Shi, W. (2022). Trade Wars: A Prism of the US, EU and China. Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, & Conflict (Third Edition), 3, 274-282. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-820195-4.00084-4.

Shin, S., & Balistreri, E. J. (2022). The other trade war: Quantifying the Korea-Japan trade dispute. Journal of Asian Economics, 79, article number: 101442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2022.101442.

Tleubekov, S. T., Aidarbaev, S. Zh., & Palao Moreno, G. (2022). Participation of Kazakhstan in WTO disputes as a third party. Bulletin of the Institute of Legislation and Legal Information of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 3(70), 160-170.

Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. (1995). https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/trips_e.htm.

Uruguay Round Agreements. (1995). https://goo.su/Z8dBen.

World Trade Organization. (2022). https://www.wto.org/index.htm.

WTO Annual Report. (2022). https://goo.su/JcVLshi.

WTO reform: EU proposes way forward on the functioning of the Appellate Body. (2018). https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_6529.

Yessenbekova, P. (2024). Results of implementation of conciliation procedures in civil proceedings. Social and Legal Studios, 7(3), 95-102. https://doi.org/10.32518/sals3.2024.95




DOI: https://doi.org/10.15575/kh.v7i1.39633

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2025 Bagdat Amandossuly et.al

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Jl. Raya A.H. Nasution No. 105 Cibiru Kota Bandung, 40614

E-mail: KHukum@uinsgd.ac.id

Lisensi Creative Commons

Khazanah Hukum are licensed under Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International

slot https://bursaikan.kkp.go.id/obc/ https://riph.pertanian.go.id/liquid/ slot gacor https://riph.pertanian.go.id/bl/ judi bola https://sievo.kemdikbud.go.id/infy/ situs toto https://sievo.kemdikbud.go.id/jb/ https://www.assets.rpg.co.id/ https://www.linkandthink.org/ https://sievo.kemdikbud.go.id/relx/ Slot Gacor https://www.theyashotel.com/ https://elearning.itbwigalumajang.ac.id/ https://e-absensi.singkawangkota.go.id/ https://bapeten.go.id/upload/ https://sentraki.itbwigalumajang.ac.id/ https://lppm.itbwigalumajang.ac.id/ https://bkombandung.kemkes.go.id/ slot gacor hari ini https://sinovik.kemkes.go.id/assets/run/ https://pdcproductions.com/ https://kkp.umt.ac.id/ https://csirt.sulbarprov.go.id/uploads/ https://sievo.kemdikbud.go.id/ https://sievo.kemdikbud.go.id/thai/