• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권4호
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2020

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.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• pp.155-187
• /
• 2017

WTO에서는 GATT체제에서 나타났던 분쟁해결에 따른 문제점을 해결하기 위해 복잡한 절차를 분쟁해결양해(DSU)로 통일하였으며, 분쟁해결을 담당하는 상설기관으로 DSB와 상소기관(the Appellate Body)을 설치하였다. 또한 패널보고서의 신속한 의사결정을 위해 역총의제(reverse consensus system)를 도입하고, 사법적 기능을 크게 강화하는 등 절차에서 많은 개선이 이루어졌다. 그러나 미국은 아직도 자국법인 통상법 제301조를 통하여 일방적으로 분쟁해결을 시도하고 있다. 이와 같은 301조에 의한 일방적 보복조치는 공정한 분쟁해결을 저해하는 WTO협정위반에 해당한다. 따라서 본 논문에서는 DSU의 특성과 최근 동향을 검토하고, WTO에서 합법적으로 인정하고 있는 대항조치와 미국의 일방적 보복조치를 비교하였다. 또한 일방적 보복조치에 따른 대표적인 US-Japan Automobiles (DS6) 사건과 EC-Bananas III (DS27) 사건을 법제적으로 분석하였다. 결과적으로 이러한 사건들은 WTO의 정합성(WTO-consistency)에 맞지 않는 것으로 미국의 일방적 보복조치가 국제적으로 인정되기 어렵다는 점을 시사점으로 제시하였다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권2호
• /
• pp.81-113
• /
• 2013

The World Trade Organization (WTO) offers remedies for non-compliance by the introduction of compensation or retaliation in the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU). There are no the provisions under the WTO DSU and it seems unclear what retaliation is attempting to achieve. Therefore, it is unclear whether the goal of WTO retaliation is to induce compliance or to restore the balance between the rights and the obligations of WTO members. It has been claimed the WTO has a strong dispute settlement system by providing retaliation when the recommendations and rulings of Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) are not complied with. But this seems to be inadequate to bring about effective and timely compliance. Especially there is a problem with free riding by a violating member because the level of retaliation is determined from the expiration of a reasonable period of time, providing an incentive to delay compliance. Also the level of the suspension of concessions or other obligations authorized by the DSB is equivalent to the level of nullification or impairment, according to DSU Article 22.4. However, if the member concerned objections to the level of the suspension proposed, the matter shall be referred to arbitration. The arbitrator shall not examine the nature of the suspension of concessions or other obligations to be suspended but shall determine whether the level of such suspension is equivalent to the nullification or impairment. The arbitrator makes an assessment standard of equivalence by comparing the suspension of concessions or other obligations and the nullification or impairment calculated in terms of the amount of trade. But it is necessary that other standards replace the quantitative standards when the level of the nullification or impairment cannot be quantified by concrete damages.