On Dispute Settlement Models Of Regional Economic Organizations

The integration of regional economy has become one of the most striking features of global economic development today. The development of integration of regional economy has promoted legal cooperation among the countries and regions. In order to solve the increasing regional economic and trade disputes, the setting of regional dispute settlement mechanism is quite important. And as more countries and regions play with the tide of regional economic integration,several major regional economic organizations highlight the huge influence, especially EU, NAFTA and CAFTA respectively are representatives.Their organizational structure, mechanism and other factors have formed some demonstration for other regional economic organization. Particularly in the field of dispute settlement, the dispute settlement models of three regional economic organizations exert great influences on dispute settlement model selection and construction of other regional economic organizations. Such as the dispute settlement mechanisms of Economic Community of West African States and Comesa follow the EU single litigation model,the newly signing of free trade area agreements between Chile and Mexico is similar to the dispute settlement mechanism between investors and countries in the NAFTA dispute settlement mechanism. China’s newly dispute settlement mechanism imitates CAFTA coordination center model. From the above the development of dispute settlement models of regional economic organization, dispute settlement models have a similar development trend. Therefore, from the perspective of the integration of regional economy,it is very necessary to explore the characteristics of development assimilation of dispute settlement models to guide China’s participation in regional economic integration. This paper tries to ditailedly analysize the practice patterns, function and the development tendency of dispute settlement models of EU, NAFTA and CAFTA by methods of the comparative analysis, the normative analysis and empirical analysis and etc. Thus, development assimilation of dispute settlement models is inducted and induction and predicted. The general rules are summarized to provide reasonable suggestions for China’s model choice of regional economic organization dispute settlement in the future.This paper includes six chapters except the introduction and the conclusion.Chapter One discusses general issues of dispute settlement model of regional economic organization. Firstly, the dispute settlement model is defined to to make clear the connotation of this research object.Secondly, pluralism, convergence, instability and sustainability become remarkable characteristics by analysing the characteristics of dispute settlement models of the regional economic organization.Thirdly, basis and background in the formation of dispute settlement models of regional economic organizations was argueded to prove the necessity of formation of dispute settlement model of the regional economic organization.Finally, organization dispute settlement models are classifed as to help compare different dispute settlement models of regional economic organization.Chapter Two expounds the EU single litigation model.The model has its practical form, that is, the current frame and operational mechanism of the European court. The European court becomes operational subject of the single litigation model because there are many factors. From the European coal and steel community court turned to the European court, the single litigation model established bebasically.On the stage of European court, the content and form of the model has a big change. As a brand-new dispute settlement model, it plays an important role in European Community political union, economic integration and development assimilation of legal institutions. During operation of the single litigation modle,in running mode process, its judicial activism function and judicial self-control function has been interacting.from its future development trend, Benign interaction Of judicial activism and judicial self-control should become the pursuit.Chapter Three analyzes the NAFTA multivariant regulation regulation model .Multiple sets of dispute settlement mechanism under NAFTA is the practical form of the NAFTA multivariant regulation model. Jurisdictions and procedures of six sets of dispute settlement mechanism are quit different. They have played an important role in the North American Free Trade zone dispute settlement. Formation of the NAFTA multivariant regulation model is a result of interaction of political, economic, legal and cultural factors of the member states. As the most characterful dispute settlement model, its successful operation for economic integration, political, legal and cultural exchanges of the North American free trade zone has played a booster role. Just because of its striking characteristics, it is quite different from the EU single litigation model and the WTO dispute settlement model.Therefore, self-improvement will become the future developing trend of multivariant regulation model.Chapter Four studies the CAFTA coordinative center model. The dispute settlement mechanism under CAFTA is the practical form of the CAFTA coordinative centermodel.Generation of this model in CAFTA dispute settlement mechanism is based on practice of judgment. Though the CAFTA dispute settlement mechanism has rule–oriented legal text as its forms, its main dispute solution in practice is still adopted traditional diplomatic means. Its emergence is influenced deeply by ASEAN dispute settlement mechanism,and it mainly derive the spirit of the ASEAN dispute settlement mechanism in its construction. In this context,the function of coordinative center model is somewhat divided with theoretical assumptions, it is characterized by the absence of the arbitration institution. malfunction of the coordinative center model is a obstacle. Therefore, the model should be perfected and guided from formal and informal institutions. China, as a contracting member state, should also make a difference in promoting the CAFTA coordinative center model.Chapter Five analyzes general theoritical problems of the regional dispute settlement modes selection. As the representatives of dispute settlement models, the single litigation model, the multivariant regulation model and coordinative centermodel have become the dispute settlement model choice of other regional economic organization. They have commonalities and also have difference. It’s worth noting that the regional dispute settlement practices are classified and summarized to form respective characteristics of dispute settlement models.lTherefore, when choosing dispute settlement models, other regional economic organizations should pay much attention to the general rules of dispute settlement models and local uniqueness of dispute settlement practice. Since the three typical regional economic dispute settlement models contain rule-oriented factors and have expressed in practice,assimilation will be the development trend of dispute settlement models of regional economic organization. The trend will greatly influence dispute settlement model selection of regional economic organization.Chapter Six discusses the idea of China’s participation in dispute settlement model selection.currently,China has established several regional economic organizations, and the dispute settlement mechanism in the agreements has accounted for a certain position, but judged by the dispute settlement mechanism of the practice in these regional economic organization,they are all influenced by the coordination centermodel. Considering that China’s participation in dispute settlement model choice is necessary and possible,China should take account of general principles and special practice simultaneously in participation of dispute settlement model choice, and should choose different dispute settlement models according to different regional economic organizations in the future.