Evaluation Of The Dispute Settlement Body Of The WTO And Responsive Measures

Compared to the DSM in the GAIT system, the DSM of WTO provides powerful protection for the legal duties or rules under the multilateral trade system, the correct explanation of articles, and the revolution of the entire trade system. Although the new mechanism has improved a lot, it is not perfect.At the beginning of a new century, the strengthened research on the DSM of WTO has the urgent practical significance for China, who just becomes a member of WTO, to utilize this mechanism to solve the trade dispute with other members of WTO. Moreover, the research will also have a theoretical significance to the research on international economic law of our country.The first section briefly outlines the basic operational flow of the DSM of WTO and the applicable scope of it.The second section describes the improvements and developments of the DSM of WTO. These improvements and developments include unification of the dispute settlement procedure, setup of the special dispute settlement body of WTO, establishment of "Negative consensus" principle and the compulsory jurisdiction of dispute settlement cases, addition of the intermediate procedure, Standing Appellate Body and review procedure, introduction of the Cross Retaliation and strict procedure for it.The third section is the core of the paper. Author elaborates the questions existing in each stage of dispute settlement procedure.In the Panel of Experts procedure, the composition of panels is temporary and uncertain. This kind of temporary cannot guarantee the consistency of the verdict of different panels. In the future, the Standing Appellate Body cannot respond to the right of disaffirmation, which can be possibly obtained. At the same time, based on various regulations, the role of the Panel of Experts is notthe same. The role may be mediator, conciliator, judge, or referee. In the aspect of burden of proof, both WTO and GATT do not provide the corresponding regulations on the scope of proof, burden of proof, and effectiveness of proof. There are many regulations, but there is no basic consistency and predictability. There is no way to handle the complicated WTO cases depending only on simple regulations. There exists a regulation on the prima facie. However, the cooperation of the jury and the judge that is the theoretical basis of prima facie does not exist in the DSM. Consequently, the Panel of Experts needs to examine both facts and laws, which may finally cause the unfair solution to a dispute. In the aspect of the intermediate procedure, although we trust its rationality, its expected effects have not been reached. The author thinks a corresponding regulation is required to limit the appraisal scope to the fact, not the law.In the Appellate Review, the appointment of the members of Appellate Body lacks of a clear and concrete standard. The procedure to compose appellate court is irregular, which causes the composition of the court lack of the transparency and thus it is hard to guarantee the justice. One solution is to introduce the Challenge principle in the domestic law. Moreover, the Appellate Body has no right of examination before acceptance, this makes it to be passive in theory and practice. Its leading role is decreased and the resources have been wasted. The examination scope has a leak. Based on DSU, the examination scope of Appellate Body is "the involved legal problems in the report of the Panel of Experts and the legal explanation of the Panel of Experts". However, DSU also states that the Panel of Experts has no duty to examine all arguments from the appealing side. The Panel of Experts only needs to examine the issues that can help for the decision or determine other matters. The Appellate Body is put to a dilemma zone because of the hole, despite judging a problem whether it is a fact problem or a legal problem. The missing of "disaffirmation" brings a big problem for the actual operation ofthe DSB of WTO. When the Panel of Experts makes a wrong decision because of various reasons or does not make a decision on a matter that sh...