Standards Of Review In Dispute Resolution Mechanism Of World Trade Organization

In WTO dispute resolution proceedings, an issue confronting panels and the Appellate Body is the degree to which the dispute settlement bodies should review a decision of a national government agency, which are alleged inconsistent with the WTO rules.This article, by studying the context, evolution and legislative history of relevant provisions, will facilitate the understanding of the standard-of-review issue in current WTO dispute settlement. In nature it is an aspect of the broader problem of the relation between international legal regime and the sovereignty of nations. The international body - panels and the Appellate Body, on one hand, shall effectively review the decision of a national government agency; on the other hand, it shall also show respect to national government determinations and deference to national sovereignty. The difficulty lies in how to reconcile competing views about the power allocation between national governments and WTO panels on important matters to many governments.In GATT1947, there were no relevant provisions concerning the standard-of-review issue, while some of the GATT panel reports addressed such topics in dispute resolution practices. The general trend seemed to be that panels were gradually taking a more and more restrictive approach when reviewing the challenged governmental decisions. The standard of review issue has been focused and developed in the Uruguay Round and thus, the Uruguay Round texts contain new contents of this issue. The most prominent of these can be found in the Antidumping Agreement at Article 17.6, which is quite similar with Chevron doctrine in US administration law. From specific cases it seems that the panel rejected the explicit restrain on its interpretation authority by referring to Article 31 and 32 of Vienna Convention on Law of Treaty, and Article 17.6 (ii) does not seem to have a negative impact on the effective review of governmental decisions by panels and the Appellate Body.Then, the standards of review of fact evidences, fact conclusion and legal interpretations are found in turn through case analysis.The conclusion is both panels and the Appellate Body have in general applied intrusive standards of review. Such conclusion holds true in particular for the interpretation of WTO law, but it also stands to reason with regard to factual findings. It is submitted that the policy of intrusiveness is correct from a legal perspective and reflects that the WTO dispute resolution mechanism is rule-based and with binding effect. Besides, some words were devoted to the sovereignty issue.