On Boundary Of WTO Jurisdiction

From the dispute settlement provisions of Havana Charter and GATT dispute settlement to final dispute settlement bodies of World Trade Organization,the judicial mechanism was ultimately established.case acceptance,report adoption and execution record thereof all show the great data,reflects that members pay much attention to the mechanism,which is considered the most distinctive contribution of World Trade Organization.But in the context that international trade disputes turn more complicated as non-trade value collides with trade interests,taking non-regulation factors,such as international politics and global governance mechanism,into consideration in the judicial process renders jurisdiction face the challenge from practice—the multiple legalization crises from the members and the international community.The issues,which including but not limited to authority of legal interpretation and application,balance between trade interests and non-trade value,such as environment and health,and amicus curiae,forced judicial mechanism to redraw the boundaries of jurisdiction.When sovereign interests and pluralistic values are in existence,international governance is in global distribution,judicial officers inevitably seep value judgment into judicial process,DSU provisions sometimes appear vague,and judicial activism awaken gradually,for settling disputes fairly and efficiently,reconstructing legal evaluation towards WTO jurisdiction,and maintaining international order and justice,boundary should be redrawn from several respects: showing proper respect towards national sovereignty and allowing proper space for the national independent management;promoting the balance between environmental protection,public health and other social values and trade interests based on chasing fair operation within the intersection of international law;clarifying the DSB authority in legal interpretation,implementing the application of non-WTO law in WTO dispute settlement,and handling the conflict of treaties applied efficiently;making good use of the judicial activism space of DSB.