व्यापार बहुपक्षवाद में विश्वास
1 In June 2022, the member-countries of the World Trade Organization (WTO) deal
India played a vital role — at the Geneva ministerial conference, thereby keeping faith in trade multilateralism alive.
2 An important part was resurrecting फिर से बनाई जा the WTO’s dispute settlement system (DSS), also called WTO’s ‘crown jewel’, by 2024.
Since 2019, the WTO’s two-tiered DSS remains paralysed.
The appellate body, which is the second tier of the WTO’s DSS that hears appeals from WTO panels, is non-functional because the United States, single-handedly, has blocked the appointment of its members.
The appellate body, from 1995-2019, has upheldसही ठहराया the international rule of law by holding powerful countries such as the U.S. and the European Union accountable for international law breaches उल्लंघन.
However, the appellate body has become a victim of its success. Its one-time supporter, the U.S., has become its most acerbic / sharp critic.
Now, the clock is ticking, and from the information publicly available, it looks unlikely that the DSS will be in the pink by 2024.
The ‘precedent’ नज़ीर problem
The U.S. reproaches the appellate body for judicial overreach
1 Thus it argues that till the time the appellate body’s role is defined preciselyसही-सही, it cannot be resurrected पुनर्जीवित करना.
2 One major problem that the U.S. identifies is that the appellate body, contrary विरोध to the text of the WTO’s dispute settlement understanding (DSU), has been creating binding precedentsउदाहरण through its decisions.
It is well-established that there is no rule of stare decisis
1 — i.e., no rule of precedent / example in international law.
2 The WTO’s DSU also makes this clear in Article 3.2 by stating that the appellate body rulings can neither add nor diminish घटानाthe rights and obligations of WTO member-countries.
3 However, the same Article also says: “The dispute settlement system of the WTO is a central element in providing security and predictability पूर्वानुमान to the multilateral trading system.”
4 Thus, it is incumbent (व्यक्ति) पदधारी on the appellate body to ensure that there is consistency in the interpretation and application of the WTO agreements without creating a binding precedent आदर्श उदाहरण.
और क्या क्या किया जाए
It has encouraged the WTO panels
1 to rely on previous interpretations especially where the issues are the same.
2 Simultaneously, the appellate body has clarified that a departure प्रस्थान can be made from the previous rulings and reasoning if there are “cogent ठोस reasons”.
3 The argument that this means that the appellate body is following a system of precedent in the sense it is followed in the common law system is tantamount समान to vastly overstating आकलन the case, as James Bacchus and Simon Lester argue.
पुराने निर्णयों के आधार पर सुनवाई
appellate body is not the only international court
1 Moreover, the appellate body is not the only international court that follows its previous decisions.
2 Other international courts such as the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea also follow past decisions unless there are valid reasons not to do so.
3 WTO member-countries can adopt a statement that the appellate body rulings do not create precedents पहले लिया गया कोई निर्णय. However, it will not satisfy the U.S.
De-judicialisation of trade multilateralism
The WTO was created in a world that was resplendent with the neoliberal consensus that emerged after the Cold War and the collapse of communism.
Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, an international economic lawyer, argued that in a neoliberal economic system, the ‘invisible hand’ of market competition should be complemented पूरित by the ‘visible hand’ of the law.
Regulate global trade
1 The WTO became this ‘visible hand’ of the law to regulate global trade.
2 This period saw not only the legalisation of international relations (states accepting precise international law standards to judge their behaviour and delegating this power to judge to international courts)
3 but also its judicialisation (the expansion of international courts and tribunals that dominate decision-making in place of national actors).
This, arguably, erodes क्षति पहुंचाती है the sovereignty of nations as they lose control over critical decision-making.
De-judicialisation, as Daniel Abebe and Tom Ginsburg define it, is the reverse phenomenon where countries weaken international courts to take back decision-making power.
U.S. wants to exercise full power over its trade policies
Given the emerging geo-economic challenges posed by a rising China, the U.S. wants to exercise full power over its trade policies, throwing off the shackles of the appellate body’s judicial review.
This de-judicialisation should not be confused with exerting political oversight over the appellate body to improve its working. While Washington has identified multiple problems with the DSS, it has seldom offered constructive suggestions.
इस गैर-न्यायिकीकरण को अपीलीय निकाय के कामकाज में सुधार के लिए उस पर राजनीतिक निगरानी रखने के साथ भ्रमित नहीं किया जाना चाहिए। हालाँकि वाशिंगटन ने डीएसएस के साथ कई समस्याओं की पहचान की है, लेकिन उसने शायद ही कभी रचनात्मक सुझाव दिए हैं।
वोट के सहारे काम करिए
अपीलीय निकाय को वापस पटरी पर लाने के लिए अमेरिका के साथ बातचीत करना मूर्खतापूर्ण काम है। जैसा कि हेनरी गाओ का तर्क है, अन्य देशों के पास एक विकल्प डब्ल्यूटीओ की सामान्य परिषद की बैठक में मतदान का सहारा लेकर अपीलीय निकाय के सदस्यों का चुनाव करना है। लेकिन इससे अमेरिका नाराज़ हो जाएगा क्या देश उस राह पर चलने को तैयार हैं?
Comments
Post a Comment