The World Trade Organization (WTO) stands at the heart of global trade governance, providing a framework for the liberalization and regulation of international trade. Central to its mandate is the Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM), which ensures that trade rules are respected and disputes are resolved in a structured, legal manner. This mechanism, often described as the "crown jewel" of the WTO, underpins the organization's credibility and facilitates a rules-based trading system. Yet, as international trade becomes increasingly complex, the WTO DSM faces significant challenges, necessitating a comprehensive reevaluation of its operations, relevance, and adaptability.

WTO, dispute settlement, consultations

Peter Van den Bossche ‘The law and policy of the World Trade Organization’ Text, Cases, and Materials, Fifth Edition, Cambridge University Press, 2022, p.173.

World Trade Organization ‘A Handbook on the WTO Dispute Settlement System’, 2nd Edition , pp 3-3, January 2017

See The development of the dispute settlement system traces its origins to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) of 1947. Over nearly five decades, this mechanism underwent significant evolution, forming the foundation of the contemporary trading system. The original framework was primarily governed by Articles XXII and XXIII of the GATT 1947, which provided the procedural basis for addressing trade disputes among member states.

See Articles XXII and XXIII of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), 1947.

See Understanding on rules and procedures governing the settlement of disputes (DSU), Annex 2 of the WTO Agreement

https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=363556&p=3915307

Article 4 (7) of the DSU.

Ibid.

Article 17 of the DSU.

See Article 16 (4) of the DSU.

Article 17 (14) of the DSU.

See Articles 16 and 17 of the DSU.

See Article 22 of the DSU.

See Article 16 of the DSU.

See also Peter Van den Bossche “The law and policy of the World Trade Organization” Text, Cases, and Materials, Fifth Edition, Cambridge University Press, 2022, p.177.

Article 4 (7) of the DSU.

See Articles 7, 8 and 17 of the DSU.

See Article 3 (2) of the DSU.

See ibid.

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/09/reforming-world-trade-organization/04-dispute-settlement-crisis

R.Vishakha and M.P.Ram Mohan, “Appellate Body Crisis at the World Tade Organization: View from India”, Journal of World Trade, Volume 55, Issue 5 (2021) pp. 829 – 852.

See https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/09/reforming-world-trade-organization/04-dispute-settlement-crisis

See Article 25 of the DSU.

See World Trade Report, “Re-globalization for a secure, inclusive and sustainable future”. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/wtr23_e/wtr23_e.pdf

Report by the Consultative Board to the Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi, The Future of the WTO: Addressing Institutional Challenges in the New Millennium (WTO, 2004), par. 222.

See Peters,M. & Kumar,M.(2014). “Introspect “special and differential treatment” given to developing countries under the WTO dispute settlement system”. p.9.

See Shaffer, G. (2005) “Developing Country Use of the WTO Dispute Settlement System: Why it Matters, the Barriers Posed, and its Impact on Bargaining”.

Son Tan Nguyen, ’The Applicability of RTA Jurisdiction Clauses in WTO Dispute Settlement’, 16 International Trade and Business Law Review (2013) 254-294 at 256.

North American Free trade Agreement, signed 17 December 1992, in force 1 January 1994, 32 I.L.M. 289 (1993), (NAFTA), Articles 2005(1) and 2005(6).

Luiz Eduardo Salles, Forum Shopping in International Adjudication: The Role of Preliminary Objections (Cambridge University Press, 2014) at 245.

Kyung Kwak and Gabrielle Marceau, ‘Overlaps and Conflicts of Jurisdiction between the World Trade Organization and Regional Trade Agreements’ in Lorand Bartels and Federico Ortino (eds.), Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO Legal System (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2006), 465-523 at 469.