DOCSLIB.ORG

United Nations Juridical Yearbook, 2002

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United Nations Juridical Yearbook, 2002 Extract from: UNITED NATIONS JURIDICAL YEARBOOK 2002 Part Two. Legal activities of the United Nations and related intergovernmental organizations Chapter III. General review of the legal activities of the United Nations and related intergovernmental organizations Copyright (c) United Nations Page with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Signed at Vienna on 21 September 2000 . 179 Part Two. Legal activities of the United Nations and related intergovernmental organizations CHAPTER III. GENERal REVIEW OF THE LEGal acTIVITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND RElaTED INTERGOVERNMENTal ORGANIZATIONS A GENERAL REVIEW OF THE LEGAL ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS 1. Disarmament and related matters . 215 2. Other political and security questions . 227 3. Environmental, economic, social, humanitarian and cul- tural questions . 229 4. Law of the sea . 238 5. International Court of Justice . 240 6. International Law Commission . 256 7. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law 258 8. Legal questions dealt with by the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly and by ad hoc bodies . 264 9. United Nations Institute for Training and Research . 267 B. GENERal REVIEW OF THE LEGal acTIVITIES OF INTERGOV- ERNMENTal ORGANIZATIONS RElaTED TO THE UNITED NATIONS 1. International Labour Organization . 268 2. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization . 269 3. World Health Organization . 271 4. The World Bank . 273 5. International Civil Aviation Organization. 277 6. Universal Postal Union . 280 7. International Maritime Organization . 281 8. World Intellectual Property Organization . 292 viii Page 9. United Nations Industrial Development Organization . 298 10. International Atomic Energy Agency . 299 11. World Trade Organization . 303 CHAPTER IV. TREATIES CONCERNING INTERNATIONal laW CONclUDED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND RElaTED INTERGOVERNMENTal ORGANIZATIONS A TREATIES CONCERNING INTERNATIONAL LAW CONCLUDED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE UNITED NATIONS Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Done at New York on 18 December 2002 . 375 B. TREATIES CONCERNING INTERNATIONal laW CONclUDED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF INTERGOVERNMENTal ORGANI- ZATIONS RElaTED TO THE UNITED NATIONS United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. Done at Paris on 6 November 2001 . 388 CHAPTER V. DECISIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND RELATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS A DECISIONS OF THE UNITED NATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL 1. Judgement No. 1043 (23 July 2002): Mink v. the Secretary- General of the United Nations Allegation of sexual harassment not appropriately re- sponded to by the Administration—Claxton (1992) and Belas-Gianou (1995) judgements—Importance of a thorough investigation—Promotion and agreed termination of accused should have been stayed during investigation—Dissemination of investiga- tion report . 409 2. Judgement No. 1045 (23 July 2002): Obiny v. the Secretary-General of the United Nations Non-renewal of fixed-term contract—No expectancy of renewal—Question of time to improve work perform- ance—Importance of initiation of disciplinary pro- ix Chapter III GENERAL REVIEW OF THE LEGAL ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND RELATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS A. General review of the legal activities of the United Nations 1. DISARMAMENT AND RELATED MATTERS1 (a) Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation issues Despite efforts on the part of Member States, the Conference on Dis- armament was unable to agree on a substantive programme of work. The deadlock, which had existed in the Conference for four consecutive years, prevented the establishment of subsidiary bodies to deal with any items on the agenda, including nuclear disarmament. Consequently, the issue of nu- clear disarmament was addressed by delegations only at plenary meetings. The first session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nu- clear Weapons of 19682 was held in New York in April 2002, where slow progress in nuclear disarmament was noted. Noting that in June 2002, the United States had withdrawn from the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems of 19723 and refused to ratify the second Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1993 (START II),4 the Russian Federation declared itself no longer bound by the obligation under international law to refrain from any action that would deprive the START II Treaty of its objective goal. The START II Treaty would have reduced the parties’ strategic nuclear warheads to no more than 3,000 to 3,500 each. Other developments, however, had positive effects on progress in the area. In June 2002, the leaders of the Group of Eight (G-8)5 agreed on a Global Partnership against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction. Under the initiative, the G-8 Governments committed to raise up to $20 billion over 10 years to support specific cooperation projects, initially in the Russian Federation, to address non-proliferation, disarma- ment, counter-terrorism and nuclear safety issues. Moreover, at the bilat- eral level, the Russian Federation and the United States signed the Treaty 215 on Strategic Offensive Reductions (SORT or Moscow Treaty)6 in May 2002, whereby the two parties pledged to reduce and limit their deployed strategic nuclear warheads to a level of 1,700-2,000 by December 2012. The International Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Prolifera- tion (ICOC) was launched in November 2002,7 and all States Members of the United Nations were invited to subscribe to ICOC. While a political agreement, rather than a legally binding obligation, the Code calls on sub- scribing States to curb and prevent the proliferation of ballistic missiles ca- pable of delivering weapons of mass destruction and to exercise maximum possible restraint in the development, testing and deployment of those mis- siles. The Code further recognizes that States should not be excluded from utilizing the benefits of space for peaceful purposes. With regard to IAEA safeguards, since the approval of the Model Protocol Additional to the Agreement(s) between State(s) and IAEA for the Application of Safeguards8 by the IAEA Board of Governors in May 1997, progress in signing and bringing it into force has been slow. At the end of 2002, 66 States had signed the Additional Protocol, including the five nuclear-weapon States and one State (Cuba) with a non-comprehensive safeguards agreement. The Additional Protocol was in force in 28 States. Consideration by the General Assembly At its fifty-seventh session, in 2002, the General Assembly, on the rec- ommendation of the First Committee, took action on 14 draft resolutions and one decision dealing with nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation issues. The draft of resolution 57/97, entitled “The risk of nuclear prolifera- tion in the Middle East”, had been introduced in the First Committee by Egypt on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that are mem- bers of the League of Arab States. India, on behalf of the sponsors, had introduced resolution 57/84, entitled “Reducing nuclear danger”. Ireland, on behalf of the sponsors, had introduced the draft of General Assembly resolution 57/58, entitled “Reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons”. Following the adoption of the draft by the First Committee, the United States spoke, on behalf of France and the United Kingdom, in ex- planation of their negative vote, pointing out that the draft had taken a flawed approach to dealing with reductions in that category of weapon and had failed to take into account progress and present efforts, such as the NATO-Russia Council discussions on nuclear confidence-building meas- ures, and the recent dialogue on transparency in the United States–Russia Consultative Group for Strategic Security. Australia, Canada, Lithuania and the Russian Federation also explained their abstentions. Ireland, on be- half of the sponsors, had further introduced draft resolution 57/59, entitled “Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda”. Ger- many, prior to the vote on the draft, explained its decision to abstain. It held 216 that nuclear disarmament could only be achieved by a gradual, step-by- step approach, a fundamental point that the draft disregarded. Following the vote, the United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of the United States and France, emphasized that their commitments to non-proliferation remained rooted in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that they had voted against the draft resolution because many of the new elements were not part of the Final Document of the NPT Review Conference held in 2000. (b) Biological and chemical weapons The Fifth Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bac- teriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction of 1972 (Biological Weapons Convention)9 successfully concluded in 2002, adopting a Final Report setting out a fresh approach to combat the delib- erate use of disease as a weapon. Furthermore, to contribute to a better understanding of the issues involved, the United Nations Department of Disarmament Affairs organized a symposium on “The Biological Weap- ons Convention and Bio-Terrorism” in January 2002. Moreover, in May 2002, the World Health Assembly adopted resolution
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SIEL Newsletter No 39
    Newsletter Spring 2018 No 39 SIEL 2018 Global Conference, Washington D. C., 12-14 July 2018 TABLE OF The Society of International Economic Law's Biennial Conference on CONTENTS “International Economic Law in Unsettling Times” will be held at the _______ American University Washington College of Law in Washington D.C. on 12- 14 July 2018. Over 100 speakers from academia and practice of international SIEL 2018 Global Conference economic law will present on all areas of the field to over 300 expected p. 1 participants. Invited speakers include Christine Lagarde, Hélène Ruiz-Fabri, President’s Corner Joel Trachtman, Teresa Cheng, Rufus Yerxa, Jonathan Fried, Herminio Blanco Mendoza, Jennifer Hillman, Ricardo Ramirez-Hernandez and p. 2 Giorgio Sacerdoti. AGM 2018 Publications by SIEL Come and join the fun! members Conferences The full program is available on the conference website where you can also register for the conference. Call for Papers p. 3 Publishers Adverts p. 4 Winner of the SIEL/JIEL/OUP Prize ELSA Moot Court Competition PEPA/SIEL Call for Venue p. 5 _______ SIEL GOVERNANCE Executive Council Newsletter editors Padideh Ala'i, Freya Baetens, Michael Johanna Jacobsson Officers Ewing-Chow, Meredith Kolsky Lewis, Maria Laura Marceddu Gabrielle Marceau (President); Shin-yi Jurgen Kurtz, Andrew Lang, Gracia Marin- Peng & Holger Hestermeyer (Executive Susan Isiko Strba Duran, Maria Laura Marceddu, Suresh Vice-Presidents); Junji Nakagawa & José Nanwani, Jumoke Oduwole, Federico Should you wish to include an item in Caiado (Treasurers); Krista Ortino, Colin Picker, Amelia Porges, Susan the next SIEL newsletter, please Nadakavukaren Schefer & Markus contact us. Isiko Štrba, Lisa Toohey, Galina Zukova Wagner (SIEL Corporate Secretaries) President’s Corner Trade Wars, Cooperation, Governance and SIEL* It is an honour to have been President of ramifications of their vertical and economic leaders, to participate in this SIEL during these past six years.
    [Show full text]
  • NEGOTIATION MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP for the WTO Negotiations in 2017
    NEGOTIATION MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP for the WTO Negotiations in 2017 Biographies May 31 – June 1, 2017 Mont Blanc Meeting Rooms World Economic Forum, Route de la Capite 91-93, 1223 Cologny, Geneva 1 Government of Argentina Authorities Biographies Miguel Braun Secretary of Commerce of Argentina since December 10, 2015. Before taking this responsibility, Mr. Braun was Executive Director of the Pensar Foundation, the think-tank of Pro, the political party founded by President Mauricio Macri. He was a board member of Banco Ciudad, and co-founder and executive director of CIPPEC, a public policy think tank. Mr. Braun obtained his bachelor’s degree in economics in 1996 at Universidad de San Andrés and a Master and PhD in economics at Harvard University. He co-authored Argentine Macroeconomics, a college textbook, and has taught public finance, macroeconomics, and political economy at the universities of Buenos Aires, San Andrés and Torcuato Di Tella. Nora Capello Undersecretary of International Economic Negotiations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Argentina. Minister Nora Capello is a diplomat. She has served different positions in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as Director for Bilateral Economic Relations with Latin America and the Caribbean; member of the Cabinet of the Secretary of International Economic Relations; Chief of Staff of the Undersecr eeetary for American Economic Integration; Counselor at the Embassy of Argentina to Chile - responsible for the Political and Parliamentary Section and the Economic and Trade Section - and negotiator of FTAA process. Minister Capello obtains his bachelor degree in law in 1994 from Universidad Católica de La Plata and was Associate professor of International Law and Civil Law at the same University.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 301 Hearing in the Investigation of France's Digital
    1 OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE + + + + + SECTION 301 FRANCE DIGITAL SERVICES TAX (DST) PUBLIC HEARING + + + + + MONDAY AUGUST 19, 2019 + + + + + The Hearing was convened in Conference Rooms I and II of the USTR Annex Building, 1724 F Street, NW, Washington, D.C. at 9:30 a.m., Kate Hadley, Chair, presiding. COMMITTEE MEMBERS KATE HADLEY, Chair WON CHANG, U.S. Department of the Treasury CLAUDIA CHLEBEK, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ANDREW FLAVIN, U.S. Department of Commerce MIREA LINTON-GROTZ, U.S. Department of the Treasury JESSICA MAZZONE, U.S. Department of State MIKE ROGERS, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative JULIA SCHUBLE, U.S. Department of Agriculture ANDREW STEPHENS, U.S. Department of Agriculture ROBERT TANNER, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc. (202) 234-4433 Washington DC www.nealrgross.com 2 WITNESSES NICHOLAS BRAMBLE, Trade Policy Counsel, Google DANIEL BUNN, The Tax Foundation PETER HILTZ, Director, International Tax and Policy Planning, Amazon STEFANIE HOLLAND, Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA) JOE KENNEDY, Senior Fellow, Information Technology & Innovation Foundation ALAN LEE, Head of Global Tax Policy, Facebook JENNIFER McCLOSKEY, Information Technology Industry Council MATTHEW SCHRUERS, Chief Operation Officer, Computer & Communications Industry Association GARY SPRAGUE, Baker & McKenzie, LLP RUFUS YERXA, President, National Foreign Trade Council Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc. (202) 234-4433 Washington DC www.nealrgross.com 3 CONTENTS Opening Statement. 4 Panel 1: Rufus Yerxa, President, National Foreign Trade Council. 7 Jennifer McCloskey, Information Technology Industry Council . .19 Gary Sprague Baker & McKenzie, LLP, on behalf of Airbnb, Amazon, Expedia, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Salesforce, Stripe, and Twitter.
    [Show full text]
  • The Emerging Architecture of International Dispute Resolution
    SPAIN.DOC 11/23/2010 3:49 PM INTEGRATION MATTERS: RETHINKING THE ARCHITECTURE OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION ANNA SPAIN* ABSTRACT International law promotes global peace and security by providing mechanisms for the pacific settlement of international disputes. This Article examines these mechanisms and their place in the architecture of the international dispute resolution (“IDR”) system. The Article identifies three core deficiencies of the IDR system that limit its effectiveness and capacity. First, the international legal system has prioritized the development of adjudication over other forms of dispute resolution; the judicialization of international disputes and the proliferation of courts and tribunals evidence this. However, adjudication is limited in its capacity to resolve disputes that involve non-state parties and extra-legal issues. This is concerning because empirical studies show that international conflict is increasingly intra-state, and involves non-state actors and extra-legal issues. Second, states prefer mediation to adjudication as a method for resolving disputes that occur in the context of inter-state conflict. Yet the role and value of mediation have been underappreciated, and it lacks institutional support under international law. Third, the current architecture of the IDR system promotes single method approaches, which can foster fragmented IDR approaches that separate legal issues from extra-legal ones, despite their interconnected nature. It also fails to structurally incorporate emerging, hybrid IDR approaches that enhance IDR capacity. In * Associate Professor of Law, University of Colorado Law School. Appreciation and thanks to Adam Bradley, Vic Fleischer, Nienke Grossman, Sarah Krakoff, Clare Huntington, Scott Peppet, Kal Raustiala, Cesare Romano, and the participants at the 2010 Junior International Law Scholars Association Annual Conference and the University of Colorado Law School workshop for their helpful comments.
    [Show full text]
  • Proquest Dissertations
    DEVELOPING A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL STANDARD OF LEGITIMACY FOR THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM By Navid Rahbar Sato Submitted to the Faculty of the Washington College of Law of American University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Juridical Science In Law Chair: Dean Claudio Grossman s /J.. /11 Date 2011 American University Washington, D .C. 20016 AMERJCAN UMVERSITY UBIWft q<oq t-J UMI Number: 3468030 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI ___.,Dissertation Publishing...____ UMI 3468030 Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. -------Pro uesr ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 ©COPYRIGHT by Navid Rahbar Sato 2011 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Dedicated to Ikuko and Bahram, my parents, for their love and support Special thanks to Amir Hossein, Franak, and Mahyar Amirsaleh 11 DEVELOPING A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL STANDARD OF LEGITIMACY FOR THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM by Navid Rahbar Sato ABSTRACT The goal of this dissertation is to show how some of the problems of legitimacy faced by the WTO in the 21st century have been addressed through the increasing utilization, success, and legitimacy of its dispute settlement mechanism and how this process has resulted in what this dissertation calls: a multi-dimensional standard of legitimacy.
    [Show full text]
  • Part V the Organization, the Institution and the Future
    Part V The organization, the institution and the future Chapter 14 Leadership of the organization and management of the institution 503 Chapter 15 The future of the WTO 549 14 Leadership of the organization and management of the institution [Institutions] evolve incrementally, connecting the past with the present and the future; history in consequence is largely a story of institutional evolution in which the historical performance of economies can only be understood as a part of a sequential story. Institutions provide the incentive structure of an economy; as that structure evolves, it shapes the direction of economic change towards growth, stagnation, or decline. Douglass C. North “Institutions” (1991) Introduction In a happy coincidence of theory and practice, Douglass North wrote his seminal essay on “Institutions” at almost precisely the same time that the WTO was first proposed. “Institutions are the humanly devised constraints that structure political, economic and social interaction,” he wrote (1991: 97), and “consist of both informal constraints (sanctions, taboos, customs, traditions, and codes of conduct), and formal rules (constitutions, laws, property rights)” that CHAPTER 14 human beings have devised throughout history “to create order and reduce uncertainty in exchange.” That is as good a definition as any of the purposes of the WTO, which may be further distinguished according to its two halves. The WTO is at once an institution staffed by international civil servants and an organization to which members belong. While it is the organizational half of the WTO that is chiefly responsible for writing new rules, the institutional half not only facilitates those negotiations but also administers agreements, monitors the members’ compliance with the rules, and promotes the capacity of the developing members to participate more effectively in the organization and to take advantage of the opportunities that a more open market affords.
    [Show full text]
  • The WTO Appellate Body at 30: Exploring the Limits of WTO Dispute Settlement in the Next Decade
    TheE15Initiative STRENGTHENING THE GLOBAL TRADE AND INVESTMENT SYSTEM FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT The WTO Appellate Body at 30: Exploring the Limits of WTO Dispute Settlement in the Next Decade May 2016 Alan Wolff E15 Conversations on the Global Trade and Investment Architecture Think Piece ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Published by International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) 7 Chemin de Balexert, 1219 Geneva, Switzerland Tel: +41 22 917 8492 – E-mail: [email protected] – Website: www.ictsd.org Publisher and Chief Executive: Ricardo Meléndez-Ortiz World Economic Forum 91-93 route de la Capite, 1223 Cologny/Geneva, Switzerland Tel: +41 22 869 1212 – E-mail: [email protected] – Website: www.weforum.org Co-Publisher and Managing Director: Richard Samans Acknowledgments This paper has been produced under the E15Initiative (E15). Implemented jointly by the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) and the World Economic Forum, the E15 was established to convene world-class experts and institutions to generate strategic analysis and recommendations for government, business, and civil society geared towards strengthening the global trade and investment system for sustainable development. For more information on the E15, please visit www.e15initiative.org/ Alan Wm. Wolff is Senior Counsel at Dentons LLP. Note from the author: Bruce Wilson, former WTO Director of Legal Affairs and Rufus Yerxa, former WTO Deputy Director General, co-editors of the Key Issues in WTO Dispute Settlement: The First Ten Years; as well as Amy Porges, a source of great experience and wisdom on WTO dispute settlement and a drafter of the Analytical Index to the GATT, were good enough to read over a draft of this paper and give me their reactions and suggestions.
    [Show full text]
  • CLEAR Exam Review My Full Report on CLEAR’S Agency Consolidation Is in the Leading North American Activities During This Past Year
    Fall 2004 Newsletter (Volume 21, No. 3) President's Column Bob Stonehill, In Memoriam Advertisements By Deanna Williams (More) In Kansas City, you will receive CLEAR Exam Review my full report on CLEAR’s Agency Consolidation Is in The leading North American activities during this past year. the Air (Again) journal on testing issues for the Right now, I’d like to use this As state governments face professional and occupational forum to highlight a few exciting difficult economic conditions regulatory community things that happened this year. and limited budgets, cuts must (More) be made somewhere. Several states have recently looked to 2004 Conference Update agency consolidation/ Join us in the City of Fountains restructuring as an economical for CLEAR's 2004 conference - and efficient solution. 21st Century Regulation: "Show (More) Me" What Works. You can still CLEAR is a dynamic register on-site for the International News forum for improving the conference, Board Member Current World Trade quality and Training, Regulatory Leadership Organization (WTO) understanding of Development Training, and pre- negotiations will benefit legal regulation in order to conference testing workshops. professionals more than any enhance public (More) other profession, according to protection the Deputy Director-General of Board Meeting in Lexington, the WTO, Rufus Yerxa. July 2004 (More) Pam Brinegar, Executive (Photos) Director Stephanie Thompson, Editor (More) CLEAR Net News (More) Calendar of Events Guffey, Zukowski Announce Retirement (More) CLEAR News - Fall 2004 PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE TO THE MEMBERSHIP By Deanna Williams September 2004 In Kansas City, you will receive my full report on CLEAR’s activities during this past year.
    [Show full text]
  • The London School of Economics and Political Science Bargaining Power in Multilateral Trade Negotiations: Canada and Japan in Th
    The London School of Economics and Political Science Bargaining power in multilateral trade negotiations: Canada and Japan in the Uruguay Round and Doha Development Agenda. Jens Philipp Anton Lamprecht A thesis submitted to the Department of International Relations of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, January 2014 1 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 95676 words. I can confirm that my thesis was copy edited for conventions of language, spelling and grammar by Trevor G. Cooper. Signed: Jens Philipp Anton Lamprecht. 2 In memory of my grandparents, Antonette Dinnesen and Heinrich Dinnesen. To my family: My parents, my brother, my aunt, and Hans-Werner am Zehnhoff. 3 Acknowledgements Very special thanks go to my supervisors, Dr. Razeen Sally and Dr. Stephen Woolcock. I thank Razeen for his constant patience, especially at the beginning of this project, and for his great intellectual advice and feedback.
    [Show full text]
  • October 7, 2002
    OCTOBER 7, 2002 ECONOMIC VIEWPOINT By Jeffrey E. Garten Can the WTO's New Leader Make It a Force for Change? Thailand's Supachai Panitchpakdi has a grand agenda. Maybe it's too grand, but we should wish him success In the last weeks of September, as U.S. forces were preparing to attack Iraq, the International Monetary Fund and World Bank were holding their annual meetings in Washington. I find it difficult to wrap my mind around this juxtaposition of the drumbeat for war and the more mundane work of building a stronger world economy. I am certain of one thing, however: We should all hope that the quality of leadership in our government and in international institutions is up to the complex challenges of these times. I had the chance to spend some time with one of the important members of this leadership cadre, the new director-general of the World Trade Organization, Supachai Panitchpakdi, on the eve of his taking over his responsibilities in early September. A scholar whose PhD dissertation was on human-resources management and economic development, his most recent book deals with China and the World Trade Organization. A central and commercial banker in his native Thailand, he has extensive experience in restructuring financial institutions. Supachai is also a former member of the Thai Parliament who has also held positions as deputy finance minister and minister of commerce and who oversaw the country's international economic policies. Neither the IMF, nor the World Bank, nor the WTO has ever before had a leader from the Third World.
    [Show full text]
  • The Inherent Jurisdiction of WTO Tribunals: the Select Application of Public International Law Required by the Judicial Function
    Michigan Journal of International Law Volume 31 Issue 3 2010 The Inherent Jurisdiction of WTO Tribunals: The Select Application of Public International Law Required by the Judicial Function Andrew D. Mitchell Melbourne Law School David Heaton Mallesons Stephen Jaques, Australia Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil Part of the Courts Commons, International Trade Law Commons, Jurisdiction Commons, and the Organizations Law Commons Recommended Citation Andrew D. Mitchell & David Heaton, The Inherent Jurisdiction of WTO Tribunals: The Select Application of Public International Law Required by the Judicial Function, 31 MICH. J. INT'L L. 559 (2010). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol31/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Journal of International Law at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE INHERENT JURISDICTION OF WTO TRIBUNALS: THE SELECT APPLICATION OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW REQUIRED BY THE JUDICIAL FUNCTIONt Andrew D. Mitchell* David Heaton** IN TRODU CTION ...................................................................................... 560 I. INHERENT JURISDICTION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW ................. 562 A. What Is Inherent Jurisdiction?.......................................... 562
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Balancing of Trade Authority Within the WTO
    Between the Letter of the Law and the Demands of Politics: Judicial Balancing of Trade Authority within the WTO Cosette D. Creamer∗ Abstract The judicial bodies of the World Trade Organization (WTO) operate virtually free from direct government influence. Yet they are also politically savvy and at times conform their rulings to the preferences of member states. This article employs original measures of judg- ment outcomes and aggregate levels of government support for the WTO's dispute settlement bodies to identify the conditions under which they do so. It finds that dispute panels tend to signal less deference to governments' regulatory choices|asserting international authority over a vast range of policy areas|only when they enjoy relatively greater support among the membership as a whole. Yet panels are not purely political actors, as they are accountable to a higher judicial authority. This article finds further that the legal constraints imposed by precedent moderate the influence of political pressures on panel validation of trade mea- sures. In this way, panels simultaneously seek to maximize their support among their legal and their political audiences, thereby balancing greater legalism and predictability within the trade regime against continued flexibility for governments. ∗Visiting Assistant Professor, Boston University School of Law; Ph.D. candidate, Department of Government, Harvard University; J.D., Harvard Law School. Email: [email protected]. For helpful comments and useful discussions, I would like to thank Beth Simmons, Dustin Tingley, Mark Wu, Gerald Neuman, Rachel Brewster, Sara B. Mitchell, Karen Alter, Mikael Rask Madsen, Anton Strezhnev, Joan Cho, Emily Clough, George Yin, Zuzanna Godzimirska, Todd Tucker, and participants in the University of Copenhagen's iCourts Centre research workshop and the American Society of International Law's Mid-Year Meeting Research Forum.
    [Show full text]