Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMAVROIDIS, Petros C.
dc.date.accessioned2016-06-07T12:33:01Z
dc.date.available2016-06-07T12:33:01Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.issn1028-3625
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1814/41605
dc.description.abstractThe WTO Appellate Body (AB) has produced a volume-wise important body of case law, which is often difficult to penetrate, never mind classify. Howse (2016) has attempted a very lucid taxonomy of the case law using the standard of review as benchmark for it. His conclusion is that the AB is quite cautious when facing nondiscriminatory measures, especially measures relating to the protection of human life and health, while it has adopted a more intrusive (into national sovereignty) standard when dealing with trade measures (like antidumping), which are by definition discriminatory as they concern imports only. In my response, I share his basic conclusion with no buts and ifs. I simply add that this approach is not the outcome of a process that mandates this standard of review, but simply a political (e.g., nonlegal) reaction aimed at placating its clientele, the WTO membership.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesEUI RSCASen
dc.relation.ispartofseries2016/31en
dc.relation.ispartofseriesGlobal Governance Programme-220en
dc.relation.ispartofseries[Global Economics]en
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen
dc.subjectWTOen
dc.subjectDispute settlementen
dc.subjectAppellate bodyen
dc.subjectK40en
dc.subject.otherTrade, investment and international cooperation
dc.titleThe gang that couldn't shoot straight : the not so magnificent seven of the WTO appellate bodyen
dc.typeWorking Paperen
eui.subscribe.skiptrue


Files associated with this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record