Andrew Guzman proposes a change to the standard of review for certain SPS cases:
This Article proposes that the DSB should apply a more deferential standard of review when evaluating: (1) the level of risk a state is prepared to tolerate; (2) scientific data; and (3) the relationship between the measure at issue and the 'risk assessment' that is required by the SPS Agreement. In fact, it is advocated that the WTO Body should refuse to review these types of assessments altogether. It is asserted that the DSB should not evaluate state priorities and is inadequately qualified to make complicated scientific evaluations. Moreover, the author contends that errors in this field are more costly than in others, in both political and financial terms. Nevertheless, it is asserted that there should still be vigorous review of state conduct in certain other respects, for instance, to determine whether state measures are arbitrary or discriminatory.
And Joost Pauwelyn explores the options for dealing with the "design flaw" of appeal without remand in WTO dispute settlement.
