I recently came across this:
According to US trade lawyer Simon Lester, dispute settlement between states under the TPP or TTIP would then require them to invoke their rights within the WTO and seek the jurisdiction of the WTO’s dispute settlement understanding (DSU). However, the right to invoke the DSU with its procedures and binding rulings can only arise for violations of the WTO agreement (and not external agreements) and if the dispute is of one member’s actions upsetting the balance of rights and obligations of the other under the WTO. Even if the TPP or TTIP provide for invoking the DSU, the WTO membership would have to agree, which is unlikely given complaints of delay and of the WTO’s secretariat, panels and appellate body already being overburdened.
I thought it was worth clarifying what I'm saying about this issue.
Under the TPP and TTIP -- if they are completed -- there will be a wide range of obligations, which will be enforceable through a dispute settlement procedure under the respective agreement. Thus, any state-state complaints about TPP/TTIP violations will be heard by TPP/TTIP panels.
By contrast, the WTO has its own dispute system, which handles claims of WTO violations.
So, if you have a TPP complaint, go to TPP DS; if you have TTIP complaint, go to TTIP DS; and if you have a WTO complaint, go to WTO DS.
What I was saying is that for instances of protectionism, WTO obligations are going to be the most relevant. The WTO has rules on trade remedies and subsidies, while TPP and TTIP will not. And the WTO will probably continue to handle most national treatment claims.
So, for complaints about protectionism, the WTO will continue to be the main forum for trade disputes. If existing FTAs are any guide, TPP/TTIP disputes about protectionist measures will be rare.
