I recently read something about the U.S. Judiciary Act of 1925 (the "Judges' Bill"). Here's an explanation:
The so-called Judges' Bill of 1925 fundamentally redefined the Supreme Court's role within the federal judiciary by repealing much of the mandatory jurisdiction of the Court. The act preserved an automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court in a few types of cases, but in other areas cases would come to the Court only when the justices granted a writ of certiorari in response to a petition from a party in a case before a lower court. ...
That made me wonder what everyone -- and by that I mean the United States, other WTO Members, and everyone else -- would think of limiting the right of appeal by giving the Appellate Body more discretion over what issues to hear. DSU Articles 17.12 and 17.13 say this:
12. The Appellate Body shall address each of the issues raised in accordance with paragraph 6 during the appellate proceeding.
13. The Appellate Body may uphold, modify or reverse the legal findings and conclusions of the panel.
But what if these provisions said something like this instead: "The Appellate Body shall address as appropriate the issues raised in accordance with paragraph 6 during the appellate proceeding. In this regard, the Appellate Body may uphold the panel's legal findings and conclusions without further elaboration, or it may modify or reverse those legal findings and conclusions."
In a sense, this change would give the Appellate Body more power, because it could decide which issues to elaborate. But in another sense, it would be giving the Appellate Body the power to limit its own power, by reducing the number of issues it discusses. Importantly, this could lessen the Appellate Body's workload and make it easier to complete appeals within 90 days.
