Reuters reports the following exchange with Deputy USTR Maria Pagan on WTO DS reform:
WTO delegates told Reuters that Washington has submitted proposals, including a so-called "sunset clause" that would automatically mean any future deal would one day expire. Asked to react, Pagan said: "This is fundamental for us. We don't want to just make changes and then watch the system again go sideways, and not be able to stop it."
I wrote about the issue of sunsetting in the WTO DS reform context back in June:
I objected to this kind of sunset provision in the USMCA, and I don't think it's a good idea to have a sunset provision in WTO DS either. Requiring consensus in order for the status quo to continue gives a lot of power to governments to create mischief through the ability they would have to shut things down. The mischief-making governments could be the current sunset supporters, the UK and the U.S., but could also be anyone else. For that reason, I think this sort of institutional design is fundamentally flawed.
...
In terms of the reasons for such a provision, it was said to be for "the ability to undertake a meaningful check on the system." It is true that it's difficult for governments to come up with alternative approaches that provide a check on the system. But it's worth noting that if they feel so strongly that the system has gone in a bad direction, they can always stop participating: They can stop filing complaints, and they can choose not to show up at proceedings where they are the ones complained against (and retaliate against any WTO-authorized retaliation imposed on them). That approach would be less problematic than blocking the use of the system by everyone else. If someone wanted to formalize a "stop participating" approach, they could draft a provision stating that individual Members could officially "opt out" of the system, or specific parts of the system (such as the Appellate Body), after X number of years.
I'm curious what the various governments talking about these issues would think of some sort of opt out -- maybe a country-specific reservation for the right to opt out -- as a compromise. It could be an opt out from WTO DS in general, or just from an appellate review mechanism that is developed to replace the Appellate Body. As I said in June, I'm not sure this is necessary, because governments can opt out as a practical matter already. But formalizing it might have political value in the U.S.
