In the comments section of my blog post earlier this week, Tom Graham commented as follows: My statement as reported by Bloomberg was not inadvertent. It expressed my position accurately: "I have not yet decided [whether I will stay after December 10], and I am watching developments." No

Católica|Lisbon School of Law and Católica Global School of Law will host the international conference on Socially Responsible Foreign Investment under International Law. The event will take place at the Lisbon campus of the Catholic University of Portugal next 24 and 25 of October. Entrance is free and registration

Last week, Bloomberg ran a story about Appellate Body Member Tom Graham which stated that: ... While Graham’s term ends on Dec. 10, panel members in the past have stayed on to finish WTO cases they’re involved in. If he resigns, the seven-member body would no longer have

By Anthea Roberts and Taylor St. John  On 17 July 2019, South Africa made its submission to UNCITRAL on investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) reform in which it seeks a “paradigm-shift” in investment law. In keeping with our description of South Africa as a “widener” in the UNCITRAL debates,

I mentioned a possible U.S.-Japan trade deal here, described a couple weeks ago as an "agreement in principle". Things seem to have progressed a bit, with the Trump administration just issuing the following "Presidential Message to Congress Regarding the Notification of Initiation of United States–

This is a guest post from Gabriela Sánchez of the Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá Last September 3rd, the Permanent Court of Arbitration issued the Final Award on the case Michael Ballantine and Lisa Ballantine v. Dominican Republic. The case was governed under UNCITRAL (2010) arbitral rules and under the

One of the issues raised by the United States in its critique of the Appellate Body is the role of precedent. How much weight should be given to past cases? Is the Appellate Body being too deferential to its prior rulings? Is there a difference between the "cogent reasons&

The US first written submission in the Section 301 case (DS543) is an eye-opening read. To me, the ingenious arguments advanced by the USTR, no matter how far-fetched they may seem in places, raise some interesting questions and teach a valuable lesson about WTO law. I. A brief