International Economic Law and Policy Blog (Page 136)

Sign in Subscribe

UNCITRAL and ISDS Reforms: Moving to Reform Options … the Politics

First published on EJIL: Talk! In the last blog, I provided an update on the UNCITRAL process, including the consensus decision from Vienna last week to move forward to consider possible reforms of investor-state arbitration. This decision is very significant. But to get a sense of how this decision

UNCITRAL and ISDS Reforms: Moving to Reform Options … the Process

First published on EJIL Talk! Last week has been described as a watershed moment for ISDS reform. During a meeting in Vienna, states decided by consensus on the desirability of developing reforms in UNCITRAL with respect to investor-state arbitration. States now have an opportunity to make proposals for a

A Watershed Moment for ISDS Reform

Last week marked a watershed moment for the movement to reform investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). Meeting in Vienna, Delegations to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group III (WGIII) agreed to work multilaterally to reform the resolution of investment disputes. Delegations agreed to focus on

The Problem of Insufficient Notifications

Last year, I mentioned a U.S. proposal on WTO notifications. It looks like the U.S. now has a few others on board: PROCEDURES TO ENHANCE TRANSPARENCY AND STRENGTHEN NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS UNDER WTO AGREEMENTS COMMUNICATION FROM ARGENTINA, COSTA RICA, THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN, AND THE UNITED STATES The following

Additional Implications of the Appellate Body Taking Longer Than 90 Days

The Appellate Body's approach of taking longer than 90 days to issue its reports, without first getting consent from the participants in the dispute, is one issue that has given rise to the U.S. actions relating to appointment of Appellate Body Members. Apparently, this approach (along with

Panel Appointments and Rosters in the New NAFTA

As I've blogged about before, there was a problem with getting panels appointed under NAFTA Chapter 20, and Chapter 31 of the new NAFTA (USMCA) doesn't look like it fixes the problem. But there is a small tweak to the rules relating to rosters that is

The Legalization of the Non-Violation Concept in the GATT/WTO System

This is a timely piece from Graham Cook: For those interested here is a new paper called "The Legalization of the Non-Violation Concept in the GATT/WTO System". The abstract: Article XXVIII:1(b) of the GATT refers to "any benefit … being nullified or impaired"

Conference: "The Era of Disintegration. Taking Stock of the Dynamics of International Economic Governance in the First Two Decades of the 21st Century," Erasmus School of Law, Nov. 16, 2018

This is from the Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam: On November 16, 2018, from 9.30 am to 5.30 pm, the Erasmus School of Law (Erasmus University Rotterdam) is hosting a conference on "The Era of Disintegration. Taking Stock of the Dynamics of International Economic Governance

The Progressive Parts of the New NAFTA

Article 23.9 of the USMCA text as it stands now says: Article 23.9 Sex-Based Discrimination in the Workplace The Parties recognize the goal of eliminating sex-based discrimination in employment and occupation, and support the goal of promoting equality of women in the workplace. Accordingly, each Party

Non-Violation Claims and Exceptions

In response to the recent post by Nicolas and the subsequent comments, as well as some twitter and email exchanges on the issue, I wanted to offer a few thoughts on the role of WTO exceptions in the context of non-violation claims. To state the obvious, WTO obligations are