Any experienced lawyer knows that cases are most often won or lost on procedural grounds; yet procedural issues are often considered too technical for proper treatment in legal literature. In this extensively revised 2004 edition of Palmeter and Mavroidis' authoritative book on WTO dispute settlement, the authors discuss all WTO dispute settlement provisions and their interpretation in WTO jurisprudence. All the decisions of panels and the Appellate Body are discussed, from the inception of the WTO in 1995 until the end of May 2003. Although the book contains considerable technical expertise, it is at the same time written for accessibility to a wide readership. This volume - an essential tool for practitioners, diplomats and government lawyers - is a comprehensive study of compulsory third party adjudication in international law.

Modern discussions of the sources of international law usually begin with a reference to Article 38 (1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which provides: The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply: a.international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;b.international custom as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;c.the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;d.subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.

No abstract

This article analyzes the decision of the WTO's Appellate Body in the dispute between Japan and Korea over Japan's imposition of countervailing duties on DRAMs imported from Korea. The legal analysis comments on the analysis of evidence, the lack of remand authority in the WTO system, and the meaning of a ' direct transfer of funds'. The economic analysis discusses several issues related to determining the magnitude of the benefit to a firm of a financial bailout and the appropriate duration of a countervailing duty to offset the injury caused by a non-recurrent subsidy. We offer legal and economic criticisms of the Appellate Body's conclusion regarding the relationship between subsidies and injury to the domestic import-competing industry. We conclude that the Appellate Body's decision weakens the requirement of a causal link between subsidies and injury and, consequently, may open the door to protectionist abuse of the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement.

No abstract