Treceți la conținutul principal


Se afișează postări din ianuarie, 2012

Developing Countries and the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding

Author: Ioannis Oikonomou I. Introduction Dispute Settlement was a highly controversial issue under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) regime and caused a great deal of complaint, especially among developing countries. This dispute settlement system was, allegedly, power-based [1] , thus preventing developing countries from successfully defending their interests within the GATT Forum. Among the most important sources of criticism was the lack of deadlines for the consultation process [2] , the need for consensus for the approval of the panels’ decisions and the different procedural and substantive regimes provided by the GATT and Tokyo negotiation rounds, leading to extended “norm and forum shopping” [3] . The signing of the Final Act, establishing World Trade Organization (WTO), and the annexed thereto Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) modified the dispute settlement system, as it incorporated a more “rule-oriented” approach [4] . On the one
Case note on T-85/09 Yassin Abdullah Kadi v European Commission Introduction On 15 October 1999 the Security Council (SC) adopted Resolution 1267, which provides that all the States must “freeze funds and other financial resources, including funds derived or generated from property owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the Taliban, or by any undertaking owned or controlled by the Taliban”. [1] This Resolution was later strengthened and reaffirmed by subsequent Resolutions. In order to implement the sanctions the European Council adopted Regulation No 467/2001. [2] At the third amendment of this regulation, the name of Al-Qadi, Yasin (Kadi) was added to the list. [3] Mr. Kadi brought an action before the Court of First Instance (CFI) for annulment of Regulations No 467/2001 (the applicant later extended his claims also to Regulation No 881/2002) and 2062/2001, in so far as those regulations concerned him, on the grounds, inter alia, that those measures breached h