International trade dispute settlement in GATT/WTO, with special reference to Japan

• Main Author: Takahashi, Tsutomu
• Published: University of Edinburgh 1999
• Subjects: 381
• Online Access: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.662706

The principal aim of this thesis is two-fold: to examine the way the GATT/WTO dispute settlement system has evolved, and secondly, to highlight those disputes in which Japan was involved. This later is done to demonstrate the clear transformation of Japan's attitude vis-à-vis its trade disputes falling within the GATT or WTO dispute settlement framework. Although the GATT dispute settlement mechanism has been fairly successful, the recent refinements have taken almost half century to accomplish: the GATT was gradually strengthened and finally superseded by the WTO which provides for a "judicialised" dispute settlement mechanism. This development has been hailed as providing for a much more "secure", "predictable" and "effective" system for settling trade disputes. Articles XXII and XXIII of the GATT and the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes constitute the core of the first part of the thesis. The case study, which is undertaken in part two of the thesis, is limited to those disputes in which Japan was a litigant party. Part one consists of 5 chapters: Chapters 1, 2 and 3 examine the old GATT and its dispute settlement system, including the Uruguay Round negotiations on dispute settlement. Chapters 4 and 5 discuss the WTO and its dispute settlement mechanism as clarified and codified in the Understanding. Part two consists of 3 chapters: Chapter 6 provides a brief description of the Japanese legal system; Chapter 7 and 8 discuss the cases in which Japan was a party. Although the aim of the case study is to provide a legal analysis of those cases, it also attempts to demonstrate the shift in Japanese trade policy regarding its disputes in the context of GATT on the one hand and the WTO on the other. The proposition put forward here is that such a shift has been from a "power-oriented" or "bilateral" to a more "rule-oriented" or "multilateral" one; thus reflecting the changes taken at the institutional level.