نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 استادیار گروه حقوق دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد
2 استادیار گروه حقوق خصوصی و اقتصادی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی
چکیده
ضوابط تفاهم‌نامه قواعد و رویه‌های حاکم بر حل اختلافات، چارچوب رسیدگی‌ها در سیستم قضایی سازمان تجارت جهانی را ترسیم نموده است. گرچه تفاهم‌نامه مذکور هیأت‌های رسیدگی و رکن استینافی سازمان را محدود نموده تا اختلافات اعضا را براساس موافقت‌نامه‌های سازمان حل و فصل نمایند، اما در برخی موارد آنها با موضوعاتی مواجه می‌گردند که در تفاهم‌نامه و موافقت‌نامه‌های سازمان مطرح نگردیده‌اند. اغلب در اینگونه موارد هیأت‌های رسیدگی و رکن استینافی به اصول کلی حقوقی متوسل می‌گردند.
معهذا در این زمینه یک سؤال مهم وجود دارد، استفاده از اصول کلی حقوقی توسط رکن حل و فصل دعاوی سازمان بر چه مبنای حقوقی استوار است؟ مقاله حاضر با تکیه بر مقررات تفاهم‌نامه قواعد و رویه‌های حاکم بر حل اختلافات و رویه قضاییِ مرتبط نشان می‌دهد که هیأت‌های رسیدگی و رکن استینافی سازمان می‌توانند بر مبنای مفهوم صلاحیت ذاتی از اصول کلی حقوقی برای حل و فصل مشکلات شکلی در اختلافات میان اعضای سازمان استفاده نمایند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
The Application of General Principles of Law in the Settlement of WTO Members’ Disputes
نویسندگان [English]
- azam ansari 1
- Mohammad Mahdi Hagian 2
1
2
چکیده [English]
The disciplines of dispute settlement understanding (DSU) in the World Trade Organization have set out the framework of proceedings in WTO's dispute settlement system. Although WTO's dispute settlement understanding has limited the panels and the appellate body to settle the members' disputes under the covered agreements, they have, in some cases, encountered with issues that have not been mentioned under the dispute settlement understanding and the covered agreements. In such cases, the panels and appellate body, mostly, resort to the general principles of law. Nevertheless, in this context, an important question is posed: What is the legal basis for using the general principles of law by WTO's dispute settlement body? By considering provisions of dispute settlement understanding and relevant case law, this article shows that on the basis of inherent jurisdiction, the panels and the appellate body can use the general principles of law for the purpose of resolving the procedural issues.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- Keywords: Applicable Law
- Procedural Rules
- Inherent Jurisdiction
- الهویی نظری، حمید.(1392). «جایگاه اصول کلی حقوقی در آرای دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری». فصلنامه حقوق(مجله دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی). ش4. ص55 37.
- حدادی، مهدی.(1391). «توسل به اقدام‌های متقابل جمعی در سازمان جهانی تجارت». فصلنامه پژوهشنامه بازرگانی. ش62. ص48-29.
- زارعی، محمدحسین و بهنیا، مسیح.(1390). «تأملی بر امکان اعمال اصل انتظار مشروع در دیوان عدالت اداری». راهبرد. ش61. سال بیستم، ص189-153.
- محمدزاده وادقانی(مترجم)، علی رضا.(1376). «اصول کلی حقوق و حقوق موضوعه». مجله دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی. ش36. ص100-73.
- موسوی، فضل الله و میرمحمدی، معصومه.(1390). «اصول کلی حقوق؛ عامل پویایی حقوق بین‌الملل کیفری». حقوق اسلامی. ش31. سال هشتم، ص94-63.
6. Babu, R.Rajesh.(2012). Remedies under the WTO Legal System, Leiden/Boston, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
7. Bartels, Lorand.(2001). “Applicable Law in WTO Dispute Settlement Proceedings”. Journal of World Trade. 35(3), p.499-519.
8. Brown, Chester.(2007). A Common Law on International Adjudication, New York, Oxford University Press.
9. Conrad, Christiane R.(2011). Processes and Production Methods (PPMs) in WTO Law: Interfacing Trade and Social Goals, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
10. Dworkin, Ronald M.(1967). “The Model of Rules”. The University of Chicago Law Review. 35(1), p.14-46.
11. Griffith, Gavan & Mitchell, Andrew D.(2002). “Contractual Dispute Resolution in International Trade: The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (1976) and the UNCITRAL Conciliation Rules (1980)”.Melbourne Journal of International Law. 3(1), p.184-199.
12. Kelly, J.Patrick.(2002). “Judicial Activism at the World Trade Organization: Developing Principles of Self-Restraint”. Northwestern Journal of International Law&Business. 22, p.353-388.
13. Marceau, Gabrielle.(2001). “Conflicts of norms and Conflicts of Jurisdictions: The Relationship between the WTO Agreement and MEAs and other Treaties”. Journal of World Trade. 35(6), p.1081-1131.
14. Marceau, Gabrielle.(2002). “WTO Dispute Settlement and Human Rights”. European Journal of International Law. 13(4), p.753-814.
15. McRae, Ronald.(2004). “What is the Future of WTO Dispute Settlement?”. Journal of International Economic Law. 7(1), p.3-21.
16. Mitchell, Andrew D.(2007). “The Legal Basis for Using Principles in WTO Disputes”. Journal of International Economic Law. 10(4), p.795-835.
17. Mitchell, Andrew D. & Heaton, David.(2010). “The Inherent Jurisdiction of WTO Tribunals: the Select Application of Public International Law Required by the Judicial Function”. Michigan Journal of International Law. 31(3), p.561-621.
18. Pauwelyn, Joost.(2001). “The Role of Public International Law in the WTO: How Far Can We Go?”.The American Journal of International Law. 95(3), p.535-587.
19. Pauwelyn, Joost.(2003). Conflict of Norms in Public International Law, How WTO Law Relates to Other Rules of International Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
20. Ranjan, Prabhash.(2009). “Applicable Law in the Dispute of the World Trade Organization”. Economic and Political Weekly. 44(15), p.23-27.
21. Shiravi, A & Ansari, A.(2012). “Precautionary Principle in the International Trade Regime: A Careful Look at the WTO’s SPS Agreement”. Paper Presented at 4th International Business and Social Science Research Conference, Dubai, 5–7 January.
22. Trachtman, Joel(1999). “The Domain of WTO Dispute Resolution”. Harvard International Law Journal. 40(2), p.333-377.
23. Van Damme, Isabelle.(2008). “Inherent Powers of and for the WTO Appellate Body”. Working Paper. Available at: http: // graduateinstitute . ch / files / live / sites / iheid / files / sites / ctei / shared / CTEI / cteiworkpapers / WPCTEI - InherentPowersAB29Aug.pdf
24. Waincymer, Jeff.(2002). WTO Litigation-Procedural Aspects of Formal Dispute Settlement, London, Cameron May.
25. Weiler, Joseph.(2001). “The Rule of Lawyers and Ethos of Diplomats: Reflections on the Internal and External Legitimacy of WTO Dispute Settlement”. Journal of World Trade. 35(2), p.191-207.
26. Weiss, Wolfgang.(2003). “Security and predictability under WTO law?”. World Trade Review. 2(2), p.183-219.
27. Wouters, Jan; Coppens, Dominic & Geraets, Dylan.(2011). “The Influence of General Principle of Law”. Working Paper. Available at: http: // papers . ssrn. com/ sol3 /papers.cfm?abstract_id=2020346.
28. Agreement on Agriculture, 1994
29. Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), 1994
30. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), 1994
31. Oilseeds Agreement, 1994
32. Statute of the International Court of Justice, 1945
33. Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, 1994
34. Australia-Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, 1995
35. Chile-Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products, 2000
36. European Communities-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), 1996
37. European Communities- Measures Affecting Importation of Certain Poultry Products, 1997
38. India- Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, 1996
39. Korea- Measures Affecting Government Procurement, 1999
40. Mexico- Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States, 1998
41. Mexico- Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages, 2004
42. The United States- Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, 1998
43. The United States- Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom, 1998
44. The United States- Measures Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India, 1996
45. The United States- Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, 1995
46. The United States- Subsidies on Upland Cotton, 2002
)