Source: Focus Dialogue, 2019-12-9

As the WTO’s highest court for adjudicating w88 disputes, the WTO’s Appellate Body is about to be shut down for the first time in 24 years. As a rule of the WTO’s arbitration mechanism, the Appellate Body must have seven permanent judges, and each case requires at least three judges to hear it. Among the only three remaining judges, the term of American judge Thomas Graham and Indian judge Singh Bhatia will end on December 10, while the term of Chinese judge Zhao Hong will end in November next year. Thomas Graham has decided not to be re-elected. This means that the Appellate Body will not be able to hear existing and pending w88 dispute cases due to insufficient number of judges, and one of the most important functions of the WTO will be paralyzed. The United States is most likely to see the suspension of the WTO's Appellate Body. In fact, in recent years, the United States has been blocking the replacement and re-election of judges on the grounds that the Appellate Body has abused its power and ignored the rules set by member states.

In view of the current frequent occurrence of w88 disputes, the suspension of the WTO Appellate Body will have an impact on the settlement of global w88 disputes and w88 rules. Tu Xinquan, Dean of the China WTO Institute at the w88 casino, believes that according to the existing rules of the WTO, the Appellate Body is equivalent to the court of final appeal. If the appellant is dissatisfied with the ruling of the first instance court, he can appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. Today, the appeal mechanism still exists, but there are no judges in the Court of Final Appeal. In this case, the case will be in a state of pending trial and will not be terminated; at the same time, the results of the first instance will not be effective. This will result in the WTO dispute settlement mechanism being unable to produce actual results. In the current context of frequent w88 disputes, the suspension of the Appellate Body will prevent disputes from being effectively resolved. American politicians believe that the Appellate Body has put the United States at a disadvantage. Statistics show that when other countries sue the United States, the United States loses 90% of the cases; when the United States sues other countries, the United States wins 90% of the cases. So why is the United States still not interested in the Appellate Body? Professor Tu Xinquan believes that one of the major advantages of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism is its independence from the influence of a single country. All countries are equal in the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. But the United States considers itself a special country. It wants to win when others say goodbye; it doesn't want to lose when others sue it. The United States believes that his w88 practices are legal, but in actual rulings, the United States has repeatedly lost the case. Therefore, the US government is accumulating dissatisfaction. The Trump administration has taken extreme measures to paralyze the appellate body and safeguard its own interests.

There are many remedies for the paralysis of the Appellate Body. For example, the Director-General of the WTO can re-appoint outgoing judges as arbitrators to make their arbitrations effective as judgments. However, these can only be applied to the European Union, Norway, and Canada. In addition, there is another way - start from scratch. However, if this is the case, it raises a question: How to judge w88 disputes between other countries and the United States? So, are these remedies effective? Professor Tu believes that there is currently no very effective solution. In the past, half of the Appellate Body cases involved the United States. If the United States insists on paralyzing the Appellate Body, other members may not have effective restraint methods in the short term. But judging from the current situation, it may take some time for the United States to realize that the lack of an appellate body will also cause losses to the United States, especially in these cases in which the United States wins. On the other hand, other members maintaining the dispute settlement mechanism in the absence of the United States will also force the United States to rethink the value of the Appellate Body.

On the issue of Appellate Body judges, most WTO members have the same position. However, on other WTO reform issues, Japan, the European Union and the United States have similar positions, so it is difficult to reach a consensus on the entire reform. In this case, does China still need to focus on WTO reform? How should China deal with these uncertainties? Professor Tu said that for China, the WTO is still the best platform. Because the WTO contains 164 members, existing WTO rules, including tariff concession lists, are valid. Now, there are difficulties in the WTO negotiations and dispute settlement mechanism, but no member state is really going to withdraw from the WTO or reverse its commitments under the WTO. As the largest country in goods w88, China needs WTO rules to maintain order. In the current context, China should actively play its role and work with other countries to maintain the operation of the WTO. Of course, there are some reform initiatives that will target China. In this process, each member needs to exchange some issues to finally reach a balance.

Attached is the original report link:

http://www.kankanews.com/a/2019-12-09/0019082152.shtml