World Trade Organization Jurisprudence On Subsequent Practice

Subsequent agreement and subsequent practice as legal interpretation approaches played important roles in dispute settlement. When the treaty practice explains the important factors, it aims to find a flexible and predictable way to treaty applicable and interpretation. If the treaty seemed as a "living document", it should consider to international social law changes in the environment or the emergence of new demand, and contracting party afterwards agreement and afterwards to practice is according to the treaty rules for a treaty aim or big or small dynamic interpretation. Understand the development of practical behavior afterwards how to affect current provision in any law system is important. The WTO dispute settlement the practice of the study of the method of practice or explain provide plenty of material, this paper study the WTO dispute settlement body of the convention of the practice or explain problems were analyzed, and discussed in the specific case of the expert group and the practice how to analyze the practice and how to apply the scientific careful interpretation methods, and understand the rules for the country, the international organization of dispute solution practice has the important instruction meaning.There are four important parts. Part I is an Introduction of subsequent practice, introduce the United Nations international law committee and the sixth committee to recognize the legal issues or practices, the reality of this problem analysis and introduce a "treaty on time" special work process and the train of thought.Part II of this Note, explore the scope of subsequent practice and the development of VCLT article31(3)(b) to determine what consensus exists on their application. I then analyze states' concerns during the development of the VCLT and outline some conclusions as to what states are likely to support in developing "clearer common understandings" of the application of subsequent practice. I present evidence that states were reluctant to codify some customary legal norms relating to subsequent practice, as demonstrated by the easy acceptance of subsequent practice under what became the general rule of interpretation contrasted with the rejection of the Law of Treaties draft article38on informal modification of treaty obligations. I argue that this formalistic divide between applications of subsequent practice shows that states were unsure whether and how some applications of subsequent practice would disturb the principle of consent in treaty law, and that as a consequence, states purposefully left the VCLT's approach to subsequent practice somewhat vague.Part III explores World Trade Organization panel and Appellate Body (AB) decisions that have addressed subsequent practice. Given the expectation that better guidance in the use of subsequent practice as an interpretive element will increase coordination between large multilateral frameworks, I propose that panel and Appellate Body decisions provide guidance for clarifying the role of subsequent practice in treaty interpretation and modification under customary international law. Viewed in conjunction, this body of rulings provides the groundwork for a potential two-step analytical approach to subsequent practice in the context of large multilateral treaties which suggests weighing the nature of party conduct to establish an authentic interpretation under31(3)(b).Part IV builds on the two-step approach extrapolate from panel and Appellate Body decisions to propose a better three-step analytical framework through which to apply VCLT31(3)(b). To meet the need to improve clarity of legal obligations in large multilateral treaty regimes, I propose a test for applying VCLT31(3)(b) that analyzes the character of the practice, the degree to which the practice is concordant, common, and consistent, and the extent to which practice implies agreement.