Study On The Jurisdictional Conflicts And Its Reconciliation Of Dispute Settlement Mechanism Between WTO And RTA

The number of economic integration by all kinds of Regional Trade Agreement (RTA) had soared in recent years. Therefore, the possibility of jurisdictional conflict between the Dispute Settlement Mechanisms (DSM) of World Trade Organization (WTO) and RTA had risen. The problem of jurisdictions overlapping between the WTO and RTA is increasingly serious because the WTO and most RTA have their own jurisdiction clauses, while most member states of those RTA are also WTO members. China had joined the WTO in 2001 and concluded RTA with many counties and areas. The conflict of jurisdiction between DSMs of WTO and RTA becomes an issue that we have to face with.Owning to this background and motive, the aim of this thesis is to analyze the conflict of jurisdiction between the DSMs of WTO and RTA and harmonize it on the rules of Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU).This article consists of four parts and the main contents of each part are as follows:Part One:This thesis explores the reason and the consequences of jurisdiction conflicts between WTO and RTA dispute settlement mechanism. The emphasis is to point out the three factors leading to the formation of jurisdiction conflicts:the statute regulations of each treaty in their jurisdiction scope, the character of parallel jurisdiction of each mechanism and the qusi-automatic procedure to start the dispute settlement system. The consequences of jurisdiction conflicts, however, have two negative effects. First, it may lead to a waste of judicial resources. Second, it threats the predictability and security of global trade.Part Two:We make a detailed analysis for three typical cases (a. In the Matter of the US Safeguard Action Taken on Broom Corn Brooms From Mexico; b. Mexico-Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages; c. Argentina Definitive Anti-Dumping Duties on Poultry from Brazil)and these cases already had jurisdictional conflicts between the DSMs of WTO and RTA. These cases can help us to recognize the practices of DSB about jurisdictional conflicts between WTO and RTA, and there are some possibilities that can help us to settle the problem with DSU. However, we have to check out if they are efficient or not.Part Three:we try to we focus on international private law method to find the opinions about the jurisdictional conflict in the private law and discuss that, Could the traditional jurisdiction-regulating norms of international private law harmonize the problem of jurisdictional conflict? We believe the principle of estoppel should be one of the best way to harmonize the problem of jurisdictional conflict.Part Four:Finally, based on the second and third part, the thesis gives a possible operation method which can reconcile the jurisdictional conflicts between WTO and RTA in the best way. And it is:if a member of WTO and RTA asks for a dispute settlement to RTA’s DSM first, then brought the same dispute to DSB, at this time the member broken the promise and trust by RTA’s norm of forum selection, the member violate principle of estopple, and principle of good faith too. Then, a ask of dispute settlement violates principle of estoppels and principle of good faith, the ask violate article 3.10 of DSU too. When a case brought to WTO’s DSB violate norm of DSU, the DSB’s penal has discretion to decline to exercise its jurisdiction to hear and decide a case. So, the RTA’s norm of forum selection is principle of estopple’s trust base, and article 3.10 of DSU, could harmonize the jurisdictional conflicts of DSMs between WTO and RTA in the recent WTO’s DSM.