Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Determining a “Reasonable” Implementation Timeline for Developing Countries in WTO Disputes: An Appraisal of Special Treatment Commitments in DSU Article 21.3 (c) Arbitrations

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals

Abstract The Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) prescribes three different types of arbitration which are ancillary to the Panel and Appellate Body functions of the WTO dispute settlement system (DSS). These are the arbitrations for determining the implementation timeline under Article 21.3 (c) of the DSU and two other types of arbitration under Articles 21.5 and 22.6. This article focuses on some specific approaches and functions of Article 21.3 (c) arbitrations and examines the procedural actions which are related to determining a suitable implementation time for developing countries. It investigates the consistency and coherence of practice in selected arbitral awards in which developing countries claimed “particular attention” either as complainant or as implementing parties. This article points out that the lack of specific guidelines in the DSU is the substantial cause for arbitrators’ noncompliance with Article 21.2 provisions in Article 21.3 (c) arbitrations, which questions the procedural fairness of such arbitrations. This situation, amongst others, reiterates the urgent necessity to amend the relevant DSU rules.

Affiliations: 1: Department of Accounting and Corporate Governance, Macquarie University Sydney Australia


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation