BỘ TƯ PHÁP

TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC LUẬT HÀ NỘI

BÀI TẬP HỌC KỲ

MÔN: INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW

ĐỀ BÀI: 04
What are differences between the WTO and the
GATT 1947 dispute settlement systems?”

HỌ TÊN : NGUYỄN HOÀNG YẾN

MSSV : 433329
LỚP : N01 – TL2
NHÓM : 03

Hà Nội, 2021
 CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................1
MAIN CONTENT.............................................................................................1
1. An overview to the WTO dispute settlement systems........................1
2. Differences between the WTO and the GATT 1947 dispute
settlement systems........................................................................................2
CONCLUSION.................................................................................................5
REFERENCES..................................................................................................5
 INTRODUCTION
The establishment of the International Trade Organization (WTO) aims to
promote global trade liberalization, improve the living standards of
members of the member countries and resolve differences of interest
between the nations. WTO has had a lot of changes since its predecessor
was GATT 1947, until now there have been many changes in the dispute
settlement system. So I would like to find out about the issue "What are
differences between the WTO and the GATT 1947 dispute settlement
systems?”

MAIN CONTENT
1. An overview to the WTO dispute settlement systems.
The International Trade Organization (WTO) was officially
established on January 1, 1995 as the result of the Uruguay Negotiations
(1986-1995), formerly known as the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT 1947). The WTO has been seen as a particularly
successful twentieth century commercial and legal development with a
vast system of agreements, agreements, and tariff concessions governing
trade rights and obligations member states.
The best international agreement is not worth very much if its
obligations cannot be enforced when one of the signatories fails to
comply with such obligations. An effective system to settle disputes thus
increases the practical value of the commitments the signatories
undertake in an international agreement. The fact that the Members of the
(WTO) established the current dispute settlement system during the
Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations underscores the high

1
importance they attach to compliance by all Members with their
obligations under the WTO Agreement.
Most people consider the WTO dispute settlement system to be one of
the major results of the Uruguay Round. After the entry into force of the
WTO Agreement in 1995, the dispute settlement system soon gained
practical importance as Members frequently resorted to using this system.
2. Differences between the WTO and the GATT 1947 dispute
settlement systems.
First, the dispute settlement under the GATT system is adjudicated at
only one level, the Panel. The parties to the dispute do not have the right
to appeal and GATT does not have an independent Appellate Body to
review the dispute satisfactorily. The panel structure of GATT 1947 was
primarily selected by member states’ government officials. For WTO
dispute settlement, the WTO panel structure is preferred among
independent experts, not working for the government, with an
international reputation for international trade policy or law. Especially in
WTO dispute settlement, the settlement is conducted carefully, through
two steps by neutral bodies (Panel, Appellate Body), ensuring the correct
settlement of disputes. The WTO's dispute settlement system further
provides for appeals procedures and the establishment of a standing
Appellate Body. This is the first time in an international dispute
settlement system that an Appellate Body has emerged with the
opportunity to review the original decision, ensuring the interests of the
parties to the dispute.
Second, the GATT system does not have a clear and stable process,
and dispute resolution is often lengthened without being subject to a
specific schedule with specific deadlines. For the WTO dispute settlement
system, this mechanism is carried out in a strict process with short,
defined deadlines. Previously, GATT 1947 basically only had two

2
provisions on dispute settlement procedures, Article 22 and Article 23.
Whereas the WTO had a system of rules on procedures for dispute
settlement. It is the Agreement on rules and procedures governing dispute
settlement (DSU). The WTO dispute settlement process is divided into
four main phases: consultation stage, panel stage, appellate stage and
decision execution stage. In terms of procedures, the parties involved in
dispute resolution must follow a certain order specified in the DSU.
Stricter and consistent dispute settlement procedures with time-bound
rules in each specific stage of dispute settlement make the WTO dispute
settlement time much shorter than GATT.
Third, according to GATT's dispute settlement system, decisions are
passed based on the principle of consensus. In accordance with this
principle, a panel shall be established only and a panel report shall be
adopted only by the consensus of all the members of the GATT Council.
According to the WTO's dispute settlement system, the consensus
principle has been replaced by the reverse consensus principle. Under this
principle, no individual member country can prevent the DSB's decision-
making in the dispute settlement process unless there is a veto consensus
of all members of the WTO. This means that if the violating country
wants the DSB's ruling not to be passed, it must convince all other
members of the WTO (including the parties to the lawsuit) to oppose
them.
Fourth, in GATT 1947, a retaliation measure to ensure the
compliance of the disputing parties was not effective. Small countries
dare not use the measure because they think it can affect their economy.
Besides, GATT also did not provide for measures to compensate for
damages or limit the time to enforce the judgment against the losing
party. For dispute settlement in the WTO, in order to force the losing
party to strictly enforce the DSB's rulings, the WTO has set out a

3
mechanism to monitor and supervise the implementation of the award.
The monitoring mechanism is to be carried out within 30 days of
adoption of the Panel's report. At the same time, the losing party must
also notify the DSB of the measures it intends to take. Furthermore,
GATT stipulates that retaliation can only be accepted when no signatory
has objected, while the WTO dispute settlement mechanism stipulates
that retaliation will be canceled only when all members are involved.
WTO agreed. Retaliation is only a temporary measure and is applied until
the losing party enforces the DSB's judgment. Retaliation measures in the
WTO dispute settlement mechanism have been specified in more detail
and clarity.
Lastly, GATT has not yet put in place special and different rules for
developing and least developed countries. For dispute settlement in the
WTO, there are many provisions on procedures for developing or least-
developed countries to create favorable conditions for these countries to
participate in the dispute settlement procedure. righteous and legal of
itself. Under Article 23, the DSU requires all members of the WTO to
comply with the dispute settlement mechanism for disputes arising under
the WTO Agreements. This obligatory nature gives member states equal
access to the WTO dispute settlement system and ensures that no country,
including strong states, can evade jurisdiction.

4
 CONCLUSION
The dispute settlement system in the WTO is the inheritance of dispute
settlement rules that have had a positive effect for nearly 50 years in the
history of GATT 1947. Learning from the shortcomings of the old
mechanism, A number of fundamental improvements in procedures have
been incorporated into the new mechanism, contributing significantly to
improving the adjudication of this procedure as well as enhancing the
binding of dispute resolution decisions.

REFERENCES
1. Hanoi Law University, International Trade Law, publisher Công an
nhân dân, 2020.
2.https://www.international-arbitration-attorney.com/wp-
content/uploads/arbitrationlawCo-che-giai-quyet-tranh-chap-trong-
WTOarbitration.pdf
3.https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/disp_settlement_cbt_e/c1
s1p1_e.htm
4.https://nhandan.com.vn/thoi-su-phap-luat/H%E1%BB%87-th%E1%BB
%91ng-gi%E1%BA%A3i-quy%E1%BA%BFt-tranh-ch%E1%BA%A5p-
c%E1%BB%A7a-WTO-487803
5.https://123doc.net/document/5078344-so-sanh-co-che-giai-quyet-tranh-
chap-cua-gatt-1947-va-co-che-giai-quyet-tranh-chap-cua-wto.htm