- •1.Historical development of international human rights law
- •2.Nature of human rights. Categories of rights
- •Human Rights of First Generation: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
- •Human Rights of Second Generation: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
- •Human Rights of Third Generation: Collective Rights
- •3.Protection of human rights at the international (global) level
- •4.Core universal human rights treaties
- •6.Protection of human rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
- •7.The Inter-American Commission and Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Practice and procedure
- •Inter-American Court of Human Rights
- •8.The role of the International Court of Justice in the development of human rights protection
- •9.The access of individuals to international justice
- •10.The protection of human rights within the European Union
- •11.The main Council of Europe conventions in the sphere of human rights
- •12.Jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights
- •Inter-state cases
- •13.The structure and the composition of the European Court of Human Rights
- •14.Enforcement of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgments
- •15.Procedure before the European Court of Human Rights
- •16.Permanent Court of Arbitration and ad hoc arbitrations
- •17.Establishment and work of the Iran – u.S. Claims Tribunal
- •18.Organization and jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
- •19.The role of the International Court of Justice in settlement of disputes under the un Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982
- •20.Arbitration tribunals under the Annex VII to the un Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982
- •21.Arbitration tribunals under the Annex VIII to the un Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982
- •22.System of settlement of trade disputes under the 1947 gatt
- •23.Dispute Settlement Understanding of 15 April 1994
- •24.Role of consultations, bon offices, conciliation and mediation for dispute settlement in gatt/wto.
- •25.Work of wto Dispute Settlement Body. Procedure in the panels
- •27.General characteristic of settlement of disputes in the Commonwealth of Independent States
- •28.Organization and jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice
- •29.Organization and jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court
- •30.Organization and jurisdiction of the international criminal tribunals ad hoc established by the un Security Council
- •31.Definition and applicability of international humanitarian law
- •32.Protected persons and objects under international humanitarian law
- •33.Protection of wounded, sick and shipwrecked under international humanitarian law
- •34. Protection of prisoners of war under international humanitarian law
- •35. Protection of civilians under international humanitarian law
- •36.Main rules of international humanitarian law concerning means and methods of warfare
- •37.War crimes under international humanitarian law: development and modern system
- •38.Genocide as a crime under international law
- •39.Crimes against humanity under international law
- •40.Aggression as a crime under international law
- •41.Main stages of the international criminal procedure
- •43.Main institutions of international commercial arbitration
- •44.The arbitration agreement of parties to an international commercial contract
- •45.Laws and rules applicable to international commercial arbitration
23.Dispute Settlement Understanding of 15 April 1994
The Dispute Settlement Understanding incorporates many features of the existing GATT procedures. However, to deal with the deficiencies identified above, a number of major innovations are also introduced:
to deal with the problem of political interference, the role formerly carried out by the GATT Council is assigned to a new organ called the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). Although still made up of states, the DSB can refuse to establish a panel, or decline to approve a report, only if there is a consensus; these actions therefore become virtually automatic. Since this change effectively removes the political check on panel procedures, an appellate procedure is included as a further innovation.
To deal with implementation, new and clearer procedures are laid down. And, to deal with the problem of political interference, the role formerly carried out by the GATT Council is assigned to a new organ called the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB).
To deal with norm and forum shopping, the DSU establishes a unified dispute settlement system for the whole GATT/WTO system, including the issues of services and intellectual property.
The general effect of the Dispute Settlement Understanding is thus to consolidate existing procedures and at the same time bring them up to date. The main features of the DSU may now therefore be considered in a little more detail.
As to the Consultations:
Articles 22(1) and 23(1) of the GATT provide for bilateral consultations in general terms , and the new DSU, based substantially on provisions agreed in 1989, spells out the implications in some detail.
Article 4(3) contains an obligation to enter into consultations in good faith on request, and Article 4(5) reflects a preference for this method by giving consultations priority over other procedures.
To remove the possibility of abuse, and also to imbue the parties with a sense of urgency, the DSU contains strict time-limits. The state to which a request for consultations is submitted has just ten days to respond and must enter into consultationswithin thirty days of the request (Article 4(3)). Consultations must also be concluded within sixty days of the request (Article 4(7)). Even stricter deadlines apply in urgent cases (Article 4(8)) and failure to meet any of the deadlines immediately entitles the complaining party to request the establishment of a panel.
When consultations take place they are confidential and without prejudice to the rights of the states concerned (Article 4(6)).
Articles 4(4) and 3(6) make it clear that the occurrence and outcome must both be notified to the DSB and relevant bodies. Such notification was not required before 1989, and so this was an innovation.
International trade disputes are not exclusively bilateral but often involve the interests of third parties. Because this is frequently the situation in trade relations, the DSU contains a number of provisions concerned with disputes of a multilateral character. As regards consultation, the relevant provision is Article 4(11), which allows a third state which considers that it has 'a substantial trade interest' in any consultations to indicate a desire to join them.
Good offices, conciliation and mediation
In various forms, good offices, conciliation and mediation have all featured in the GATT system and demonstrated their usefulness. While the Dispute Settlement Understanding contains more detail on these methods than previous instruments, it groups them together in a single article, which visibly highlights their interconnection.
Good offices, conciliation and mediation are voluntary procedures and require the parties' agreement (Article 5(1) ).This immediately distinguishes them from consultation which, it will be recalled, is mandatory.
They may, however, be requested by a state at any time and at any point in a dispute. They can also be terminated at any time and, once terminated, entitle the complaining party to request the establishment of a panel, provided the sixty-day consultation period has elapsed (Article 5(3) and (4)).
Who performs good offices, conciliation and mediation? In theory, states can refer a trade dispute to any competent individual, group or organ. In practice, however, the choice is more limited. The only possibility which is specifically mentioned in this section is reference of a dispute to the Director-General of the WTO,who under Article 5(6) is authorised to offer good offices, conciliation or mediation, acting in an ex officio capacity.