Comment and Analysis
Comment and Analysis
Competing “Principles of Justice” in Multilevel Commercial, Trade and Investment Adjudication: Need for More “Judicial Dialogues” and Legal “Cross-Fertilization”
This chapter maintains that courts in the dispute settlement system of the WTO continue to neglect their legal duties (I). The diverse conceptions of multilevel “judicial governance” are due to competing principles in transnational law and adjudication (II). International law limits principles of “Westphalian justice” by protecting cosmopolitan rights and “constitutional justice” (III–IV). GATT 1947 focused on limiting judicial accountability of trade politicians (V). Only after the GATT Office of Legal Affairs was established and the Uruguay Round negotiations launched could the GATT legal system be transformed into the integrated WTO legal and dispute settlement system. Multilevel judicial cooperation among commercial, trade and investment adjudication should help limit the power-oriented claims of trade diplomats; the requirements of legal systems call for “judicial comity” among courts in the WTO legal and dispute settlement system (VI). Judicial “cross-fertilization” can help clarify “principles of justice” and protect WTO guarantees of non-discrimination and rule of law (VII).
Keywords: arbitration, consistent interpretation, comity, commercial law, courts, GATT, investment law, justice, trade law, WTO
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .
