The Outsider as Insider: Profiling WTO Panelists for Their Impact on World Trade Decisions

Abstract

This research explores the impact of the composition of trade dispute panels on decision-making on global trade at the World Trade Organization (WTO). The main questions raised are: • Why is it important whether the panels are composed of legal adjudicators or not? • How much is the WTO Secretariat influencing the case-by-case analysis and outcome? • Would it influence the panels’ decision to have adjudicators with or without a Law background? The paper pays attention to International Trade Dispute Settlement Adjudicators, who do not possess a Law degree. Special emphasis is given to members of WTO ad-hoc panels of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). These panel-members are appointed following the Rules and Procedures of the WTO Dispute Settlement System (DSS) set out in the framework of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU). Panel decisions are not considered awards, and produce no res judicata effects, and are not meant to establish any kind of compensation. The settlement procedure is thought to establish whether there was a breach of the WTO Agreements, and nothing else. These decisions are namely reports, which contain recommendations to be adopted by the DSB, formed by the representatives of all WTO member-States. The ad-hoc tripartite panels are constituted of individuals who may or may not have pursued law studies. It has been affirmed that panels are in numerous cases composed by a trade expert, a diplomat, and a lawyer. The panel may or may not be chaired by a panelist with a law degree. In the case of trade remedy cases, each panel is supported by a team of highly qualified lawyers employed at the WTO Rules Division (WTO RD). The research proposal is to provide a better understanding of the decision-making process at the multilateral organization through a frame of classification using the existing data on WTO panelists by subject matter and author. This process will lead to the analysis of the panelists’ capabilities and characteristics, as well as the panelists’ decision-making process. Which interrogations have been granted an answer and which ones remain open? Providing an approximate view to the latter questions is the main challenge of this research.