Artigos regulares
Práticas do forum shopping entre a OMC e os Tratados de Livre Comércio: o valor do princípio da coisa julgada na solução de conflitos
Publicado 2018-01-31
Palavras-chave
- Solução de conflitos,
- Tratados de Lívre Comércio,
- OMC,
- Forum shopping
Como Citar
Martínez, J. T. (2018). Práticas do forum shopping entre a OMC e os Tratados de Livre Comércio: o valor do princípio da coisa julgada na solução de conflitos. Homa Publica - Revista Internacional De Derechos Humanos Y Empresas, 2(1), e:028. Recuperado de https://periodicos.ufjf.br/index.php/HOMA/article/view/30554
Resumo
Não há dúvida de que, no contexto da globalização econômica, há uma grande disposição para conflitos ou sobreposição de instrumentos internacionais, suas obrigações ou direitos e até mesmo suas jurisdições. A análise destes fenômenos torna-se mais complexa se levarmos em conta a atual proliferação de instrumentos internacionais de natureza comercial (acordos preferenciais, zonas de livre comércio, uniões aduaneiras, etc.), cada um com um mecanismo de solução de controvérsias que pode até gerar conflitos ou sobreposições com o regime jurídico da OMC. Com um aspecto a ter em conta, não há hierarquia de uma fonte de produção legal sobre outra (como no caso do direito interno), a menos que esteja expressamente previsto num instrumento ou possa ser implicitamente inferido a partir do seu conteúdo normativo por meio de uma atividade interpretativa. Do amplo leque de instrumentos que regulam o comércio internacional, esta pesquisa centrará sua atenção na análise das regras de conflito incorporadas nos diferentes acordos de livre comércio (doravante TLC) celebrados entre os países latino-americanos e os Estados Unidos, especificamente o TLC norte-americano de 1994, o TLC com o Chile de 2004, o TLC com a República Dominicana e a América Central de 2006, o TLC com o Peru de 2009, o TLC com a Colômbia em 2012 e o TLC com o Panamá em 2012, além dos Acordos de Parceria Econômica dos países latino-americanos e da União Européia, incluindo o TLC com o México em 2000, o TLC com o Chile em 2005 e o TLC com os países andinos em 2013; finalmente, as regras de conflito do regime jurídico da OMC serão incluídas na revisão, e assim a utilidade do princípio do caso julgado no que diz respeito aos efeitos do forum shopping será concluída.
Downloads
Não há dados estatísticos.
Referências
ABI-SAAB, Georges. The Proliferation of Adjudicatory Bodies: Dangers and Possible Answers, Implications of the Proliferation of International Adjudicatory Bodies for Dispute Resolution, ASIL Bulletin: Educational Resources on International Law, Vol. 9, 1995, p. 21.
GARCÍA, Ignacio Bercero. Dispute Settlement in European Union Free Trade Agreements: Lessons Learned?, en Bartels, L. and Ortino, F. (eds): Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO Legal System, Oxford University Press, New York, 2006., pp. 399-401.
BLACK, Henry; GARNER, Bryan. Black's Law Dictionary, 9th edition, West Publishing, 2009.
BLANC ALTEMIR, Antonio. “El Acuerdo de Asociación entre la Unión Europea y Chile: Algo más que un Tratado de Libre Comercio”, Anuario de Derecho Internacional de la Universidad de Navarra, Vol. XX, 2004, pp. 35-110.
BRACK, Duncan; Gray, Kevin. Multilateral Environmental Agreements and the WTO, Report of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2003.
BUSSE, Mathias. Trade, Environmental Regulations and the World Trade Organization: New Empirical Evidence. In: Journal of World Trade Vol. 38, No 2, 2004, pp. 285-306.
CÁMARA DE DIPUTADOS DE CHILE. Informe de la Comisión de Relaciones Exteriores. P. 43.
CARRILLO SALCEDO, Juan Antonio, “Reflections on the Existence of a Hierarchy of Norms in International Law”, European Journal of International Law Vol. 8, No. 4, 1997.
CHARNEY, Jonathan. “Is the International Law Threatened by Multiple International Tribunals?”, Recueil des Cours. Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, Tome 271, 1998, p. 129.
COMBACAU, Jean et SUR, Serge. Droit international public, Coll. Domat droit public, 8ème éd., Paris, Montchrestien, 2008, p. 26.
COMPA, Lance; DIAMOND, Stephen (eds.) Human Rights, Labour Rights, and International Trade, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1996.
CRUZ MIRAMONTES, Rodolfo. Las Relaciones Comerciales Multilaterales de México y el Tratado de Libre Comercio con la Unión Europea, Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México DF, 2003, p. 196.
DAVEY, William; SAPIR, André. The Soft Drinks Case: The WTO and Regional Agreements, World Trade Review, Vol. 8, Nº 1, 2009, p. 23.
DAVEY, William, Dispute Settlement in the WTO and RTAs: A Comment, en Bartels. L. y Ortino, F. (Eds.): Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO Legal System, Oxford University Press, New York, 2006, pp. 350-351.
DELPIANO LIRA, Cristián. La cláusula de exclusión de foros del Acuerdo de Asociación entre Chile y la Unión Europea en el mecanismo de solución de controversias de la OMC, Revista Chilena de Derecho, Vol. 33, No. 2, 2006, pp. 259 – 284.
DUPUY, Pierre-Marie, Droit international public, 9é éd., Éd. Dalloz, 2008, pp. 15-16.
FAWCETT, James (Ed.). Declining Jurisdiction in Private International Law, Oxford Monographs in Private International Law, 1995.
FERNÁNDEZ PONS, Xavier, La OMC y el Derecho Internacional. Un estudio sobre el sistema de solución de diferencias de la OMC y las normas secundarias del Derecho internacional general, Marcial Pons, Barcelona, 2006, pp. 156 y ss.
GANTZ, David. “Dispute Settlement under the NAFTA and the WTO: Choice of Forum Opportunities and Risks for the NAFTA Parties”, American University International Law Review Vol. 14, No. 4, 1999, p. 1101 y ss.
GRAEWERT, Tim. Conflicting Laws and Jurisdictions in the Dispute Settlement Process of Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO, Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, No. 1, 2008, p. 293-294.
Grupo de Estudio de la Comisión de Derecho Internacional. “Fragmentación del Derecho internacional: dificultades derivadas de la diversificación y expansión del Derecho internacional”, Naciones Unidas, Documento A/CN.4/L.682, 2006, Asamblea General, 58 período de sesiones, 13 de abril de 2006.
GUILLAUME, Gilbert. Advantages and Risks of Proliferation: A Blueprint for Action, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 2, 2004, pp. 300-303.
HENCKELS, Caroline. Overcoming Jurisdictional Isolationism at the WTO-FTA Nexus: A Potential Approach for the WTO, The European Journal of International Law, Vol. 19, No. 3, 2008.
HIGGINS, Rosalyn. A Babel of Judicial Voices? Ruminations from the Bench, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 55, 2006.
HUDEC, Robert. International Economic Law: The Political Theatre Dimension, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International economic Law, Vol. 17, No. 1, spring 1996, p. 9.
Informe del Grupo Especial del GATT (L/4687), en el asunto Comunidades Europeas - Programa de precios mínimos de importación, licencias y depósitos de garantía de determinadas frutas y hortalizas (BISD 25S/68/107), adoptado el 18 de octubre de 1978.
Informe del Grupo Especial del GATT (L/6309), en el asunto Japón - Comercio de semiconductores (BISD 35S/116-163), adoptado el 4 de mayo de 1988.
Informe del Grupo Especial del GATT, asunto Canadá Aplicación de la Ley sobre el examen de la inversión extranjera (IBDD 30S/151-182), adoptado el 7 de febrero de 1984.
Informe del Grupo Especial, en el asunto Brasil - Programa de financiación de las exportaciones para aeronaves (WT/DS46/R), adoptado el 14 de abril de 1999, párrafo 7.11.
Informe del Grupo Especial, en el asunto Comunidades Europeas - Medidas que afectan el comercio de embarcaciones comerciales (WT/DS301/R), adoptado el 3 de septiembre de 2003.
Informe del Grupo Especial, en el asunto Estados Unidos - Artículo 301 a 310 de la Ley de Comercio de 1974 (WT/DS152/R), adoptado el 22 de diciembre de 1999.
Informe del Grupo Especial, en el asunto Estados Unidos – Artículo 301 a 310 de la Ley de Comercio Exterior de 1974 (WT/DS152/R), adoptado el 22 de diciembre de 1999, párrafo 7.43.
Informe del Grupo Especial, en el asunto India - Medidas que afectan al sector del automóvil (WT/DS146/R), adoptado el 21 de diciembre de 2001, párrafo 7.66.
Informe del Grupo Especial, en el asunto India - Restricciones cuantitativas a la importación de productos agrícolas, textiles e industriales (WT/DS90/R), adoptado el 6 de abril de 1999.
Informe del Órgano de Apelación, en el asunto Comunidades Europeas - Derechos antidumping sobre la importación de ropa de cama de algodón originario de la India, párrafo 5 del artículo 21 (WT/DS141/AB/RW), adoptado 8 de abril de 2003, párrafos 78-100.
Informe del Órgano de Apelación, en el asunto el asunto Estados Unidos – Medidas antidumping definitivas sobre el acero inoxidable procedente de México, (WT/DS344/AB/R), adoptado el 30 de abril de 2008.
Informe del Órgano de Apelación, en el asunto Japón - Impuestos sobre las bebidas alcohólicas (WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R), adoptado el 4 de octubre de 1996.
Informe final del Panel del TLCAN, en el asunto Canadá - Requerimientos para el desembarco del salmón y del arenque de la costa del pacífico (CDA-89-1807-01), adoptado el 18 de octubre de 1989, párrafo 6.14
Informe final del Panel del TLCAN, en el asunto Estados Unidos - Regulación de la Langosta (USA 89-1807-01), adoptado el 25 de mayo 1990, párrafo 8.1.1.
Informe final del Panel del TLCAN, en el asunto Estados Unidos - Magnesio puro y aleación (USA-92-1904-03), adoptado el 16 de agosto de 1993, p. 9. International Court of Justice Reports of judgments, in the Certain Expenses of the United Nation, advisory opinions and orders, Advisory opinion of 20 July 1962, p. 168.
JACKSON, John H. The Jurisprudence of GATT & the WTO, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp. 125-129.
JACKSON, John H. The World Trading System, Law and Policy of International Economic Relations, 2da Ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA y London, 1997, p. 25 y ss.
JACKSON, John H., Sovereignty, the WTO, and changing fundamentals of International Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp. 176 y ss.
JENNINGS, Robert. “The Judiciary, International and National, and the Development of International Law”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly Vol. 45, No. 1, 1996.
KARAGIANNIS, Syméon. La Multiplication des Juridictions Internationales : Un Système Anarchique? Société Française pour le Droit International ed., 2003.
KESSIE, Edwini. “Enhancing Security and Predictability for Private Business Operators under the Dispute Settlement System of the WTO”, en Journal of World Trade, Vol. 34 N° 6, 2000, p. 1.
KUYPER, Pieter Jan. “The Law of GATT as Special Field of International Law”, Netherland Yearbook of International Law, Vol. XXV, 1994.
KUYPER, Pieter Jan. “The Law of GATT as Special Field of International Law, cit., nota 43, p. 251.
KWAK, Kyung ; MARCEAU, Gabrielle. Overlaps and Conflicts of Jurisdiction between the WTO and RTAs, en Bartels, L. y ORTINO, F. (Eds.): Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO Legal System, Oxford University Press, New York, 2006, pp. 465-524.
LEÓN STEFFENS, Avelino. La elección del foro en el Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte y los resultados de la Ronda Uruguay del GATT, en LÓPEZ AYLLÓN, Sergio, El futuro del Libre Comercio en el Continente Americano, análisis y perspectivas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, México, 1997, pp. 305 y ss.
LIÑÁN NOGUERAS, Diego Javier. El Derecho Económico Internacional (II): El comercio Internacional, en DÍEZ DE VELASCO VALLEJO, Manuel, Instituciones de Derecho Internacional, 16ta Edición, Tecnos, Madrid, 2007, p. 634.
MARCEAU, Gabrielle. “Conflicts of Norms and Conflicts of Jurisdictions: The Relationship between the WTO Agreement and MEAs and Other Treaties”, Journal of World Trade Vol. 35, No. 6, 2001.
MARIÑO MENDEZ. Fernando. Derecho internacional público, Trotta Ed., 4ra ed., Madrid, 2005.
McRAE, Donald. The WTO in International Law: Tradition Continued or New Frontier? In: Journal of International Economic Law Vol. 3, No. 1, 2000, pp. 27-41.
MOORMAN, Yasmin. Integration of ILO Core Rights Labour Standards into the WTO, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law Vol. 39, No. 2, 2001, pp. 555–583.
MORGAN, David. Dispute Settlement under PTAs: Political or Legal?, Legal Studies Research Paper No. 341, University of Melbourne Law School, 2007, p. 253.
MUS, Jan B. Conflicts between Treaties in International Law, Netherlands International Law Review Vol 45, No 2, 1998, pp. 227-232.
OJADA DE KONING, Rodrigo. Solución de controversias conforme al artículo 2005 del TLCAN tras la Ronda Uruguay. Memoria del XIX Seminario Internacional de Derecho Internacional Privado y Comparado, Universidad de Guanajuato, 1998, p. 277.
OLIVEIRA, Barbara. The Relation between WTO Law and Public International Law: The applicable law in Dispute Settlement at the WTO, University College London LLM Programme, 2005, p. 9, disponible en: SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=903052
Pautas para la gasolina reformulada y convencional (WT/DS2/AB/R), adoptado el 29 de abril de 1996, p. 17.
PAUWELYN, Joost; SALLES, Luiz Eduardo. Forum Shopping before International Tribunals: (Real) Concerns, (Im) Possible Solutions, Cornell International Law Journal, Vol. 42, 2009.
PAUWELYN, Joost; SALLES, Luiz Eduardo. “Forum Shopping before International Tribunals, cit., nota, 17, pp. 102-104.
PAUWELYN, Joost, ‘Opening-up’ the WTO: What Does it Mean for China? en Duke Law Faculty Scholarship, Paper 1591, 2006, p. 7, disponible en: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1591
PAUWELYN, Joost. Adding Sweeteners to Softwood Lumber: the WTO–NAFTA ‘Spaghetti Bowl’ is Cooking. In: Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2006, p. 4.
PAUWELYN, Joost. Bridging Fragmentation and Unity: International Law as a Universe of Inter-connected islands. In: Michigan Journal of International Law Vol. 25, summer 2004, p. 904.
PAUWELYN, Joost. Choice of jurisdiction: WTO and regional dispute settlement mechanisms: Challenges, options and opportunities. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD): dialogue on the “Mexico Soft Drinks dispute: Implications for regionalism and for trade and sustainable development”, 2006, p. 6, disponible en: http://www.ictsd.org/dlogue/2006-05-30/dialogue_materials/Joost_Pauwelyn_speaker_notes.pdf
PAUWELYN, Joost. Going Global or Regional or Both, cit., nota 18, p. 231.
PAUWELYN, Joost. How Binding is WTO Rules? A Transatlantic Analysis of International Law, Duke Law Faculty Scholarship, Paper 1315 presented at the University of Tübingen, Conference on Changing Patterns of Authority in the Global Political Economy, 14-16 October 2004, p. 1, available at: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1315
PAUWELYN, Joost. The Role of International Law in the WTO – How Far can we go? In: American Journal of International Law, Vol. 95, No 3, 2001.
PETERSMANN, Ernst-Ulrich. Dispute Settlement in International Economic Law-Lessons for Strengthening International Dispute Settlement in Non- Economic Areas. In: Journal of International Economic Law Vol. 2, No. 2, 1999, pp. 189-248.
PTERSMANN, Ernst-Ulrich. The WTO Constitution and Human Rights, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 3, 2000, pp. 19-25.
PIÉROLA, Fernando; HORLICK, Gary. Dispute Settlement in the WTO and in ‘North-South’ Agreements of the Americas: Considerations for the Choice of Forum. Journal of World Trade, Vol. 41, No. 5, 2007.
RACHTMAN, Joel. Jurisdiction in WTO dispute settlement. En Yerxa, R. y Wilson, B. (Eds.): Key Issues in WTO Dispute Settlement: The First Ten Years, Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 138-139.
SHANY, Yuval, The Competing Jurisdictions of International Courts and Tribunals.
PAUWELYN, Joost. Going Global or Regional or Both? Dispute settlement in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and Overlaps with other Jurisdictions. Minnesota Journal of Global Trade, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2004, pp. 231-304.
SHANY, Yuval. The Competing Jurisdictions of International Courts and Tribunals, International Courts and Tribunals Series, Oxford University Press, 2004.
SINCLAIR, Ian McTaggart. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Manchester University Press, 2da. Ed, 1984, p. 98.
SREENIVASA RAO, Pemmaraju. Multiple International Judicial Forums: A Reflection of the Growing Strength of International Law or its Fragmentation? In: Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 25, 2004.
STEGERr, Debra. The Jurisdiction of the World Trade Organization. American Society of International Law Proceeding, Vol. 98, 2004, pp. 142-143.
TISTOUNET, Eric. The Problem of Overlapping among Different Treaty Bodies. en Alston, P. and Crawford, J. (eds.): The Future of UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring.
TOLE MARTÍNEZ, Julián. Solución de controversias en los TLC. Aportes del Derecho de la OMC, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Bogotá, 2014.
TRACHTMAN, Joel. Institutional linkages: Transcending ‘Trade and…’. In: The American Journal of International Law, Vol.96, No.1, 2002, p. 79.
TRACHTMAN, Joel. The Domain of WTO Dispute Resolution. Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 40, spring, 1999, pp. 342 a 349.
TREBILCOCK, Michael and OWSE, Robert. Regulation of International Trade. Routledge Edition, 3rd, 2005.
VON MEHREN, Taylor. Theory and Practice of Adjudicatory Authority in Private International Law: A Comparative Study of the Doctrine, Policies and Practices in Common- and Civil-Law Systems. Recueil des Cours / Collected Cours of the Hague Academic of International Law, Vol. 295, 2002.
WIERS, Jochem. Trade and Environment in the EC and the WTO, A Legal Analysis, Europe Law Publishing, Groningen, 2003.
WITKER, Jorge. Panorama general de solución de controversias en el comercio internacional contemporáneo. En WITKER, J. (Coord.): Resolución de controversias comerciales en América del Norte, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, México, 1997, p. 36.
YA QIN, Julia. Managing conflicts between rulings of WTO and RTA Tribunals: reflections on the Brazil-Tyres case. Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 09-24, Wayne State University Law School, October-2009, p. 37
ZAPATERO, Pablo, Derecho del Comercio Global, Madrid, Civitas, 2003, p. 381.
ZAPATERO, Pablo. Modern International Law and the Advent of Special Legal Systems. In: Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2005, p. 73.
GARCÍA, Ignacio Bercero. Dispute Settlement in European Union Free Trade Agreements: Lessons Learned?, en Bartels, L. and Ortino, F. (eds): Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO Legal System, Oxford University Press, New York, 2006., pp. 399-401.
BLACK, Henry; GARNER, Bryan. Black's Law Dictionary, 9th edition, West Publishing, 2009.
BLANC ALTEMIR, Antonio. “El Acuerdo de Asociación entre la Unión Europea y Chile: Algo más que un Tratado de Libre Comercio”, Anuario de Derecho Internacional de la Universidad de Navarra, Vol. XX, 2004, pp. 35-110.
BRACK, Duncan; Gray, Kevin. Multilateral Environmental Agreements and the WTO, Report of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2003.
BUSSE, Mathias. Trade, Environmental Regulations and the World Trade Organization: New Empirical Evidence. In: Journal of World Trade Vol. 38, No 2, 2004, pp. 285-306.
CÁMARA DE DIPUTADOS DE CHILE. Informe de la Comisión de Relaciones Exteriores. P. 43.
CARRILLO SALCEDO, Juan Antonio, “Reflections on the Existence of a Hierarchy of Norms in International Law”, European Journal of International Law Vol. 8, No. 4, 1997.
CHARNEY, Jonathan. “Is the International Law Threatened by Multiple International Tribunals?”, Recueil des Cours. Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, Tome 271, 1998, p. 129.
COMBACAU, Jean et SUR, Serge. Droit international public, Coll. Domat droit public, 8ème éd., Paris, Montchrestien, 2008, p. 26.
COMPA, Lance; DIAMOND, Stephen (eds.) Human Rights, Labour Rights, and International Trade, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1996.
CRUZ MIRAMONTES, Rodolfo. Las Relaciones Comerciales Multilaterales de México y el Tratado de Libre Comercio con la Unión Europea, Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México DF, 2003, p. 196.
DAVEY, William; SAPIR, André. The Soft Drinks Case: The WTO and Regional Agreements, World Trade Review, Vol. 8, Nº 1, 2009, p. 23.
DAVEY, William, Dispute Settlement in the WTO and RTAs: A Comment, en Bartels. L. y Ortino, F. (Eds.): Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO Legal System, Oxford University Press, New York, 2006, pp. 350-351.
DELPIANO LIRA, Cristián. La cláusula de exclusión de foros del Acuerdo de Asociación entre Chile y la Unión Europea en el mecanismo de solución de controversias de la OMC, Revista Chilena de Derecho, Vol. 33, No. 2, 2006, pp. 259 – 284.
DUPUY, Pierre-Marie, Droit international public, 9é éd., Éd. Dalloz, 2008, pp. 15-16.
FAWCETT, James (Ed.). Declining Jurisdiction in Private International Law, Oxford Monographs in Private International Law, 1995.
FERNÁNDEZ PONS, Xavier, La OMC y el Derecho Internacional. Un estudio sobre el sistema de solución de diferencias de la OMC y las normas secundarias del Derecho internacional general, Marcial Pons, Barcelona, 2006, pp. 156 y ss.
GANTZ, David. “Dispute Settlement under the NAFTA and the WTO: Choice of Forum Opportunities and Risks for the NAFTA Parties”, American University International Law Review Vol. 14, No. 4, 1999, p. 1101 y ss.
GRAEWERT, Tim. Conflicting Laws and Jurisdictions in the Dispute Settlement Process of Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO, Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, No. 1, 2008, p. 293-294.
Grupo de Estudio de la Comisión de Derecho Internacional. “Fragmentación del Derecho internacional: dificultades derivadas de la diversificación y expansión del Derecho internacional”, Naciones Unidas, Documento A/CN.4/L.682, 2006, Asamblea General, 58 período de sesiones, 13 de abril de 2006.
GUILLAUME, Gilbert. Advantages and Risks of Proliferation: A Blueprint for Action, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 2, 2004, pp. 300-303.
HENCKELS, Caroline. Overcoming Jurisdictional Isolationism at the WTO-FTA Nexus: A Potential Approach for the WTO, The European Journal of International Law, Vol. 19, No. 3, 2008.
HIGGINS, Rosalyn. A Babel of Judicial Voices? Ruminations from the Bench, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 55, 2006.
HUDEC, Robert. International Economic Law: The Political Theatre Dimension, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International economic Law, Vol. 17, No. 1, spring 1996, p. 9.
Informe del Grupo Especial del GATT (L/4687), en el asunto Comunidades Europeas - Programa de precios mínimos de importación, licencias y depósitos de garantía de determinadas frutas y hortalizas (BISD 25S/68/107), adoptado el 18 de octubre de 1978.
Informe del Grupo Especial del GATT (L/6309), en el asunto Japón - Comercio de semiconductores (BISD 35S/116-163), adoptado el 4 de mayo de 1988.
Informe del Grupo Especial del GATT, asunto Canadá Aplicación de la Ley sobre el examen de la inversión extranjera (IBDD 30S/151-182), adoptado el 7 de febrero de 1984.
Informe del Grupo Especial, en el asunto Brasil - Programa de financiación de las exportaciones para aeronaves (WT/DS46/R), adoptado el 14 de abril de 1999, párrafo 7.11.
Informe del Grupo Especial, en el asunto Comunidades Europeas - Medidas que afectan el comercio de embarcaciones comerciales (WT/DS301/R), adoptado el 3 de septiembre de 2003.
Informe del Grupo Especial, en el asunto Estados Unidos - Artículo 301 a 310 de la Ley de Comercio de 1974 (WT/DS152/R), adoptado el 22 de diciembre de 1999.
Informe del Grupo Especial, en el asunto Estados Unidos – Artículo 301 a 310 de la Ley de Comercio Exterior de 1974 (WT/DS152/R), adoptado el 22 de diciembre de 1999, párrafo 7.43.
Informe del Grupo Especial, en el asunto India - Medidas que afectan al sector del automóvil (WT/DS146/R), adoptado el 21 de diciembre de 2001, párrafo 7.66.
Informe del Grupo Especial, en el asunto India - Restricciones cuantitativas a la importación de productos agrícolas, textiles e industriales (WT/DS90/R), adoptado el 6 de abril de 1999.
Informe del Órgano de Apelación, en el asunto Comunidades Europeas - Derechos antidumping sobre la importación de ropa de cama de algodón originario de la India, párrafo 5 del artículo 21 (WT/DS141/AB/RW), adoptado 8 de abril de 2003, párrafos 78-100.
Informe del Órgano de Apelación, en el asunto el asunto Estados Unidos – Medidas antidumping definitivas sobre el acero inoxidable procedente de México, (WT/DS344/AB/R), adoptado el 30 de abril de 2008.
Informe del Órgano de Apelación, en el asunto Japón - Impuestos sobre las bebidas alcohólicas (WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R), adoptado el 4 de octubre de 1996.
Informe final del Panel del TLCAN, en el asunto Canadá - Requerimientos para el desembarco del salmón y del arenque de la costa del pacífico (CDA-89-1807-01), adoptado el 18 de octubre de 1989, párrafo 6.14
Informe final del Panel del TLCAN, en el asunto Estados Unidos - Regulación de la Langosta (USA 89-1807-01), adoptado el 25 de mayo 1990, párrafo 8.1.1.
Informe final del Panel del TLCAN, en el asunto Estados Unidos - Magnesio puro y aleación (USA-92-1904-03), adoptado el 16 de agosto de 1993, p. 9. International Court of Justice Reports of judgments, in the Certain Expenses of the United Nation, advisory opinions and orders, Advisory opinion of 20 July 1962, p. 168.
JACKSON, John H. The Jurisprudence of GATT & the WTO, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp. 125-129.
JACKSON, John H. The World Trading System, Law and Policy of International Economic Relations, 2da Ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA y London, 1997, p. 25 y ss.
JACKSON, John H., Sovereignty, the WTO, and changing fundamentals of International Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp. 176 y ss.
JENNINGS, Robert. “The Judiciary, International and National, and the Development of International Law”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly Vol. 45, No. 1, 1996.
KARAGIANNIS, Syméon. La Multiplication des Juridictions Internationales : Un Système Anarchique? Société Française pour le Droit International ed., 2003.
KESSIE, Edwini. “Enhancing Security and Predictability for Private Business Operators under the Dispute Settlement System of the WTO”, en Journal of World Trade, Vol. 34 N° 6, 2000, p. 1.
KUYPER, Pieter Jan. “The Law of GATT as Special Field of International Law”, Netherland Yearbook of International Law, Vol. XXV, 1994.
KUYPER, Pieter Jan. “The Law of GATT as Special Field of International Law, cit., nota 43, p. 251.
KWAK, Kyung ; MARCEAU, Gabrielle. Overlaps and Conflicts of Jurisdiction between the WTO and RTAs, en Bartels, L. y ORTINO, F. (Eds.): Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO Legal System, Oxford University Press, New York, 2006, pp. 465-524.
LEÓN STEFFENS, Avelino. La elección del foro en el Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte y los resultados de la Ronda Uruguay del GATT, en LÓPEZ AYLLÓN, Sergio, El futuro del Libre Comercio en el Continente Americano, análisis y perspectivas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, México, 1997, pp. 305 y ss.
LIÑÁN NOGUERAS, Diego Javier. El Derecho Económico Internacional (II): El comercio Internacional, en DÍEZ DE VELASCO VALLEJO, Manuel, Instituciones de Derecho Internacional, 16ta Edición, Tecnos, Madrid, 2007, p. 634.
MARCEAU, Gabrielle. “Conflicts of Norms and Conflicts of Jurisdictions: The Relationship between the WTO Agreement and MEAs and Other Treaties”, Journal of World Trade Vol. 35, No. 6, 2001.
MARIÑO MENDEZ. Fernando. Derecho internacional público, Trotta Ed., 4ra ed., Madrid, 2005.
McRAE, Donald. The WTO in International Law: Tradition Continued or New Frontier? In: Journal of International Economic Law Vol. 3, No. 1, 2000, pp. 27-41.
MOORMAN, Yasmin. Integration of ILO Core Rights Labour Standards into the WTO, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law Vol. 39, No. 2, 2001, pp. 555–583.
MORGAN, David. Dispute Settlement under PTAs: Political or Legal?, Legal Studies Research Paper No. 341, University of Melbourne Law School, 2007, p. 253.
MUS, Jan B. Conflicts between Treaties in International Law, Netherlands International Law Review Vol 45, No 2, 1998, pp. 227-232.
OJADA DE KONING, Rodrigo. Solución de controversias conforme al artículo 2005 del TLCAN tras la Ronda Uruguay. Memoria del XIX Seminario Internacional de Derecho Internacional Privado y Comparado, Universidad de Guanajuato, 1998, p. 277.
OLIVEIRA, Barbara. The Relation between WTO Law and Public International Law: The applicable law in Dispute Settlement at the WTO, University College London LLM Programme, 2005, p. 9, disponible en: SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=903052
Pautas para la gasolina reformulada y convencional (WT/DS2/AB/R), adoptado el 29 de abril de 1996, p. 17.
PAUWELYN, Joost; SALLES, Luiz Eduardo. Forum Shopping before International Tribunals: (Real) Concerns, (Im) Possible Solutions, Cornell International Law Journal, Vol. 42, 2009.
PAUWELYN, Joost; SALLES, Luiz Eduardo. “Forum Shopping before International Tribunals, cit., nota, 17, pp. 102-104.
PAUWELYN, Joost, ‘Opening-up’ the WTO: What Does it Mean for China? en Duke Law Faculty Scholarship, Paper 1591, 2006, p. 7, disponible en: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1591
PAUWELYN, Joost. Adding Sweeteners to Softwood Lumber: the WTO–NAFTA ‘Spaghetti Bowl’ is Cooking. In: Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2006, p. 4.
PAUWELYN, Joost. Bridging Fragmentation and Unity: International Law as a Universe of Inter-connected islands. In: Michigan Journal of International Law Vol. 25, summer 2004, p. 904.
PAUWELYN, Joost. Choice of jurisdiction: WTO and regional dispute settlement mechanisms: Challenges, options and opportunities. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD): dialogue on the “Mexico Soft Drinks dispute: Implications for regionalism and for trade and sustainable development”, 2006, p. 6, disponible en: http://www.ictsd.org/dlogue/2006-05-30/dialogue_materials/Joost_Pauwelyn_speaker_notes.pdf
PAUWELYN, Joost. Going Global or Regional or Both, cit., nota 18, p. 231.
PAUWELYN, Joost. How Binding is WTO Rules? A Transatlantic Analysis of International Law, Duke Law Faculty Scholarship, Paper 1315 presented at the University of Tübingen, Conference on Changing Patterns of Authority in the Global Political Economy, 14-16 October 2004, p. 1, available at: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1315
PAUWELYN, Joost. The Role of International Law in the WTO – How Far can we go? In: American Journal of International Law, Vol. 95, No 3, 2001.
PETERSMANN, Ernst-Ulrich. Dispute Settlement in International Economic Law-Lessons for Strengthening International Dispute Settlement in Non- Economic Areas. In: Journal of International Economic Law Vol. 2, No. 2, 1999, pp. 189-248.
PTERSMANN, Ernst-Ulrich. The WTO Constitution and Human Rights, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 3, 2000, pp. 19-25.
PIÉROLA, Fernando; HORLICK, Gary. Dispute Settlement in the WTO and in ‘North-South’ Agreements of the Americas: Considerations for the Choice of Forum. Journal of World Trade, Vol. 41, No. 5, 2007.
RACHTMAN, Joel. Jurisdiction in WTO dispute settlement. En Yerxa, R. y Wilson, B. (Eds.): Key Issues in WTO Dispute Settlement: The First Ten Years, Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 138-139.
SHANY, Yuval, The Competing Jurisdictions of International Courts and Tribunals.
PAUWELYN, Joost. Going Global or Regional or Both? Dispute settlement in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and Overlaps with other Jurisdictions. Minnesota Journal of Global Trade, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2004, pp. 231-304.
SHANY, Yuval. The Competing Jurisdictions of International Courts and Tribunals, International Courts and Tribunals Series, Oxford University Press, 2004.
SINCLAIR, Ian McTaggart. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Manchester University Press, 2da. Ed, 1984, p. 98.
SREENIVASA RAO, Pemmaraju. Multiple International Judicial Forums: A Reflection of the Growing Strength of International Law or its Fragmentation? In: Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 25, 2004.
STEGERr, Debra. The Jurisdiction of the World Trade Organization. American Society of International Law Proceeding, Vol. 98, 2004, pp. 142-143.
TISTOUNET, Eric. The Problem of Overlapping among Different Treaty Bodies. en Alston, P. and Crawford, J. (eds.): The Future of UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring.
TOLE MARTÍNEZ, Julián. Solución de controversias en los TLC. Aportes del Derecho de la OMC, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Bogotá, 2014.
TRACHTMAN, Joel. Institutional linkages: Transcending ‘Trade and…’. In: The American Journal of International Law, Vol.96, No.1, 2002, p. 79.
TRACHTMAN, Joel. The Domain of WTO Dispute Resolution. Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 40, spring, 1999, pp. 342 a 349.
TREBILCOCK, Michael and OWSE, Robert. Regulation of International Trade. Routledge Edition, 3rd, 2005.
VON MEHREN, Taylor. Theory and Practice of Adjudicatory Authority in Private International Law: A Comparative Study of the Doctrine, Policies and Practices in Common- and Civil-Law Systems. Recueil des Cours / Collected Cours of the Hague Academic of International Law, Vol. 295, 2002.
WIERS, Jochem. Trade and Environment in the EC and the WTO, A Legal Analysis, Europe Law Publishing, Groningen, 2003.
WITKER, Jorge. Panorama general de solución de controversias en el comercio internacional contemporáneo. En WITKER, J. (Coord.): Resolución de controversias comerciales en América del Norte, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, México, 1997, p. 36.
YA QIN, Julia. Managing conflicts between rulings of WTO and RTA Tribunals: reflections on the Brazil-Tyres case. Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 09-24, Wayne State University Law School, October-2009, p. 37
ZAPATERO, Pablo, Derecho del Comercio Global, Madrid, Civitas, 2003, p. 381.
ZAPATERO, Pablo. Modern International Law and the Advent of Special Legal Systems. In: Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2005, p. 73.