Abstract
Judicial lawmaking in the GATT/WTO context has for some time drawn considerable attention. Some are inclined to show a sense of existentialist anxiety in view of the fact that legal practice does not neatly live up to the orthodox doctrinal order of things. Others see judicial lawmaking as (theoretically or practically) inevitable and tend to readily embrace it as a way of overcoming defunct political processes. Whatever its normative appraisal, as a matter of fact adjudicatory practice has developed some of trade law's cardinal norms. The rise and increasing sophistication of adjudication in the GATT/WTO context has also gone hand in hand with a surge of authority on the part of adjudicators and a larger overall detachment of the law from politico-legislative politics.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference136 articles.
1. GATT Panel Report, United States Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, L/6439, 7 November 1989, BISD 36S/345, para. 5.26.
2. Id., para. 121.
3. Id., paras 116, 117 & 121.
4. For suggestions that proportionality analysis would now already be required in the application of Art. XX, see, e.g., Meinhard Hilf, Power, Rules and Principles - Which Orientation for WTO/GATT Law?, 4 Journal of International Economic Law 111, 121 (2001); Trachtman (note 1).
5. Cf. Abi-Saab (note 90), 455 (suggesting that members readily exercise their right to express their views on reports).
Cited by
12 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献