Abstract
In the process of establishing a multilateral rule system, WTO (World Trade Organization) has always been an irreplaceable role, which can promote global economic development and provide a platform for resolving disputes. Nowadays, global economic and trade governance is multi-polar, and traditional governance rules are not enough to maintain the world economic order. There is an international recognition that the WTO is anachronistic and in need of reform. China, one of the world 's largest trading countries, for the sake of acclimatizing itself to the new changes in the global economic environment and respond to challenges as soon as possible, China must firmly safeguard the authority and effectiveness of the multilateral trading regime with the WTO as the core, and propel the recovery of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism actively. This paper mainly studies that the current WTO dispute settlement mechanism cannot play an effective role and therefore needs to be reformed. It also analyzes the crises and challenges that China faces in the new era, and gives suggestions for the crises and challenges. Finally, it calls for the current approach to dispute resolution to be through cooperation rather than conflict.
Publisher
Darcy & Roy Press Co. Ltd.
Reference12 articles.
1. Caporal, J., & Gerstel, D. (2018). WTO Reform: The Beginning of the End or the End of the Beginning. Center for Strategic & International Studies, October, 23.
2. Smith, J. (2004). Inequality in international trade? Developing countries and institutional change in WTO dispute settlement. Review of International Political Economy, 11(3): 561.
3. Condon, B. J. (2018). Captain America and the Tarnishing of the Crown: The Feud between the WTO Appellate Body and the USA. Journal of World Trade, 52(4): 556.
4. Hoekman, B., & Mavroidis, P. C. (2021). WTO Reform: Back to the Past to Build for the Future. Global Policy, 12: 10.
5. Bown, C. P., & Hillman, J. A. (2019). WTO'ing a Resolution to the China Subsidy Problem. Journal of International Economic Law, 22(4): 565.