International trade law principles and applications

MEAs and the WTO

"the Relationship between the Dispute-Settlement Mechanisms of MEAs and those of the WTO."

As awareness of the importance of the environment has become more widespread, nations have entered into agreements which are intended to protect and maintain the world's environment. These Multilateral Environmental Agreements, or MEAs, are international agreements in which a number of nations agree to certain environmental protections. Examples include agreements like the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, or the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). These MEA's sometimes involve international trade, and thus overlaps occurs between the MEA's and the organization designed to enforce international trade agreements, the WTO. While many MEA's have their own dispute resolution mechanisms, or the means by which member nations resolve disagreements over the MEA, there sometimes also exists an overlap between the dispute resolution mechanisms of the individual MEA and the regulations of the WTO. Alexandra Gonzalez-Calatayud and Gabrielle Marceau, in their paper "The Relationship between the Dispute Settlement Mechanism of MEAs and those of the WTO," discuss the possible conflicts as well as their recommendations for resolution.

The authors begin their analysis with a discussion of the nature of MEAs and the WTO, and how it is possible for their interests to overlap. The main difference between the two seems to be that the WTO has an organized system in place by which disputes can be settled and MEAs tend to have individual articles by which to settle disputes. While the authors appear to compare the two systems, throughout the article they are clearly pointing out the advantages of the WTO system over that of any MEA. Their discussion of the timing of the two settlement systems is a clear argument in favor of the WTO over an MEA, as the WTO's organization is clearly presented as more efficient. They also assert that the fact that international courts and other MEA mechanisms are not as reliable and consistent as the WTO's system.

But while the authors seem to support the idea that the WTO has a better system in place to settle disputes of an environmental concern, they do not limit themselves by claiming that the WTO has the "perfect" mechanism. The authors conclude their study by making some interesting suggestions to improve the mechanism of the WTO for settling disputes of this manner. Involving the secretariats of the MEAs, as well as environmental experts in the dispute settlement process is one way to ensure that environmental concerns do not play a secondary role in the process. In the few cases where the WTO should not be involved, the authors agree that the International Court of Justice is sometimes the better route to resolve a dispute. But when the WTO is the appropriate means of settling a dispute, the authors suggest that the use of Article 5 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) of the WTO regulations is the most efficient path to a settlement.