On WTO law in the "conflict rules" - a relatively closed system, the WTO dispute settlement law applicable to the formation of

Keywords:: < > / Conflict rules / other international

Summary: The role of conflict rules is to decide which norms of international Law should prevail, but, "WTO Agreement>> itself does not include other WTO Law and international Law dealing with the relationship between the general conflict provisions, but not mechanical application of the <<Vienna Convention on the Law>> Article 30, and difficult conflict with the rules of public international Law applicable to space. DSU Article 3.2 and 19.2 do not constitute a conflict of rules, but as the WTO covered agreements, overly broad interpretation of a constraint or limitation. processing WTO law and other rules of international law, the conflict between the first 7.1,7.2,11 implicit in the DSU and 19.1 among the provisions from the rules of conflict can be inferred, WTO form a relatively closed system of dispute settlement law applies, thus excluding other entities the applicable rules of international law.



< > On WTO law and other international relations rarely involved, it does not contain explicit provisions with other international law that already exists between the general conflict provisions. Resulting in a number of relevant issues, which, if met WTO rules conflict with other rules of international law, international law can be applied in conflict rules, rules, and especially after such rules to resolve potential conflicts, WTO law, especially the <<the rules and procedures on dispute settlement understanding>> (DSU in There are no hidden some of the possible conflict to deal with such rules, if so, what the terms implied by such conflicts DSU rules, and these conflicts are ruled out other rules of international law in WTO dispute settlement in the application, etc. These issues studies in the WTO law has important theoretical and practical significance.

1, WTO law, one of the few clearly defined rules of conflict

The role of conflict rules is to decide which norms of international law (jus cogens norms in addition to reflecting the priority should apply if the rules of the lack of clear rules to guide the conflict will reduce legal certainty and predictability if the provisions of a treaty with another there is a conflict between the provisions of the treaty, on which of the provisions should prevail, <<Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties>> (hereinafter "Vienna Convention" Article 30 provides some guidance, which states involving the same pArties and same issues conflicts between treaties A major rule is: special adjustment of the treaty in conflict with specific provisions of other treaties (ie the terms of the conflict must be respected, [1] also said that if WTO law and other international law in the relationship between its specific provisions have been made, it must follow the rules dealing with such conflicts.

However, < > Its own conflict between international law and other rarely involved [2] it does not specify priority or it does not detract from the other pre-existing conventions or international agreements. [3] WTO law, WTO law and other clearly defined international the conflict between the terms or contain conflict rules generally are: the maintenance of international peace and security <<ChArter>> the GATT1994 Article 21.3 [4] and other intellectual property protection of the Convention on < > Section 2.2, [5] Some of the dispute settlement provisions, [6] regional trade arrangements [7] and < > Etc. [8]

In the WTO dispute settlement case in Argentina - Textiles and clothing can be used to describe a case of WTO law and other international conflicts in the relationship between the clear examples of the rules in this case, the Appellate Body examined the Panel concludes that the violation of GATT1994 Article 8 of a three per cent statistical tax, whether by means of Argentina and the International Monetary Fund (IMF signed a memorandum of understanding on the implementation of Argentina's alleged conflict of obligations to be exempt. Appellate Body assessed the IMF memorandum whether the conflict with the GATT rules, as well as in the case of a conflict which should be given priority. Appellate Body that Argentina did not prove its memorandum of understanding with the IMF requirements and GATT1994 irreconcilable conflict between [9] Even if there is a conflict, Appellate Body that, "" IMF and the WTO Agreement between the>>, < > Or <<on the consistency of the Declaration of>> that mandates ... ... to prove that a member of the party's obligations to the IMF should be given priority in GATT1994 obligations under Article 8 of the conclusions [10] The Appellate Body also considered that only the "WTO relationship with the IMF's declaration>> - form <

In short, WTO law and other international law if it made a clear relationship between the provisions of the WTO ruling institutions faced such conflicts, they can be "legal basis", according to the rules of conflict of guidelines applicable laws, the conflict has been solved, but, in fact, WTO law with other such clearly defined terms of the relationship between international law, one of the few.

Second, the conflict rules of international law in its application of space is difficult to have

Article 30 of the Vienna Convention matters involving the same parties of the treaty and the same conflict between the other main rule is: Under normal circumstances, the treaty later in time should be given priority in the previous treaty on the same matter, that after the law [12] However, article 30 of the Vienna Convention and the Treaty does not mention the conflict between the rules for another, that particular law, although this rule does not appear in the Vienna Convention, but in many cases, International Court of Justice has recognized the application of special rules and [13] So, in dealing with WTO law and other relations between international law, public international law rules of these conflicts has its application of space?

(A later law

After the law (lex posterior rule in the end apply to multilateral treaties, is a contentious issue, according to the Vienna Convention Article 30 (3, if all the parties was also previously a party to the treaty, while the previous treaties and have not been suspended or terminated only in line with its provisions within the treaty was applicable, therefore, when the two countries dispute the matter involving the same two parties to the treaty, efforts should be made to reconcile the application of these treaties : they are still valid, and cumulative application, but after the treaty should be given to the provisions of a number of priority if the two treaties there is a conflict, but the parties apparently want to or from the two parties to the treaty seems clear intent to terminate the earlier treaty , then Section 59 (a treaty to allow the first end, otherwise, continue to apply these treaties generally, and subject to the provisions in the post, while the previous provisions are suspended.

After the rules can be applied for WTO law and other international law to resolve the conflict between, some scholars believe that, in view of the WTO treaty itself does not provide a clear conflict rules, the rules on how to resolve conflict, we must look for in general international law, such as embodied in the Vienna Convention, Article 30 of the general international law. the terms of most conflicts, WTO treaty did not exclude the conflict rules of public international law, therefore, they must also apply to WTO rules, if the parties can not finalize the intent, the treaty must first be a conflict between the rules of Article 30 of the resort after the rules for other conflicts (such as the conflict between treaty and custom, this rule applies, therefore, the rules better than any previous phase was conflict of laws, which also applies to treaties and subsequent "mutual agreement" between the conflict, [14] in the original treaty and the mutual agreement between the parties, under section 30 (4 (a bar, was subject to the rules in the Treaty and by the original agreement between a country bound only by the original treaties with other countries bound, under section 30 (4 (b shall apply only to the original treaty, and each other Agreement does not apply. [15] Some scholars believe that after the law is "applicable rules of international law", WTO expert in the interpretation of treaties, such as < > Must be considered law. After the law not only in the case of conflict the provisions of the Treaty to use, but also the interpretation of treaties, as a rule applies to any interpretation of the treaty, to avoid conflicting interpretations. [16]

The scholars point of view is debatable. In dealing with WTO law and other aspects of the conflict between international law, after the law is no room for its application, first, DSU Article 3.2 does not mention article 30 of the Vienna Convention, because the Vienna Convention Article 30 is not the interpretation of treaty provisions, but rather to set rules for their application in some dispute settlement report, the panel and Appellate Body referred to the Vienna Convention, Article 30, but did not apply to it. [17] For example, in Europe ECOWAS - Poultry case, the expert pointed out that "after the last group of experts has been on the rules for tariff schedule carefully." [18] The Appellate Body also pointed out that there is no need to resort to the Vienna Convention Article 59 (1) or section 30 (3, because in that case, < > Text and on the transition to the WTO from GATT1947 legal arrangements to solve the <<No. 80 Schedule>> and <<oilseeds agreement>> between the relations. [19] In accordance with article 30 of the Vienna Convention, after method is better than the first method only the parties within the same application in a non-WTO members with a relationship between WTO members, only they are bound by applicable rules of international law other.

Second, the Vienna Convention, Article 30 does not solve if a WTO Member in the discharge of obligations to third countries or in the exercise of the rights granted to other treaties forced to deviate from WTO law, the legal issues which should be applied in the context of WTO, WTO legal rights or obligations can not give from the first set of treaty obligations or rights; in the WTO dispute settlement in non-WTO law may not exercise the privileges contained in non-WTO law or the performance of the obligations contained in, for violation of WTO France defended panel and Appellate Body has only limited powers, and only mentioned in WTO law or included in the case, they were allowed to apply non-WTO law in WTO dispute settlement, implementation of non-WTO law must not have rights or obligations, [20] because it will lead to a reduction or increase in the provisions of WTO agreements covering the rights and obligations as referred to or incorporated into WTO rules, non-WTO law, WTO law because they take effect at the same time, so there is no Article 30 applies to the space [21]

Finally, article 30 of the Vienna Convention should not apply to < > Object and purpose, because it is a package deal. Second, the application of Article 30 may lead to different results, on the one hand, depending on the date of accession to the WTO, on the other, depending on time after the treaty enters into force or By the date [22] The idea that time in the post-treaty will only change the WTO Agreement between the parties without affecting the rights of other parties point of view is not convincing, contrary to WTO law as a single undertaking concept. WTO members to only in accordance with < > Article 10 of the program can do so. [23]

Thus, in international law, has rules on the conflict between the rules after the application is limited. While those are institutionally involved in contact or attempt to promote the same goal of the treaty (ie form part of the same system conflicts and overlapping provisions, the role of law after the largest, however, when different systems of conflict between a treaty or overlap, which depend on the time after the issue between them can not be used to indicate the inherent priority. [24] In short, not mechanical application of article 30 of the Vienna Convention, the WTO treaty law and the relationship between non-WTO on, there is no follow-up of the relationship, there was no space after the applicable rules.

(Two special rules

Special law maxim originated in Roman law, it is an accepted maxim of legal interpretation of the rules of conflict and resolution techniques, although it is difficult to have a special law known as the specific content of the rule, however, the reason behind the rule is clear : For the most specific rule is to implement the intent of the parties, and consider the nature of the case. In this sense, it is an expression of consent. Therefore, the special law applicable to the attention of the parties point to the agreement and intent, especially for the settlement of treaty conflicts [25] the application of special laws, general rules can be effectively impaired, the International Court of Justice has been confirmed [26 ]

In the WTO dispute settlement, the Panel and Appellate Body occasionally with special rules to explain the WTO Agreement. [27] However, the panel and Appellate Body within the system only applies in particular in the WTO rules, that is covered by agreements within the two separate agreements or an agreement between the instrument [28] However, WTO system, the main internal conflict is resolved through the interpretation of treaties, in particular law only as a limited conflict resolution and support of interpretation and a last resort. However, WTO law and other conflict between international law, in particular, application of the law is doubtful, although some scholars claim special rules may apply to the WTO treaty and other treaties in the relationship between, for example, they believe, if the WTO as a special law, treaties and other treaties, such as multilateral environmental agreements in conflict, the multilateral environment agreements should prevail, because they constitute a special law, even if they are in time prior to the WTO Agreement, otherwise the panel and Appellate Body will never be able to apply to the multilateral environmental agreements, if it means increasing the obligations under the covered agreement or reduce the rights of the Group of Experts and the Appellate Body could apply the laws of these agreements, if they dispute the matter is relevant [29]

Some scholars believe that the application of special rules, the third party (a party member of the WTO, and not a party to multilateral environmental agreements can not claim a violation of WTO rules and multilateral environmental agreements to challenge trade measures in multilateral environmental agreements, the matters is clearly more specific than GATT, according to special rules, usually assume that two agreements give priority to more specific agreement, the agreement even more general time, in accordance with such provisions, when WTO members have signed a multilateral environmental agreement authorized the implementation of other members of its trade restrictions, WTO provisions should give way. Such an agreement signed by members of the WTO, can reasonably be deemed to have waived their objections to the legal rights of such trade restrictions. [ 30] Some scholars believe that, WTO members to the WTO treaty can be concluded new treaty affect these new treaties may only supplement or confirm the original rules, but they may also terminate or suspend the WTO rules, or with WTO rules conflict if they conflict with existing WTO rules, the new treaty rules can be superior to conflict with WTO rules, and vice versa. everything will depend on the general rules of conflict under international law, of course, only WTO members agreed that the new treaty was bound. is not a new party to the Treaty of WTO members' rights and obligations shall not be affected (no gain or loss on third-party treaty because of the provisions of the WTO treaty did not exclude each other on the general rules of international law changes, such as the special law, therefore, in large In most cases, must "rely on" the general rules of international law if the environmental rules and WTO rules (eg, GATT Article 3 and Article 20 conflict between the applicable rules of general international law to resolve the conflict, the conflict if applicable rules (such as special law) to determine the priority environmental rules, the Appellate Body has the responsibility does not apply in conflict with WTO rules. [31]

However, the particular law applies to regulate the relationship is often not clear international legal system is almost impossible, because in international law, a treaty to clearly define their previous, current and future relationship between all the treaties is relatively rare, to determine its relationship with other international law, more rare, although special rules are very suitable for a single treaty or a treaty of mutual relations between the rules of conflict resolution, such as the <<European Convention on Human Rights >> and the Protocol or the WTO under the jurisdiction of the treaty system. This is because in a treaty or a number of agreements within the same system, the logical relationship between two rules: one for the general rule, the other specific rules. [32] However, the particular application of the law is limited, it was not suitable to resolve their separate conflict between the normative order, such as trade law, maritime law, human rights law, environmental law, etc. that may exist between "dangerous conflict. "It is almost independent of the" normative power ", can not provide any criteria to determine whether a field of law is more important than the other areas of the law or the more special, more difficult to establish a priority [33] In addition, the special law is not a substantive rule of international law, may help to determine the rules in relation to which of the more general rule is special in determining the rules from different legal areas, such as environmental rules and the relationship between trade rules, in particular, France is difficult play its role. This problem has been in the EC - Hormones are made in the case of the Appellate Body that the precautionary principle does not override the clear provisions of the treaty, which the WTO is not binding, regardless of the principle in international environmental law at what position [34]

In short, despite the special rules in the WTO system to resolve conflicts between different rules within a limited role, however, in dealing with WTO law and other aspects of the conflict between international law, especially law is difficult to play its role, because this cross- system complex and confusing relationship between the conflict itself, it is difficult to determine which rules with a special method is special.

Three, DSU implied "conflict rules" of international law applicable to the exclusion of other

International law in WTO law and other conflict situations, which rule has priority, or that which must ultimately be applied? When there is a clear conflict rules exist, for example, <<Charter>> Article 103, [35] NAFTA Article 103 , [36] the easiest to answer this question, but, as mentioned earlier, in the WTO such a clear conflict of law rules of one of the few, however, can find some in the DSU and other WTO law dealing with the relationship between international law implied "conflict rules" and, in the WTO dispute settlement rules applicable to the results of these conflicts is excluded entities other rules of international law apply.

(A DSU Article 3.2 and 19.2 are not rules of conflict

DSU does not cover the WTO Agreement and other international law to make clear the relationship between direct provision, but some scholars still trying to some provisions of the DSU "mining" the useful rules of conflict, such as, DSU Article 3.2 and Article 19.2 In accordance with these terms, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB, panels and the Appellate Body's "proposal, decision or findings can not increase or decrease under the agreement covers the rights and obligations." The provision by these scholars WTO ruling that the agency is a limit the conflicts rules applicable law. Some scholars believe that the provisions of the WTO covered agreements with any other applicable law in the case of conflict between the rules is to ensure that the Agreement shall prevail to cover its results apply to "United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea" section 293 (1 is the same, [37] although it also believes that this provision is not a normal conflict rules, but this rule works in this indirect way rather than directly to determine the WTO dispute settlement in the applicable substantive law, it is an actual conflict to ensure that certain agreements the rules of "law" priority objective. The scholars also pointed out that under Article 3.2 and 19.2 "conflict rules" the WTO has been applied in many cases, although not mentioned in the sources of these provisions, for example, can be used to deal with the conflict rules covering agreements and customary international law, the potential of other international agreements conflicts [38] Once a WTO obligations has been identified, 3.2 and 19.2 will play in the conflict rules to exclude non-WTO rights and obligations applicable to the role. In addition, based on this "conflict rules" existence, and even do not have to invoke article 30 of the Vienna Convention, if the conflict in the WTO treaty within the applicable rules require at 3.2 and 19.2 of this idea was accepted, then [39]

However, DSU Article 3.2 and 19.2, while scholars have made a different interpretation of its view, DSU Article 3.2 and 19.2 was not intended to limit the applicable legal expert, but also is not covered by WTO agreements dealing with all past and future legal relationship. Instead, they deal with the WTO panel in the interpretation of WTO covered agreements must comply with the restrictions inherent in the exercise of interpretation of the judicial function, the expert group to clarify the provisions of WTO covered agreements, but they can not "increase or decrease the coverage rights under the Agreement and obligations. "Put another way, as the judiciary, the group can not create new rights and obligations of WTO members must agree to apply the law, and, on the functions of this expert group is extremely limited and prudent provisions . Even if no such provision, the Group will continue to be under general international law judicial functions inherent limitations. a general and international law, courts may not rule out in advance is requested in addition to those performed outside the law rules of international law prior to 1994 other legal or after a conflict between WTO rules and the case, WTO rules do not always prevail. DSU Article 3.2 and 19.2 of these provisions should not be interpreted as a group of experts, the Appellate Body and the DSB in applicable to non-WTO and other international law, always can not increase or decrease the WTO Agreement covers the rights and obligations clearly defined [40] of the judicial institutions and how to deal with the legal provisions of the legislature (that is, WTO members a far cry from how to deal with the law. The first 3.2 provisions, WTO judicial bodies, like any other judicial authorities, can not "change" WTO treaty, but this does not restrict WTO members to conclude or have concluded the impact of their mutual rights and obligations of the WTO and other treaties range [41]

In this regard, I believe, in 3.2 and 19.2 of this requirement, even a "not normal conflict rules" are far from it is simply not a conflict rule, it is only play in restricting the WTO the role of judicial activism ruling body only, rather than a WTO deal with the conflict between law and other rules of international law and fact, "to increase or decrease under the agreement covers the rights and obligations" of the ban should be interpreted as limiting the WTO ruling body clarify the provisions of the Agreement covers the rights and obligations shall not exceed the authority, or that is covered by the agreement as overly broad interpretation of a constraint or limitation in the WTO dispute settlement agreement in the application and interpretation of existing provisions covering the first 3.2 and 19.2 can be used to prevent the WTO ruling body to interpret the law ultra vires, so that WTO members to carefully constructed balance of rights and obligations of damage, so the first requirement of Article 3.2 and 19.2 "up" other rules of international law to refuse to apply the conflict rules of the "height" is a bit far-fetched. In addition, on the one hand that, DSU Article 3.2 and 19.2 of the Convention shall be interpreted as a clarification of existing WTO agreements covering requirement, the Panel, the Appellate Body and the DSB can not increase or decrease the WTO Agreement covers the rights and obligations, on the other hand believe that, WTO rulings can be applied to other international institutions, these non-WTO rules of international law can take precedence over WTO rules, thus changing the WTO members to cover the rights and obligations under the agreement, which is obviously self-contradictory, difficult to justify in any case, 3.2 and 19.2 of the regulations should not be interpreted as an exclusion of other applicable international law conflict rules.

Links to free download http://www.hi138.com

(B and 19.1 DSU Article 7.1,7.2,11 conflict rules

Some scholars believe that, WTO dispute settlement in the applicable law only covers agreements including the WTO, and WTO law and other international law to resolve the conflict between the source of a wide range of conflict rules and these rules of conflict can be found in three different places: the non-WTO treaty , WTO treaty itself, as well as general international law. DSU can not be interpreted as covering the WTO Agreement outside the exclusion of international law, can not be interpreted to include a covered WTO agreement is always subject to the terms of the general and automatic conflict. [42] WTO treaty The drafters could have inserted a similar <<Charter>> terms of Article 103 of the conflict, the provisions of the WTO treaty is superior to all past and future of international law, if the drafters hope that the WTO treaty is superior to all other laws, they do not to do so? For example, they will not < > Set a "without prejudice clause", but at the technical instruments to provide for the DSU? And, DSU, or any other provisions of the WTO rules do not exclude the expert handling and, as the case may be applicable to other rules of international law. WTO treaties and DSU no explicit reference to or confirmation of all other relevant rules of international law that may apply, whether they are before or after 1994 based on DSU in the broader context of international law creation and continued existence of this simple fact, such a reference, or that an automatic occurred, other rules of international law apply automatically unless the DSU or any other WTO rules have excluded them. [43] from DSU Article 7 paragraphs 1 and 2, clearly refers to the legal (ie, WTO covered agreements concluded by suggesting that all other laws which excluded, is wrong. On the contrary, Article 7.1 and 11 imply that the expert review of WTO complaints may be required to invoke and apply other rules of international law. DSU resort mentioned in the Agreement can not be understood as covering the exclusion of other legal . [44] Other scholars took the opposite position, it considers, under the DSU is not all laws can be applied by the WTO ruling and enforcement agencies, [45] so many specific references to the WTO dispute settlement as covered by the Agreement can be applicable law, if members of the party also hope that non-WTO law is applicable, will be very strange. [46]

I believe that dealing with WTO law and other potential conflicts between international law and conflict rules, in addition to the above mentioned one of the few provisions of WTO law and, in the DSU and 19.1 of the first 7.1,7.2,11 regulations also implies a conflict of rules, although DSU did not "applicable law" be clearly defined, however, DSU Article 7.1 of the Panel's terms of reference, and directed their "according to" parties to the dispute covered agreements cited the "relevant provisions of the" review of matters submitted to them. Article 7.2 provides expert obligation to "deal with the parties to refer any dispute covered by the relevant provisions of the Agreement." Article 11 is clear that expert "Responding to the matters under consideration to make an objective assessment, including ... ... the applicability of the relevant covered agreements, and consistency with the relevant covered agreements, the objective assessment", which can be described as "black and white" refers only to "the applicability of the relevant covered agreements." and "consistency with the relevant covered agreements, an objective assessment", so it can be understood as completely ruled out the applicability of international law and other international law, consistent with other objective assessment. Article 19.1 is also clear that if the panel or the Appellate Body, "concludes that a measure is inconsistent with a covered agreement", it shall recommend the members to bring the measure into conformity with the Agreement, where the point is still "a covered agreement." rather than other international law. these provisions from the "parties to the dispute in accordance with the agreement referenced covers 'relevant provisions' review" to "deal with the parties cited the relevant provisions of any covered agreement" last fall "assessment (or deemed consistency with the relevant covered agreements (or inconsistent ", so that a relatively closed system application of the law of WTO dispute settlement is formed.

In short, DSU and 19.1 in the first 7.1,7.2,11 provisions should be interpreted as a WTO law and other international law to avoid potential conflict between the rules of conflict implicit in the application of the law, they explicitly ruled out from other areas of the substantive rules of international law in WTO dispute settlement, as applicable, that is, in the WTO dispute settlement only applicable substantive law of the WTO covered agreements.

IV Conclusion

Conflict rules of international law's role is to decide which norms should prevail, but < > WTO itself does not include dealing with the relationship between law and other international conflicts in general terms in WTO law and international treaties between non-WTO relationship, there is no follow-up of the relationship, there was no problem after the law takes precedence, even if the In conflict situations, WTO Panel and Appellate Body can not be applicable to other international law for international law, WTO law and other conflict between the application of special rules is almost impossible, especially law independently of each other is not suitable to solve The normative order that may exist between "dangerous conflict." In other words, in dealing with WTO law and other aspects of the conflict between international law, international law is difficult to apply the rules of conflict of space in the WTO law, for handling between WTO law and other international relations, in addition to clearly defined terms of the conflict and, in the DSU can find some hidden "conflict rules." However, section 3.2 and 19.2 is not a conflict rule, it WTO ruling body only play a limited role of judicial activism only. processing WTO law and other rules of international law, the conflict between the first 7.1,7.2,11 implicit in the DSU and 19.1 of the provisions from the requirements can be inferred, WTO to form a relatively closed system of dispute resolution application of the law, and the application of the law system is mainly built up by the rules of the conflict.





Notes:
[1] For example, <<Convention on Biological Diversity>> Article 22: "This Convention shall not affect any State Party under any existing international agreements, the rights and obligations, unless the exercise of those rights and obligations would cause serious damage or threat to biological Diversity. "
[2] WTO rules within the system may exist between the different conflicts, however, when the WTO agreements, each covering two rules conflict, WTO treaty should prevail with a series of provisions, for example, "WTO Agreement> > As with any multilateral trade agreements (such as GATT, GATS, < > And of conflict between the DSU must be < > Annex 1A of the Agreement on Trade in Goods of the conflict between the other case, to another Annex 1A of the Agreement shall prevail.

[3] In contrast, the <<United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea>> 311 stipulates the Convention and other conventions and international agreements.

[4] GATT1994 Article 21.3 states: "Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted as: ... 3. To prevent a Party to fulfill its <<Charter>> under the maintenance of international peace and security obligations any action taken. "
[5] < > Article 2.2: "The first part of this Agreement to any provision of Part IV of the members may not depart from the <<>>,<< Paris Convention Berne Convention>>" Rome Convention>> and <<on integration Treaty on Intellectual Property circuit>> each other under the existing obligations. "
[6] < > Rule 11.3 provides: "Nothing in this Agreement shall not prejudice the members under other international agreements, including the right to invoke other international organizations or established under any international agreement or mediation the right dispute resolution mechanism."
[7] GATT1994 Article 25, GATS Article 5.

[8] The provisions of the Declaration, GATT1994 IMF rules take precedence over the rules, unless otherwise specified GATT1994 itself.

[9] See Argentina-Textiles and Apparel, WT/DS56/AB/R, para. 69.

[10] Id. , Para. 70.

[11] Id. , Paras. 69-74.

[12] See Vienna Convention, Article 30 (3, 30 (4 and 59.

[13] See Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, PCIJ (ser.A, No.2, pp.30-31, Chorzow Factory, PCIJ (ser.A, No.9, p.30, European Commission of the Danube, PCIJ (ser . B, No.14, p.23; Rights of Passage Case [1960] ICJ Rep., p.6.

[14] The so-called mutual agreement (inter se agreement, is a multilateral treaty between two or more parties (not in all treaties concluded between the parties between them to modify certain provisions of the treaty agreement .

[15] Joost Pauwelyn, The Role of Public International Law in the WTO: How Far Can We Go?, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 95, No. 3,2001, p. 545.

[16] Gabrielle Marceau, 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, p. 1095.

[17] See US-Section 110 (5Copyright Act, WT/DS160/R, para.6.41, Japan-Film, WT/DS44/R, para.10.65, EC-Poultry, WT/DS69/AB / R, para.79.

[18] See EC-Poultry, WT/DS69/R, para. 206.

[19] Id. , Para. 79.

[20] See EC-Hormones (US (Article 22.6-EC, WT/DS26/ARB, para.50.

[21] Wolfgang Weiss, Security and Predictability under WTO Law, World Trade Review, Vol. 2, Issue 2,2003, pp. 213-214.

[22] For example, A country signed in 1999 <<Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety>> and then joined the WTO, subject to WTO rules, while country B, as a founding member of WTO side, but to The Protocol shall prevail? or vice versa, for example, for country C, the one only joined in 1997 <<Convention on Climate Change>> the WTO members, the Convention takes precedence over WTO rules, while the country D, the In 1992 a "Convention on Climate Change>> the conclusion of the WTO members agreed to its side, subject to WTO rules? That it not absurd conclusion? See supra note [15], Joost Pauwelyn text.

[23] See supra note [21], Wolfgang Weiss text.

[24] See Report of the Study Group of the ILC, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, U. N. Doc. A / CN. 4 / L. 702,18 July 2006, paras. 25-26.

[25] See Paul Reuter, Introduction to the Law of Treaties, London: Kegan Paul International, 1995, pp. 132-133, Ian Sinclair, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (2nd.ed., Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984, pp.114-115.

[26] in the North Sea Continental Shelf case, the Court found that, "We fully understand that, in practice, by agreement, under specific circumstances or specific parties between impairment (general rules of international law." See North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v.Denmark and Federal Republic ofGermany v.Netherlands, ICJ Reports 1969, para.472. in the Continental Shelf (Tunisia / Libyan Arab Jamahiriya case, the Court noted that "the parties in the special agreement side to determine the law of the sea some of the specific development, no doubt is possible in certain circumstances, in their bilateral relations, these rules should be binding as a special law. "See Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia v.Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, ICJ Reports 1982, para.24.

[27] See Brazil-Aircraft, WT/DS46/R, para. 7.40, Turkey-Textiles, WT/DS34/R, para. 9.92, Indonesia-Autos, WT/DS54/R, WT/DS55/R, WT/DS59/R, WT/DS64/R, paras. 14.28-14.34.

[28] In the EC - Bananas case (c), the Appellate Body pointed out that the group of experts should review the special provisions for review prior to the general provisions. See EC-Bananas III, WT/DS27/AB/R, para. 204. United States - anti-dumping law (Japan expert case complaint is that the EC - Bananas case, the Appellate Body applied a special rule. See US-1916 Act (Japan, WT/DS162/R, para.6.269.

[29] Lorand Bartels, Applicable Law in WTO Dispute Settlement Proceedings, Journal of World Trade, Vol. 35, No. 3,2001, p. 500.

[30] See R. Hudec, GATT Legal Restraints on the Use of Trade Measures against Foreign Environmental Practices, in J. Bhagwati & R. Hudec, Fair Trade and Harmonization: Prerequisites for Free Trade?, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, Vol. 2,1996, p. 121.

[31] See supra note [15], Joost Pauwelyn text.

[32] See Anja Lindroos, Addressing Norm Conflicts in a Fragmented Legal System: The Doctrine of Lex Specialis, Nordic Journal of International Law, Vol. 74,2005, p. 41.

[33] Id. , Pp. 65-66.

[34] See EC-Hormones, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, paras. 123-125.

[35]<<联合国宪章>>第103条规定:"联合国会员国在本宪章下之义务与其依任何其他国际协定所负之义务有冲突时,其在本宪章下之义务应居优先."
[36]NAFTA第103条规定:"……2．如果本协定与其他协定不一致,本协定优先,除非另有规定."
[37]该条规定国际海洋法法庭适用"与本公约不抵触的其他国际法规则".

[38]比如,在欧共体－荷尔蒙案中,上诉机构认为,"预防原则并不优先于< >第5．1和5．2条的规定".See EC–Hormones,WT/DS26/AB/R,WT/DS48/AB/R,para．125．同样,在危地马拉－反倾销案中,专家组指出,在WTO范围内,被申诉方主张的国际公法习惯规则中的"无害的过错"是非法的.See Guatemala–Cement I,WT/DS60/R,paras．7．40－7．41．
[39]参见前注[29],Larand Bartels文.

[40]参见前注[15],Joost Pauwelyn文.

[41]Joost Pauwelyn,How to Win a World Trade Organization Dispute Based on Non－World Trade Organization Law?Questionsof Jurisdictions and Merits,Journal of World Trade,Vol． 37,No． 6,2003,p． 1003．
[42]参见前注[15],Joost Pauwelyn文.

[43]参见前注[15],Joost Pauwelyn文.

[44]See Lorand Bartels,supra note 29,pp． 499－519,David Palmeter＆Petros C． Mavroidis,The WTO Legal System:Sourcesof Law,American Journal of International Law,Vol． 92,No． 3,1998,p． 399.

[45]Gabrielle Marceau,A Call for Coherence in International Law–Praises for the Prohibition Against"Clinical Isolation"inWTO Dispute Settlement,Journal of World Trade,Vol． 33,No． 5,1999,p． 87,110．
[46]Joel P． Trachtman,The Domain of WTO Dispute Resolution,Harvard International Law Journal,Vol． 40,No． 2,1999,p． 342．

Links to free download http://www.hi138.com