Andrew Mitchell, Challenges and Prospects for the WTO, (Cameron May, London, 2004), p. 4. z David Palmeter and Petros C. Mavroidis, Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Pradice and Procedure, (Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004), p. 3; Yasuhei Taniguchi, "The WTO'S tenth Anniversary', in Yasuhei Taniguchi, Alan Yanovich and Jan Bohanes (eds), The Wro in the Twenty-first Century: Dispute Settlement, Negotiations, and Regionalism in Asia, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007), pp. 8-9. 3 Marc L. Busch and Eric Reinhardt, 'The Evolution ofGATT/WTO Dispute Settlement', (2003), available at http://www.georgetown.edu/users/mlb66/TPR2003_Busch_Reinhardt.pdf. ° Ibid. Maria Marta, 'Evaluating the Effectiveness of the GATT Dispute Settlement System', (1992), 16(2) World Competition 81, p. 92.

6 Palmeter and Mavroidis, Dispute Settlement in the World 1'rade Organisation,: Practices and Procedure (Second edition, Kluwcr Law Intemational, 2004), p. 109. Prof Robert Howes, American law professor, submitted a brief during the EC - Sardine dispute. The AB declined to admit it, but retains discretion to accept such a brief. " United States-Irnport Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, panel report, WT/DS58/R, adopted on 15 May 1998, appellate body report, WT/DS138/AB/R, adopted on 12 October 1998 [hereinafter Appellate body report on US Shrimp]. 9 European Communities - Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, appellate body report, WT/DS135/AB/R, adopted on 12-03-2001 [hereinafter Appellate body report on EC Asbestos]. 10 The Members' opinions in the special session will be discussed in the coming section. " European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, panel report, WT/DS27/Ecu, adopted on 22 May 1997; appellate body report, WT/DS27/AB/R, adopted on 5 September 1997 [hereinafter EC Banana m]. 12 EC - Tariff Preferences, panel report, WT/DS246/R, adopted on 01-12-03; appellate body, WT/DS246/AB/R, adopted on 20 September 2004 [hereinafter EC Tariff Preferences]. '3 EC Sugar, EC - Export Subsidies on Sugar, panel report (complaint by Thailand, Brazil and Australia), WT/DS/283/R, WT/DS266/R, WT/DS265/R, 15 October 2004, appellate body report, WT/DS/283/AB/R, WT/DS266/AB/R, WT/DS265/AB/R, adopted on 28 April 2005 [hereinafter EC Sugarj. z EC - Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), panel report, WT/DS26/R, adopted on 18-08-1997, appellate body report, WT/DS48/AB/R-WT/DS26/AB/R, adopted on 16-01-1998 [hereinafter EC hormones. 15 United States - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 (Complaint by Japan), panel report WT/DS162/R, 29 May 2000, appellate body report, WT/DS162/A13/R, adopted on 28 August 2000 [hereinafter US Act 1916 complaint by Japan], United States - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 (Complaint by EC), panel report, WT/DS136/R, adopted on 31 March 2000 [hereinafter US Act 1916 Complaint by ECj.

16 Australia - Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, panel report, WT/DS18/R, adopted on 12 June 1998 [hereinafter Australia Salmons. David Evans and Celso De Tarso Pereira, 'Dsu Review: a view from the inside', in Rufus Yerxa and Bruce Wilson (eds), Key Issues in the Wro Dispute Settlement: the First Ten Years, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005), pp. 261-262. H Further detail in Jin Gu, 'China and the WTO Dispute Settlement Three Years On', (2005), available online at http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/iaps/GuJing%20paper.pdf and Whitney Debevoise, 'Access to Documents and Panel and Appellate Body Sessions: Practice and Suggestions for Greater Transparency', (1998), 32 The International Lawyer 817, p. 834, Minutes of Meeting, TN/DS/M/30, (23 June 2006), p. 2. Thomas A. Zimmermann, Negotiating the Review of the Wro Dispute Settlement Understanding, (Cameron May, London, 2006), pp. 176-182.

20 In the interim review process the panel prepares and distributes the first draft of its ruling to the parties for their comments before the final adoption of the mling of the panel. 21 Communication from Costa Rica, revision, TN/DS/W/12/Rev.l, (6 March 2003). 22 Communication from the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, TN/DS/W/25, (27 November 2002). z3 Communication from Jamaica, TN/DS/W/21, (10 October 2002), p. 3. z^ Communication from China, revision, TN/DS/W/51/Rev. 1, (13 March 2003), p. 2. z5 Communication from Jordan, TN/DS/W/43, (28 January 2003), pp. 4-5. 26 They proposed that "Article 17.4 should be amended by replacing it with the following: The parties to the dispute may appeal a panel report. Third parties in the panel proceedings, if they request, shall have a right to attend the proceedings and have an opportunity to be heard and to make written submissions to the Appellate Body. Their submissions shall also be given to the parties to the dispute and shall be reflected in the Appellate Body report." Communication from Kenya, TN/DS/W/42, (24 January 2003), p. 2. 27 Ibid.

Zs Minutes of meeting, TN/DS/M/4, (6 November 2002), pp. 1-8. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid,.

31 Victor Mosoti, 'Does Africa Need The WTO Dispute Settlement System?' in Gregory Shaffer, Victor Mosoti and Asif Qureshi, Towards A Development-Supportive Dispute Settlement System in the WTO, (ICTSD, 2003), pp. 73-74. 3z Julio Lacarte-Muro & Petina Gappah, 'Developing Countries and the WTO Legal and Dispute Settlement System: A View from the Bench', (2000), 3(3) Journal of International Economic Law 395, p. 395. 33 Ibid. 34 Beatrice Chaytor, 'Dispute Settlement under the GATT/WTO: The experience of Developing Nations', in James Cameron & Karen Campbell (eds), Dispute Resolution in the World Trade Organization, (London, Cameron May Ltd, 1998), p. 267.

35 Victor Mosoti, 'Does Africa Need The W ro Dispute Settlement System?' in Gregory Shaffer, Victor Mosoti and Asif Qureshi, Towards A Development-Supportive Dispute Settlement System in the Wro, (ICTSD, 2003), pP. 73-74. 36 Gregory Shaffer, 'How to Make the WTO Dispute Settlement System Work for Developing Countries', in Gregory Shaffer, Victor Mosoti, and Asif Qurcshi, Towards a Development-Supportive Dispute Settlement System in the WTO, (ICTSD, 2003), pp. 10-11. '� Icoti online document, African Countries and the WTO Dispute Settlement System, available online at http://www.icoh2009.co.za/unique/tra)ac/pdf/Afncan_Counmes and_the_WTO_Dispute_Setdement_ System.rtf Michael S. Matsebula, 'European Community's Subsidies on Sugar: Observations on African Participation as a Third Party in the Challenge at the WTO', in Trudi Hartzenberg (ed), WTO Dispute Settlement System: An African Perspective, (Cameron May, 2008), pp. 91-102. 3a Minutes of meeting, TN/DS/M/14, (20 April 2004), p. 16. 39 Proposal by Japan, TN/DS/W/22, (28 October 2002), p. 4. "' Gregory Shaffer, note 36, p. 11. 41 Calvin Manduna, 'Daring to Dispute: Are there shifting trends in African participation in W'ro dispute settlement?', Tralac Trade Brief No. 3, (2005), p. 5.

42 bid. °3 Gregory Shaffer, note 36. 44 Bryan Mercurio, 'The Australian contribution to the jurisprudence of the W ro dispute settlementprocess', (2003), available at http://www.gtcentrc.unsw.edu.au/news/docs/australia_WTO.pdf. 45 Ibid., p. 47. 4h Gavin Goh and Trudy Witbreuk, 'The WTO Dispute Settlement System', (2001), available at http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/disputcs/wto_disputes-papers-dispute_settlement.doc, p. 14. ^� EC - Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), panel report, WT/DS26/R, adopted on 18-08-1997, appellate body report, WT/DS48/AB/R-WT/DS26/AB/R, adopted on 16-01-1998 [hereinafter EC Hormones]. 48 Gavin Goh and Trudy Witbreuk, note 46, pp. 28-29. 4y United States - Subsidies on Upland Cotton, panel report, WT/DS267/R, adopted on 8 September 2004; appellate body report, WT/DS267/AB/R, adopted on 03 March 2005 [hereinafter US Cotton].

5" Ibid., pp. 261-265. 51 Oxfam, 'Dumping: the Beginning of the End? Implications of the Ruling in the Brazil/US Cotton Dispute', Oxfam Briefing Paper, August 2004, p. 2. 52 Ibid., p. 17. S3 Adam Gross, 'Can Sub-Saharan African Countries Defend their Trade and Development Interests Effectively in the WTO?', (2006), 18 European Journal of Development Research 368, pp. 374-375. 54 Ibid. S5 Ibid. Sfi Ibid., pp. 374-375. 57 Oxfam, note 51, p. 11. Sx Ibid. " Karen Halverson Cross, "King Cotton, developing countries and the 'peace clause": the W ro's US Cotton Subsidies decision", (2006), 9 (1) Journal of International Economic Law 1, p. 36.

so US Cotton, panel report, note 49, para. 1415. s� Adam Gross, note 53, p. 375. 62 Article 10 requests the panel merely to reflect on third parties' arguments. s3 Calvin Manduna, 'Daring to Dispute: Are there shifting trends in African participation in WTO dispute settlement?', Tralac Trade Brief No. 3, (2005), pp. 6-7; Hilton Zunckel, 'An African Awakening in US Upland Cotton: Lessons from LDCs', in Trudi Hartzenberg (ed), Wro Dispute Settlement: An African Perspective, (Cameron May, 2008), pp. 129-130. s° US Cotton, note 49. 6S Calvin Manduna, note 63, pp. 6-7. ss Minutes of Meeting, TN/DS/M/14, (20 April 2004), p. 4. s� Pornchai Danvivathana, 'Case Study on Thailand's Experience in the W ro Dispute Settlement System', (2006), ICTED paper, available online at http://www.ictsd.org/dlogue/2006-01-25/Pomchai.pdf, p. 12.

11 Unctad online document, World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement: Appellate Review, No. UNCTAD/E[-)M/Mtsc.232/Add.l7, (2003). Available online at http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/edmmisc 232add 17 - en. pdf#search =' Module%203. 2%20i n%20this%20Course%20deals%20with%20the%20panel%20 process%20of'/,,20the%20WTO%20dispute', p. 37. �y Julio Lacarte-Muro & Petina Gappah, note 32, p. 397; Henry S. Gao, 'Aggressive Legalism: The East Asian Experience and Lessons for China', in Henry Gao and Donald Lewis (eds), China's Participation in the W'ro, (Cameron May, London, 2005), p. 321. Calvin Manduna, note 63, p. 10. For example, India and Brazil are larger developing countries which invoke the AB more frequently than others. For Jamaican cases as third parties, see http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries e/jamaica_e.htm. �3 Minutes of meeting, TN/DS/M/5, (27 February 2003), p. 5. Ibid.

�s Chile has also effectively participated in the discussion on the reform of third party rights, in Minutes of Meeting, TN/DS/M/4, 6 November 2002, p. 3. �b Minutes of Meeting, TN/DS/M/1, (12 Junc 2002), p. 5. 77 Ibid., pp. 5-6. �A Communication from the European Communities, TN/DS/W/1, (13 March 2002), p. 6. �9 James Bacchus, 'Shining light on WTO dispute settlement system', (2004), available online at http://www.worldtradelaw.net/articlcs/bacchusopendoors.pdf; Gary P. Sampson, Tirade, Environment and the WTO: the Post Seattle Agenda, (Johns Hopkins University Press, Washington, 2000), pp. 116-117. ao Donald McRae, 'What is The Future of W ro Dispute Settlement?', (2004), 7(1) Journal of International Economic Law 3, p. 11; also David A. Deese, World Trade Politics: Power, Principles, and Leaderships, (Routledge, London, 2008), p. 175. R� Maki Tanakan, 'Bridging the Gap between Northern NGos and Southern Sovereigns in the Trade- Environment Debate: The Pursuit of Democratic Dispute Settlements in the WTO under the Rio Principles', (2003), 30 Ecology Law Quarterly 113, p. 149.

d= Proposal by Japan, note 39, p. 4. A similar view is held by the US; Communication from the United States, Further Contribution of the United States to the Improvement of the Dispute Settlement Understanding of the W'ro Related to Transparency - revised legal drafting, TN/DS/W/86, (21 April 2006). "3 The Malaysian view is presented in Minutes of Meeting, TN/DS/M/1, (12 June 2002), p. 15; India shares the same view, in Minutes of Meeting, TN/DS/M/4, (6 November 2002), p. 3. H4 Jackson argues that there is nothing on the horizon for an immediate solution to opening up the W rc dispute settlement system to the public: John H. Jackson, Sovereignty, the WTO and Changing Fnndamentals of International Law, (Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 119-121. 15 As was argued in a special session of the Dsu: "A primary objective of Chinese Taipei's proposal on transparency was to increase the access of third parties to relevant documentation and to increase generally their knowledge about the dispute settlement process. She said that Chinese Taipei would take into consideration the views expressed by participants when drafting its legal text for the consideration of the Special Session." Minutes of Meeting held in the Centre William Rappard, on 16-18 December 2002, TN/DS/M/7, (26 June 2003), p. 6. Hh Website, http://www.wto.org/wto/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/disp_settlement_cbt_e/c6s3p2_e.htm.

11 Communication from Costa Rica, Proposal by Costa Rica-Third Party Rights, TN/DS/W/12 (24 July 2002). 11 Comnunication from European Communities, TN/DS/W/1, (13 March 2002). I" I I . I I

89 Communication from Jamaica, TN/DS/W/21. (10 October 2002). 9° Communication from the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Pcnghu, Kinmen and Matsu, note 22, pp. 2-3. 91 Source, Some Ideas by Mexico, Diagnosis of the Problems Affecting the Dispute Settlement Mechanism, TN/DS/W/90, (16 July 2007), p. 37. ''2 Rule 27 of the Working Procedures of the Appellate Body. 93 Article 12.3 of the Dsu. 94 Article 4.11 of Dsu. 95 Appendix 3.3 of Dsu. 96 Circulation and Derestriction of the WTO documents (WT/L/452). The USA, the EC and the Advisory Centre publish their submissions in their websites. Australia, Canada and New Zealand may provide them upon request. 98 Article 12.6 and Appendix 3.6 of the Dsu. 99 Articles 12.7, 15 and Appendix 3 of the Dsu. 100 Articles 21.3 (c), 22.6, 25 of the Dsu. Rules 21, 22 and 28 of the Working Procedures of the Appellate Body. '�z Article 10.3 of Dsu. ��3 Article 4.11 of the Dsu. 104 IcoH online document, note 37, p. 5. 105 "Raise the standard of living, provide full employment and a high and ever increasing level of real income..." ICOH online document, note 37, p. 6. '°6 ICOH online document, note 37, pp. 6-7. Ibid.

'"8 EC Sligar, note 13. 109 Calvin Manduna, note 63, pp. 8-9. 110 EC Banana 1Il, note 11. 111 Calvin Manduna, note 63, pp. 8-9. 112 Isikeli Mataitoga, 'The World Trade Organisation [WTO] Dispute Settlement Mechanism: a Developing Country Perspective', available online at http://documents.ag.gov.fj/wtoDisputeRcsolution-mataitoga.pdf. 113 Stewart and Karpel, 'Review of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (Dsu)', (2000), 31 Law and Policy in International Business 593, available at http://www.law.georgctown.edu/journals/lpib/symp00/documcnts/ stewart.pdf. 114 Stewart and Karpel, note 113, and Christina L. Davis, "Do the WTO Rules Create a Level Playing Field: Lessons from the Experience of Pcru and Vietnam", in John S. Odell, Negotiating Trade: Developing Countries in the W'ro and N,1FT, (Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 225. This was exactly what Brazil did when it wanted to reduce the cost of making its case to the Dam, according to Shaffert, Ratton Sanchez and Rosenberg, 'The Trials of Winning at the WTO: What Lies Behind Brazil's Success', (2008), 41 Cornell International Law Journal 384, pp. 469-740.

"5 Gregory Shaffer, note 36, p. 50. "6 Jin Gu, 'China and the WTO Dispute Settlement Three Years On', (2005), available online at http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/iaps/GuJing%20paper.pdf. m EC Sugar, note 13. 118 Jin Gu, note 116, p. 28.

��9 Ibid., pp. 29-30, Julia Ya Qin, 'Chain, Indian, and the Law of the World Trade Organisation', (2008), 3(1) Asian Journal of Comparative Law 1, p. 26. 120 Jin Gu, note 116, p. 29-30. 121 Adam Gross, note 53. 122 Certain developing countries in East Asia, because of their character, would prefer to participate indirectly in the DSM, "Yet it is remarkable that Japan, despite its huge power and experience, chooses so often to come in as a third party. Hence, one might suppose that the character of East Asian countries is to become engaged in the DSS in this more indirect way." Jin Gu, note 116, p. 27. 123 More detail in Tamer Nagy Mahmoud, "The WTO Dispute Settlement System: an International Perspective', (2001), available online at http://www.sit-edu-geneva.ch/Tam.wto.htm. 124 EC Sugar, note 13. 125 EC Banana m, note 11. �zb Marc L. Busch & Eric Reinhardt, 'Three's a Crowd: Third Parties and W ro Dispute Settlement', (2006), available at http://www.georgetown.edu/users/mlb66/Third%20Parties%203January%202006.pdf. 127 Katrin Arend, 'Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the settlement of disputes (Dsu): Article 10', in Riidiger Wolfrum Peter-Tobias Stoll and Karen Kaiser, W1'o Institutions and Dispute Settlement, (Martinus Nijhoff, 2006), p. 374. �z8 Communication from the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, note 22, p. 2.

�z9 Minutes of Meeting, TN/DS/M/8, (30 June 2003), pp. 4-5. 130 Minutes of Meeting, TN/DS/M/7, (26 June 2003), p. 16. The majority of disputes involve more that two parties; see WTO.org for details of cases. Chi Carmody, 'Of Substantial Interest: Third Parties Under GATT', (1997), 18 Michigan Journal of International Law 615, p. 615, Muhammad Ijaz Latif, 'The WTO Dispute Settlement System: Analyses and Implication for Pakistan", (2007), 42 Journal of Asian and African Studies 447, p. 455. 133 Tamer Nagy Mahmoud, note 123. �3a EC- Tariff Preferences, panel report, annex A, note 12.

�35 Asif H. Qureshi, "Participation of Developing Countries in the W'ro Dispute Settlement System', (2003), 47(2) Journal of African Law 174. 136 Ibid., p. 194. �'� US Shrimp, note 8. 138 Maki Tanakan, note 81, p. 155. �39 It is worth noting that Japan is slightly different from the EU and the US in that it has participated most often as a third party. This can be explained by the far-eastern culture of indirect confrontation and has nothing to do with the procedural inequality and power imbalance facing developing countries in the Dam. �4� CIS Shrimy, note 8. �4� EC Sugar, note 13. �^z EC Banana 1lI, note 11. �43 ICOH online document, note 37, p. 2.

z Source: www.wto.org.

145ECBanana1Il, note 11. 146 Website, http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/analytic_index_e/_elsu_04_e.htm#futext357 .

tax EC Banana in, panel report, note 11, para. 7.8. 14" Ibid. �a9 The Banana ur dispute was a departure from the GATT practice, as third party rights were extended when there was an agreement between the disputing parties to grant third parties such extended rights. The panel in Banana ur extended the rights of third parties, with all the disputing parties agreeing with such an extension. Website, http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/analytic_index_e/dsu_04e.htm#fhtext357. 150 EEc - import Regime for Bananas, Gnr'r panel report, DS38/R, adopted on 11 June 1994, paras. 7-8-9. [hereinafter Banana it], and Nick Covelli, 'Public Intemational Law and Third Party Participation in WTO Panel', (1999), 33(2) Journal of World Trade 125, pp.130-135. 151 Ibid.

isz EC- Bananas III, panel report, note 11, para. 7.9. �s3 EC - Bananas nr, panel report, note 11, para. 7.8. �s° Mary E Footer, 'Developing Countries' Practice in the Matter of WTO Dispute Settlement', (2001), 35(1) Journal of World Trade 55, pp. 90-94. 155 About 18 WTO Members have participated as third parties. 156 EC- Trade Preferences, panel report, annex (A), note 12, para. 1. �s� Ibid., para. 3. " 158 Ibid., para. 4. isv Ibid., para. 5.

160 Ibid., para. 6. i Ibid., para. 7. 162 Ibid., para. 8. ; EC Sugar, complaint by Brazil, panel report, note 13, paras. 2.1-2.2. 3 Ibid., paras. 2.2-2.3.

165 Ibid., para. 2.6. '�� Ibid., paras. 2.7-2.8-2.9. 1(,7 The panel stated that its ruling was made "in light of the importance of trade in sugar for many third parties", EC: Sugar, complaint by Brazil, panel report, note 13, para. 2.5.

" Note by the Secretariat, Concerns Regarding Special and Differential Treatment Provisions in WTO Agreements and Decisions, WT/Comto/W/66 (16 February 2000), p.32. isv Argentina argued in this regard that "It was difficult to justify the current rules in the Dsu which restricted third parties to receiving only the first written submission of the parties and to attending a special session of the first substantive meeting". Minutes of Meeting, TN/DS/M/23, (26 May 2005), p. 2. 1711 This is dealt with while dealing with third party in the EC-Banana dispute, note 152. 171 Pierre Monnier, Working procedures: 'Recent Changes and Prospective Developments', in Dencho Georgiev and Kim Van Der Borght (eds), Refonn and development of the WTO dispute settlement system, (Cameron May, London, 2()06), p. 280. 172 It has been stated in the earlier working procedures of the AB that "any third party may file a written submission, stating its intention to participate as a third participant in the appeal and containing the grounds and legal arguments in support of its position, within 25 days after the date of the filing of the Notice of the Appeals". Working Procedures for Appellate Review, (Dated 28-2-1997), WT/AB/WP/3. 3 WTO Secretariat Publication, A Handbook on the WTO Dispute Settlement System, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004), pp. 65-66.

174 Peter Van Den Bossche, "The Making of the 'World Trade Court': the origins and development of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Origination", in Rufus Ycrxa and Bruce Wilson (eds), Key Issues in the WTo Dispute Settlement: the First Ten Years, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005), p. 71. 175 Article 1. 176 Article 24.1. 1. 177 Article 24.3. "R Article 24.2. "9 Article 24.4. 180 Article 24.4. 's' Rule 27.3. 182 Rule 28.1. 1. 183 Rule 16.1. 184 Rule 16.2.

185 Argentina - Safeguard Measures in Imports of Footwear, appellate body report, WT/DS121/AB, adopted on 12 December 1999, para. 6 [hereinafter Argentina FoodvearJ. r86 Ibid., para. 7. '"7 Ibid. 181 US - — Stj/c�Hfjff� Measures on Imports of Frozerr, Chilled and Frozen Lamb from New Zealand and Australia, appellate body report, WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS/178/AB/R/ adopted on 14-12-1999, para 9; [hereinafter US Lamb), Japan and Canada were passive observers. 189 Appelate body report on EC Asbestas, note 9, para. 4. In this case Japan and Nicaragua were allowed to participate as 'passive observers', Chile Price Band System and Safeguard Pleasures Relating to Certain Agriculture Products, appellate body report, WT/DS207/AB/R, adopted 23 Oct 2002, para. 6 [hereinafter Chile Price Banal. Nick Covelli, 'Member Intervention in World Trade Organisation Dispute Settlement Proceedings after the EC-Sardines: The Rules, Jurisprudence, and Controversy', (2003), 37(3) Journal of World Trade 673, p. 682. 192 NgOs' access to the DSM, is an evolving issue and is highly debatable; developing countries fear NGos are mostly based in developed countries and have not been very helpful for developing countries in terms of the WTO dispute settlement system. However, a more recent trend is developing since Ncos like Oxfam have shown support for developing countries and they could support developing countries to identify the inconsistent measures and help them to prepare and present the legal agreement, rebuttals and submission in the course of disputes. More detail on the debate over N(;o access to the W ro dispute settlement system in Marco Slotboom, A Comparison of WTO and EC Law: Do Different Objectives and Purposes Matter for Treaty Interpretation, (London, Cameron May, 2006), pp. 203-239; (footnotes continued on next page)

also Robert Howse, The WTO System: Law, Politics and Legitimacy: Law Politics and Legitimacy, (Catneron May, London, 2007); Michelle Ratton Sanchez, 'Brief observations on the mechanisms for NGO participation in the WTO', (2006), available online at http://socialsciences.scielo.org/sciclo.php?pid=SI806-64452006000100004& script=sci_arttcxt&tlng=en and Marco M. Slotboom, 'Participation of Ncos before the W'ro and EC tribunals: which court is the better friend?', (2006), 5(1) World Trade Review 69. r93 Mitsuo Matsushita, The World Trade Organizations Law, Practice and Policy, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003), p. 36. r9; Appellate body report on US Shrimp, note 8. 195 Mitsuo Matsushita, note 193, pp. 36-37. 196 Deborah Z. Cass, 'The Constitutionalization of Intemational Trade Law: Judicial Norm-Generation as the Engine of Constitutional Development in International Trade (2001), 12(1) Journal oflnternational Economic Law 29, p. 61. ��' United States-Imposition qf COImtert>ailil¡g Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bi.smuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom, appellate body report, WT/DS138/AB/R, adopted on 7 June 2000 [hereinafter US Carbon steel]. 198 Arthur E. Appleton, `Anucus Curiae Submission in the Carbon Steel Case', (2000), 3(4) Journal of International Economic Law 691, p. 694. 199 Ibid.

200 Mitsuo Matsushita, note 193, p. 37. 211 Geert A. Zonnekeyn, 'The Appellate Body's Communication on Amicus Curiae Briefs in the Asbestos Case. An Echtemach Procession?' (2001), 35(3) Journal of World Trade 553, p. 555. 2112 Ibid., pp. 555-556. z°3 US Carbon steel, note 197. zoa Christine Chinkin and Ruth Mackenzie, 'Intergovernmental Organizations as "Friends of The Court", in Laurence Boisson (cd), International Organization and International Dispute Settlement: Trendq and Prospects (USA, Transnational, 2002), p. 151. 1. 205 Gcert A. Zonnekeyn, note 201, p. 555. zoe Appelate body ECAsbestos, note 9.

z Christine Chinkin and Ruth Mackenzie, note 204, pp. 151-152. Nathalie Bemasconi-Osterwalder (ed), Environment and 1'rade: A Guide ro W7o Jurispn�dence, (Earthscan Publications, 2005), p. 325. To illustrate the broader dissatisfaction of Wro Members, Mexico argued that "Regarding external transparency, amicus mriae briefs had been submitted in just 9 per cent of all cases - 15 times - but in 13 of these cases, Members had expressed concerns at Dsts meetings". Minutes of Meeting, TN/DS/M/14, (20 April 2004), pp. 2-3. =°e In this case the old rule 24 was in function, which gives third participant rights to those who filed a written request within 25 days of the notice of the appeal. Zr'� As a result of these cases the AB has modified its working procedures to allow the participation of third parties as passive observers, which applies to working procedures for appellate review, WT/AB/WP/4, 1 May 2003. 2111 EC - Trade Desrription of Sardine, appellate body report, WT /DS231 / Al3/R, adopted on 26 September 2002, para. 18 [hereinafter EC Sardine]. 211 In this regard it has been argued that "Members could be tempted to view Etc Sardines as the high point of Appellate Body activism, which the Appellate Body will be advised not to repeat too quickly". C. L. Lim, 'The Amicus Brieflssue at the WTO', (2005), 4(1) Chinese Journal oflnternational Law 85, p.119. It has also been argued elsewhere that "Finally, and probably most importantly, in Sardines, the Appellate Body came back in style, as it were, not only accepting an amicus brief from a private individual (myself), but also making clear for the first time that its discretion extends to briefs submitted by W ro Members themselves". Robert Howsc, 'Membership and its Privileges: the WTO, Civil Society, and the Amicus Brief Controversy', (2003), 9(4) European Law Journal 496, pp. 506-507. 212 EC Sardine, note 210, paras.65-66.

m3 Ibid., para. 103. 214 Ibid., para. 111. 215 Ibid., para. 115. 216 US-Lead and Bismuth II, appellate body report, WT/1�5138/AB/R, adopted on 7 June 2000, para. 2601 [hereinafter US Lcad and Bismuth Ifl. 217 EC Sardine, note 210, para. 162. zt8 Ibid., para. 164. 219 Ibid., para. 165. zz° Ibid., para. 166. 221 Ibid.. para. 167.

222 Ibid., para. 169. 223 "We indicated earlier in this Report that we would return to the question whether Morocco's amirus curine brief assists us in this appeal when considering the issue of completing the legal analysis under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement and the GATT 1994. In the light of our decision not to complete the analysis by making findings on these provisions, we find that the legal arguments submitted by Morocco in its amicus curiae brief on Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement and on the Gn'r'r 1994 do not assist us in this appeal." EC- Trade Description of Sardine, appellate body, note 211, para. 314. zza Minutes of Meeting, WT/DsB/M/134, (29 January 2003), p. 15. 22S Ibid., pp. 11-21. zze Ibid.

227 Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, Vol. 6, number 33, released on 2 October 2002, and C. L. Lirn, note 212, pp. 115-116. zze Nick Covelli, note 191, p. 686. zzv James Smith, 'Inequality in international trade? Developing countries and institutional change in WTO dispute settlement', (2004), 11(3) Review of International Political Economy 542, p. 542. z3° Robert Howse, note 211, p. 509. 231 Minutes of Meeting, TN/DS/M/5, (27 February 2003), p. 3. 232 James Smith, note 229, p. 542.

z33 "I am not surprised about the considerable number of proposals that tend to enhance these rights. There are good reasons to increase third party rights ... Enhancing third party rights seems to be the appropriate answer." C. D. Ehlermann, 'Process ofClarification and improvement of the Dsu', in F. Ortino and E. U. Petersmann (eds), The W'ro Dispute Settlement System 1995-2003, (Kluwer Law International, Netherlands, 2004), p. 111. zsa In this regard it has been argued that "At the panel stage, third parties can make oral presentations and submit their views in writing, but they can do so only at the start of the process (Dsu Article 10 and Dsu Appendix 3, paragraph 6, in WTO, 1995). "Panelists typically hold two substantive meetings, each of which may involve multiple sessions. Third parties are allowed to submit their views and be present during only one session of the panel's first substantive meeting. During other sessions and the entire second meeting, where the disputants' rebuttals and panelists' questions are addressed, they have no right to participate or observe. In terms of documents, third parties receive only the submissions of the disputants to the first meeting, not subsequent rebuttals or written responses to questions. The level of access for third parties at the panel stage is thus quite restricted under rules negotiated by WTO governments in the Uruguay Round". James Smith, "Inequality in international trade? Developing countries and institutional change in WTO dispute settlement', (2004), 11(3) Review of International Political Economy 542, pp. 552-553.

235 In this regard, Costa Rica presented an amendment to Article 10.2 as follows "Any Member having a substantial interest in a matter before a panel and having notified its interest to the DSB within 10 days after the date of the establishment of the panel (referred to in this Understanding as a "third party") shall have an opportunity to be heard by the panel, to make written submissions to the panel and to be present and participate at all the substantive meetings of the panel with the parties to the dispute. These submissions shall also be given to the parties to the dispute and shall be reflected in the panel report. The panel shall endeavour to address in its findings the arguments and views expressed by third parties as related to the terms of reference of the panel." Communication from Costa Rica, revision, note 21, p. 2. The same proposal has also been adopted by the African Group, in Communication from Kenya, TN/DS/W/42, (24 January 2003), p. 2. 236 Antoniadis Antonis, 'Enhanced Third Party Rights in the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding', (2002), 29(3) Legal Issues ofEconomic Integration 285, and, Ng'ong'ola Clement, 'African Member States and the Negotiations on Dispute Settlement Reform in the Wro', Tralac Working Paper No. 11, (2006), available online at https://www.givengain.com/unique/tralac/pdf/20060202 ng'ong'olawp. pp. 18-19. 237 In this regard an amended proposal on Article 10.3 was made by Costa Rica, in Communication from Costa Rica, revision, note 21, p. 2. the EC, in Communication from the European Communities, TN/DS/W/1, (13 March 2002), p. 10, Chinese Taipei, in Communication from the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, revision, TN/DS/W/36, (22 January 2003), pp. 1-2. z3a Article 3.2 of the Dsu. z39 More detail can be found on the WTO official website at: http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/ analytic index e/dsu 01 e.htm#article 3 and Tania Voon, Cultural 1'roducts and the World Trade Organization, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007), pp. 123-125.

2411UnitedStates -Standards forReformulatedandConventionalGasoline(US -— Gd�/t�, Appellate Body Report, WT/DS/AB/R, adopted on 29 April 1997, p. 17 [hereinafter CIS Gasoline]; also, India - Patent, appellate body report, para. 46; and United States - Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (Drams) of One Megabyte or Above from Korea (L1S - Da,9nfs), panel report, WT/DS99/R, adopted on 29 January 1999, para. 6.13 [hereinafter US DRAMS]. 24i Nevertheless, both Articles 62 and 63 are very restrictively used. In this regard it has been argued that "despite the apparent wording of Article 63 according intervention as of right in the defined circumstances, the Court has still remained restrictive and unwilling in fact to allow it as of right". Christine Chinkin, "Intervention Before the International Court ofJustice", in Weiss, Friedl (eds), Improving WTO dispute Settlement system Procedures, (Cameron May, London, 2000), p. 112. 242 Article 63 clearly states that "1- Whenever the construction of a convention to which states other than those concerned in the case are parties is in question, the Registrar shall notify all such states forthwith, 2- Every state so notified has the right to intervene in the proceedings; but if it uses this right, the construction given by the judgment will be equally binding upon it". 243 This will be dealt with in more detail in the next section. z^� Christine Chinkin, note 241, pp. 126-130.

zas This case has interacted between two branches of international law, international trade and international law of the sea. This case has been seen by the WTO dispute settlement system as Chile-Measures affecting the Transit and Importing of Swordfish, request for consultation, WT/DS 193/1, 19 April 2000, panel has been established, Australia and New Zealand persevered third party right however, the case was settled before the panel ruling hence has been discontinued, and by ITLos as, Case concerninq the conservation and sustainable Exploitation qf Sworqfish in the South-Eastern Pacific Ocean (Chile- European Communities), order No. 3 (20 December 2000). Also Andrew Serdy, 'See You in Port: Australia and New Zealand as third party in the dispute between Chile and EC over Chile denial of port access to Spanish vessels fishing for sword fish on the high seas', (2002), 3 Melbourne Journal on international law 79, pp. 111-118. 246 Article 31 of the ITLOS Statutes available online at, www.itlos.org, more detail also in Andrew Serdy, note 245, pp. 108-118. A. O. Adede, 'Law of the Sea: The Scope of the Third-Party, Compulsory Procedures for Settlement of Disputes', The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 71, No. 2 (April 1977), pp. 305-311. za� Article 100 to 104 of the rules of the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea, available online at http://www.itlos.org/start2 en.html.

z^a However, there are examples where developing countries as third parties have organised themselves and chosen one to present their case during the course of a dispute as been discussed in Cotton and Sugar disputes. za9 In this regard the arbitrator means those who deal with level of compliance with adopted reports and the suspension of concessions as stated in Para 6 of Article 22: "...if the Member concerned objects to the level of suspension proposed, or claims that the principles and procedures set forth in paragraph 3 have not been followed where a complaining party has requested authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations pursuant to paragraph 3(b) or (c), the matter shall be referred to arbitration. Such arbitration shall be carried out by the original panel, if Members are available, or by an arbitrator appointed by the Director-General and shall be completed within 60 days after the date of expiry of the reasonable period of time. Concessions or other obligations shall not be suspended during the course of the arbitration". More detail online at http://www.wto.org/english/ res_e/booksp e/analytic_index_e/dsu_08; Peter Van Den Bossche, The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization: Text, Cases and Materials, (Cambridge University Press, Second Edition, 2008), pp. 305-306. zs° Special session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, TN/DS/9, (6 June 2003), p. 9.

2S1 Ibid. zsz Usually carried out by the original panellist, in Kara Lcitner and Simon Lester, 'WTO dispute settlement 1995-2007: a statistical analysis', (2008), 11(1) Journal oflntcrnational Economic Law 179, p. 188. z53 European Communities Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, recourse to arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the Dsu, WT/DS27/Aaa, adopted on 9 April 1999, para. 2.8 [hereinafter EC Banana in recourse to arbitration by EC�. 254 European Communities treasures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Horitiones), recourse to arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the Dsu, WT/DS26/AH., adopted on 12 July 1999, para. 7 [hereinafter EC Horiiioties recourse to arbitration by EC�. 255 Brazil- Export Financing Programme for Aircraft, recourse to arbitration by Brazil under Article 22.6 of the Dsu, WT /DS46/ ARB, adopted on 28 August 2000, paras. 2.4-2.5 [hereinafter Brazil Aircraft recourse to arbitration by Brazil].

='" Ibid, para. 2.6. 257 This view was expressed in the proposal made by Costa liica note 21, Jamaica note 23, Jordan note 25 and Taiwan note 238. 25" Nick Covelli, note 191, Antonis Antoniadis, note 236, Chi Carmody, 'Of Substantial Interest: Third Parties under GATT', (1999), 18 Michigan Journal of International Law 615, Ng'ong'ola Clement, note 236.

zs'' EC- Bananas lll, appellate body, note 11, para. 132. zb° Ibid, paras. 135-136. 261 Communication from Kenya, not 236, p. 2. 262 Ng'ong'ola Cletncnt, note 236, pp. 18-19. 263 Gavin Goh and Trudy Witbrcuk, The W ro Dispute Settlement System, 2001, available at http://www.dfat. gov.au/trade/negotiations/disputcs/wto_disputcs-papers-dispute_settlement.doc, p. 14, Ngangjoh N. Yenkong, 'Third Party Rights and the Concept of Legal Interest in World Trade Organization Dispute settlement: Extending Participatory Rights to Enforcement Rights', (2004), 38(5) Journal of World Trade 757, pp. 766-768. 264 More detail in section 5.

26' Ng'ong'ola, note 236, pp. 18-19. 2M, This could be added to Article 10.2 of the Dsu: "Any Member having a substantial interest in a matter before a panel and having notified its interests to the Dab within 10 days after the date of the establishment of the panel (referred to in this Understanding as a "third party")..." This is proposed in Communication from the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, revision, p. 1; by Costa Rica, in Communication from Costa Rica, Revision, note 21, p. 2; by China, Communication from China, TN/DS/W/51, (5 March 2003), p. 2; by Jordan in Communication from Jordan, note 25, p. 4; and by the EC in Communication from the European Communities, TN/DS/W/1, (13 March 2002), p. 8. 267 "Regarding third-party rights, she said that Colombia was supportive of the proposal by Jamaica. Colombia did not share the view that strengthening third-party rights would invariably delay the dispute settlement process. The rights of third parties should be not be decided by the parties to the dispute". In Minutes of Meeting, TN/DS/M/527, (February 2003), p. 11. l. zsa Communication from Jordan, note 25, p. 4. zsv E. Kessic, 'the "Early Harvest Negotiation" in 2003', in F. Ortino and E.U. Pctcrsmann (eds), the WTO Dispute settlement System 1995-2003, (Kluwe Law International, Netherland, 2004), p. 127. z'° A better system for third parties has been proposed by John P. Gaffney, 'Due Process in the World Trade Organization: The Need for Procedural Justice in the Dispute Settlement System", (1999), 14 American University International Law Review 1173, pp. 1212-1213. 271 "There are also some key differences between the Icj and Dsu of the WTO in the settlement of disputes. In the case of the Ic], third parties can intervene in the case before the court if they can convince the court that they have an interest of a legal nature that is likely to be affected by the decision. In practice, the Icj will rarely allow a third party intervention. On the other hand, Article 10 and Appendix 3 of the Dsu pennit third parties an opportunity to be heard and to make written submissions; they can also make oral submissions. For example, in the EC - Banana case there were six parties (including the European Commission (EC)), which represented 15 States and 20 third parties. The Appellate Body in the EC -Banana case clarified that a State could seek the establishment of a panel even if did not have a legal interest or could not show an actual trade impact. The interest in ensuring

tree international trade in goods and services, as well as the interest in clearly determining rights and obligations under the WTO Agreement, provide sufficient grounds to pursue WTO dispute settlement. However, the difference between the Icj and the Dsu in allowing third party intervention is a difference of a procedural nature and is otherwise justified by the specialized character of the legal regime to which the Dsu is organically linked". Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Rao, 'Multiple international judicial fomms: a reflection of the growing strength of international law or its fragmentation? in Symposium: Diversity or cacophony? New sources of norms in international law', (2004), 25(4) Michigan Journal of International Law 929, pp. 954-955. In this regard it has been argued that "third parties can intervene in the case before the court if they can convince the court that they have an interest of legal nature that is likely to be affected by the decision. In practice, the Icj will rarely allow a third party intervention." In Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Rao, note 271, p. 954. =�3 Case Concerning Land, Island and Mnritime Ir'rontier Dispute (El Salvador v Honduras; Nicaragua intervention) ICJ. Rep. 1992 92. 274 Rebecca Wallace, International Law (Fourth Edition, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2002), pp. 304-305; Malcolm Evans, Internntionnl Lnw (First Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003), pp. 577-578. 275 Rebecca Wallace, International Law (Fifth Edition, Sweet & Macwefl, London, 2005), pp. 332-333. 276 Communication from the delegation of Cote d'Ivoire on behalf of the African Group, TN/DS/W/92, (5 March 2008), p. 1.

277 Article 15.1 of the L)su. 278 Article 15.2 of the Dsu. 279 Article 15.3 of the Dsu. ="'t Communication from Costa Rica, revision, note 21, p. 2-3; Communication from the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Pcnghu, Kinmen and Matsu, revision, note 237, p. 2; Report by the Chairman, Ambassador, TN/DS/9, (6 June 2003), p. 6-7; Communication from the European Communities, TN/DS/W/38, (23 January 2003), p. 4. 281 Communication from the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu. Kinmen and Matsu, revision, note 237, p. 2.

2" More detail in Chi Cannody, note 132, and Mary Footer, 'Some Aspects of Third Party Intervention in GATT/WTO Disputc Settlement Proceedings', in Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann (eds), The G,'1"Iï/WH) Dispute Settlement System (London, Kluwer Law International, 1997). =n' In this regard it has been argued that "The primary aim of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism is to secure a 'positive solution to a dispute' for the parties to the dispute, at all stages. The participation of the third party should not be allowed to increase the complexity of the dispute process". Communication from the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, revision, note 237, p. 4. zRt This concern has been brought forward by the EC: "Another aspect of the Costa Rican submission which required further consideration was the proposal to allow third parties to present comments during the interim review stage. Since the parties to the dispute could negotiate a mutually agreed solution at this stage, it might not be prudent to allow third parties a right to comment on the interim review stage." Minutes of Meeting, TN/DS/M/4, (6 November 2002), p. 2. 2", "Which require that Panel procedures provide sufficient flexibility so as to ensure high quality reports and for the parties to prepare their submissions", EC Bananas Ill, panel report, note 11, para 5.17. 2"" Ibid.

287 Mary Footer, "Developing country practice in the Matter of Wro Dispute Settlement', (2001), 35(1) Journal of World Trade 55, p. 67. 2M8 Asif H. Qureshi, note 135, p. 197. zR� David Evans and Celso De Tarso Pereira, 'Dsu Rcview: a view from the inside', in Rufus Ycrxa and Bruce Wilson (eds), Key Issites in the WTO Dispute Settlement: the First Ten Years (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005), p. 262; Andrew D. Mitchell, 'A legal principle of special and differential treatment for W ro disputes', (2006), 5(3) World Trade Rcvicw 445, p. 461. * zy° Ann Weston and Valentina Delich, 'Settling disputes', in Diana Tussie (ed), Trade Negotiations in Latin America: Problems and Prospects (Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), p. 201. 291 Communication from Costa Rica, revision, note 21, p.3; also, in this regard, "The EC was supportive of the Costa Rican proposal to allow Members to participate as third parties during the Appellate Body stage, regardless of whether they participated in the panel proceedings. The issues on appcal nught have a direct relevance for a Member which wanted to participate as a third party in the Appellate Body proceedings." Minutes of Meeting, TN/DS/M/4, (6 November 2002), p. 2.

292 Communication from the delegation of Cote d'lvoire on behalf of the African Group, note 276, p. 1. zy3 Communication from Costa Rica, revision, note 21, p. 3. z''^ United States - Measure Affecting Imports of Wool Shirts and Blouses from India, panel report, WT/DS33/R, adopted on 6 January 1997 [hereinafter Panel report on US Wool Shirts and Blouses]. z95 James Smith, note 229, p. 553. z9fi Ibid., pp. 553-554.

297 Ibid., p. 561. 298 "This stipulation has created some difficulties for some Members in certain situations. Sometimes, panel reports come out with some findings or observations, which could not have been even remotely anticipated at the time the panel was being constituted. In the light of this some Members might want to become Third Parties at the appellate stage." S. Narayanan, "Dispute Settlement Undcrstanding of the W rt: need for improvement and clarification", Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, Working Paper no. 117, 2003, available online at http://www.icrier.org/pdf/wpll7.pdf, p. 48. z9'' Minutes of Meeting, TN/DS/M/23 (26 May 2005), p. 2.

aoo Minutes of Meeting, WT/DsB/M/134 (29 January 2003), p. 15. 301 James McCall Smith, `W'ro dispute settlement: the politics of procedure in Appellate Body rulings', (2003), 2(1) World Trade Review 65, p. 84. 3°2 S. Narayanan, "Dispute Settlement Understanding of the WTO: need for improvement and clarification", Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, Working Paper No. 117, 2003, available online at http://www.icrier.org/pdf/wpll7.pdf, p. 48; also, Ravindra Pratap, 'India and Dsu Reform Negotiation: A Critical Appraisal', in Koen Byttebicr and Kim Van der Borght (eds), WTO Obligations and Opportunities: Challenges of Implementation (Cameron May, London, 2007), pp. 382-383. 3u3 S. Narayanan, note 302, p. 48. 3°^ Discussion paper from the European Communities, Subject: Review of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (Dsu), Brussels, 21 October 1998, available online at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/law/intlaw/ ibuslaw/docs/wt-eu-dsrev.htm.

-1115 Allan Rasas, 'Joinder of Parties and Third Parties Intervention in W ro Dispute Settlement', in Friedl Weiss (ed), Improving WTO disputes Settlement system Procedures (Cameron May, London, 2000). sos Communication from Costa Rica, note 21, and Communication from Kenya, note 237, p. 2. 3°� Article 9.2 clearly states that "The single panel shall organize its examination and present its findings to the DSB in such a manner that the rights which the parties to the dispute would have enjoyed had separate panels examincd the complaints are in no way impaired"; World Trade Organisation, Dispute Settlement Reports (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Volume 5, 1998), p. 2154. 308 Elsewhere it has been argued by South Centre that "Third party participation in disputes shows that developing countries are aware that the dispute settlement system is more than just a mechanism for the main disputing parties to settle their differences. It demonstrates that they appreciate the systemic impact of dispute settlement reports. This is also reflected in the Dsu negotiations where some proposals are either based on, or aimed at enhancing, the broad reach of dispute settlement. The proposals on external transparency exemplify this." South Centre, 'The W ro dispute settlement system: issues to be considered in the Dsu negotiation', Trade Analysis No. SC/TADP/TA/DS/1, October 2005, p. 16. 3°y "Chinese Taipei was of the view that the extensive involvement of third parties in the dispute settlement process could compromise its basic function of the dispute settlement process, which was to secure a positive solution to the dispute between the parties. If panels and the Appellate were to reflect the arguments of third parties in their reports, it could delay the process and consequently undermine one of the basic tenets of the dispute settlement system." Minutes of Meeting, TN/DS/M/6, (31 March 2003), p. 6. "Costa Rica welcomed the clarification by Chinese Taipei, in relation to its comments with regard to third-party arguments being reflected in panel reports and the possibility of their being able to comment on the interim report. Costa Rica proposed that

these arguments, in addition to being included in the report, should also be taken into consideration by the panel, provided that they are limited to the terms of reference established by the parties to the dispute. A third party, he suggested, might contribute different arguments and points of view in relation to some of the points under discussion and the panel should take such arguments into consideration." Minutes of Meeting, TN/DS/M/6, (31 March 2003), p. 4, "Chile, however, had strong reservations against the proposal that would require panels and the Appellate Body to give due consideration to the arguments and opinions of third parties in their rulings. This would not only complicate their main task, but could also distract their attention from the main issues and arguments raised by the parties to the dispute. Besides, it was not certain that such a proposal would benefit small delegations who were already finding it difficult to prepare and submit arguments either as complainants or respondents. In all likelihood, this proposal would only benefit a few important Members. It would also not be appropriate to involve third parties in deciding the panel's timetable and working procedures." Minutes of Meeting, TN/DS/M/4, (6 November 2002), p. 3. 310 In this regard it has also been argued that "a complementary approach would be to press for an enhancement of third party rights in disputes, for example by giving third party arguments more weight in rulings. This would enhance the incentive for African countries to take third party statues in disputes, thus allowing them to benefit from the accompanying capacity building in a non-resource-intensive way". Amin Alavi, 'African Countries and WTO's Dispute settlement Mechanism', (2007), S(1) Development Policy Review 25, pp. 33-34. 311 United States - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 (compliant by Japan and EC), appellate body report, WT/DS136/AB/R, WT/DS162/AB/R, adopted on 28 August 2000, para. 144 [hereinafter Appellate body report on US Act of 1916].

3�z John P. Gaffney, 'Due Process in the World Trade Organization: The Need for Procedural Justice in the Dispute Settlement System" (1999), 14 American University International Law Review 1173, pp. 1212-1213. 3�3 United States - Subsidies on Upland Cotton, appellate body report, WT/DS267/AB/R, adopted on 3 March 2005, para. 214 [hereinafter Appellate body report on US Cotton]. 3�a Article 31 of the Statues of the Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, available online at http://www.itlos.org/. Unfortunately this is not concrete disputes in this respect.

Argentina - SafeguardMeasuresin ImportsofFootwear, appellate body report, WT/DS121/AB, adopted on 12 December 1999, para. 6 [hereinafter ArgentinaFootwear].

Australia -MeasuresAffecting Importation of Salmon, panel report, WT/DS18/R, adopted on 12 June 1998 [hereinafter Australia Salmon].

Brazil -Export FinancingProgramme for Aircraft, recourse to arbitration by Brazil under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS46/ARB, adopted on 28 August 2000, paras.2.4-2.5 [hereinafter Brazil Aircraft recourse to arbitration by Brazil].

Case ConcerningLand, IslandandMaritimeFrontierDispute (El Salvador v Honduras; Nicaragua intervention) I.C.J. Rep. 1992 92.

Case concerning the conservation and sustainableExploitationof Swordfish in the South-EasternPacificOcean (Chile-EuropeanCommunities), order No. 3 (20 December 2000).

Chile ―Measureseffecting theTransitand Importing of Swordfish, request for consultation, WT/DS193/1, 19 April 2000 [hereinafter Chile Swordfish].

ChilePrice BandSystem and SafeguardMeasuresRelatingto Certain AgricultureProducts, appellate body report, WT/DS207/AB/R, adopted 23 Oct 2002 [hereinafter Chile Price Band].

EC ― MeasuresConcerningMeatandMeatProducts (Hormones), panel report, WT/DS26/R, adopted on 18-08-1997, appellate body report, WT/DS48/AB/R-WT/DS26/AB/R, adopted on 16-01-1998 [hereinafter EC Hormones].

EC ― MeasuresConcerningMeatandMeat Products(Hormones), panel report, WT/DS26/R, adopted on 18-08-1997, appellate body report, WT/DS48/AB/R-WT/DS26/AB/R, adopted on 16-01-1998 [hereinafter EC Hormones].

EC - TariffPreferences, panel report, WT/DS246/R, adopted on 01-12-03; appellate body, WT/DS246/AB/R, adopted on 20 September 2004 [hereinafter EC Tariff Preferences].

EC-TradeDescriptionof Sardine, appellate body report, WT/DS231/AB/R, adopted on 26 September 2002, para. 18 [hereinafter EC Sardine].

ECSugar,EC -ExportSubsidies on Sugar,panelreport(complaintbyThailand,Braziland Australia), WT/DS/283/R, WT/DS266/R, WT/DS265/R, 15 October 2004, appellate body report, WT/DS/283/AB/R, WT/DS266/AB/R, WT/DS265/AB/R, adopted on 28 April 2005 [hereinafter EC Sugar].

EEC ―ImportRegime for Bananas, GATT panel report, DS38/R, adopted on 11 June 1994 [hereinafter Banana II].

EuropeanCommunities ― Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos- Containing Products, appellate body report, WT/DS135/AB/R, adopted on 12-03-2001 [hereinafter Appellate body report on EC Asbestos].

EuropeanCommunities -MeasuresConcerningMeatandMeat Products(Hormones), recourse to arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the Dsu, WT/DS26/AR, adopted on 12 July 1999 [hereinafter EC Hormones recourse to arbitration by EC].

EuropeanCommunities -Regimefor the Importation, Sale andDistributionofBananas, recourse to arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the Dsu, WT/DS27/ARB, adopted on 9 April 1999 [hereinafter EC Banana III recourse to arbitration by EC].

EuropeanCommunities ―Regimefor the Importation, Sale andDistributionofBananas, panel report, WT/DS27/ECU, adopted on 22 May 1997; appellate body report, WT/DS27/AB/R, adopted on 5 September 1997 [hereinafter EC Banana III].

UnitedStates ― Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 (ComplaintbyEC), panel report, WT/DS136/R, adopted on 31 March 2000 [hereinafter US Act 1916 Complaint by EC].

United States - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 (Complaintby Japan), panel report WT/DS162/R, 29 May 2000, appellate body report, WT/DS162/AB/R, adopted on 28 August 2000 [hereinafter US Act 1916 complaint by Japan].

UnitedStates -Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 (Complaint by Japan and EC), appellate body report, WT/DS136/AB/R, WT/DS162/AB/R, adopted on 28 August 2000, para. 144 [hereinafter Appellate body report on US Act of 1916].

UnitedStates - Anti-DumpingDutyonDynamic RandomAccessMemorySemiconductors (DRAMS) of OneMegabyteor Above fromKorea(US -DRAMS), panel report, WT/DS99/R, adopted on 29 January 1999, para. 6.13 [hereinafter US DRAMS].

United States ― Measure Affecting Imports ofWoolShirts andBlouses from India, panel report, WT/DS33/R, adopted on 6 January 1997 [hereinafter Panel report on US Wool Shirts and Blouses].

UnitedStates - Standards forReformulatedand Conventional Gasoline (US - Gasoline), Appellate Body Report, WT/DS/AB/R, adopted on 29 April 1997, p. 17 [hereinafter US Gasoline].

UnitedStates ― Subsidies on Upland Cotton, panel report, WT/DS267/R, adopted on 8 September 2004; appellate body report, WT/DS267/AB/R, adopted on 3 March 2005 [hereinafter US Cotton].

United States - ImportProhibitionof Certain Shrimp and ShrimpProducts, panel report, WT/DS58/R, adopted on 15 May 1998, appellate body report, WT/DS138/AB/R, adopted on 12 October 1998 [hereinafter Appellate body report on US Shrimp].

United States -Impositionof CountervailingDutieson CertainHot-Rolled LeadandBismuthCarbon SteelProductsOriginating in the UnitedKingdom, appellate body report, WT/DS138/AB/R, adopted on 7 June 2000 [hereinafter US Carbon steel].

US - SafeguardMeasuresonImportsofFrozen,Chilled andFrozenLamb fromNewZealand and Australia, appellate body report, WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS/178/AB/R, adopted on 14-12-1999, para. 9 [hereinafter US Lamb].

USLeadandBismuth II, appellate body report, WT/DS138/AB/R, adopted on 7 June 2000, para. 2601 [hereinafter US Lead and Bismuth II].

Chinese Taipei, in Communication from the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, revision, TN/DS/W/36, (22 January 2003).

Communication from Kenya, TN/DS/W/42, (24 January 2003).

Communication from China, revision, TN/DS/W/51/Rev.1, (13 March 2003).

Communication from China, TN/DS/W/51, (5 March 2003).

Communication from Costa Rica, Proposal by Costa Rica - Third Party Rights, TN/DS/W/12 (24 July 2002).

Communication from Costa Rica, revision, TN/DS/W/12/Rcv.1, (6 March 2003).

Communication from European Communities, TN/DS/W/1, (13 March 2002).

Communication from Jamaica, TN/DS/W/21, (10 October 2002).

Communication from Jordan, TN/DS/W/43, (28 January 2003).

Communication from Kenya, TN/DS/W/42, (24 January 2003).

Communication from the delegation of Côte d'lvoire on behalf of the African Group, TN/DS/W/92, (5 March 2008).

Communication from the European Communities, TN/DS/W/1, (13 March 2002).

Communication from the European Communities, TN/DS/W/38, (23 January 2003).

Communication from the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, TN/DS/W/25, (27 November 2002).

Contribution of the United States to the Improvement of the Dispute Settlement Understanding of the WTO Related to Transparency - revised legal drafting, TN/DS/W/86, (21 April 2006).

Minutes of Meeting held in the Centre William Rappard, on 16-18 December 2002, TN/DS/M/7, (26 June 2003).

Minutes of Meeting, TN/DS/M/1, (12 June 2002).

Minutes of Meeting, TN/DS/M/1, (12 June 2002).

Minutes of meeting, TN/DS/M/14, (20 April 2004).

Minutes of Meeting, TN/DS/M/23, (26 May 2005).

Minutes of Meeting, TN/DS/M/30, (23 June 2006).

Minutes of Meeting, TN/DS/M/4, (6 November 2002).

Minutes of Meeting, TN/DS/M/5, (27 February 2003).

Minutes of Meeting, TN/DS/M/6, (31 March 2003).

Minutes Of Meeting, TN/DS/M/7, (26 June 2003).

Minutes of Meeting, TN/DS/M/8, (30 June 2003).

Minutes of Meeting, WT/DSB/M/134, (29 January 2003).

Note by the Secretariat, Concerns Regarding Special and Differential Treatment Provisions in WTO Agreements and Decisions, WT/COMTD/W/66 (16 February 2000).

Oxfam, 'Dumping: the Beginning of the End? Implications of the Ruling in the Brazil/US Cotton Dispute', Oxfam Briefing Paper, August 2004.

Proposal by Japan, TN/DS/W/22, (28 October 2002).

Report by the Chairman, Ambassador, TN/DS/9, (6 June 2003).

Some Ideas by Mexico, Diagnosis of the Problems Affecting the Dispute Settlement Mechanism, TN/DS/W/90, (16 July 2007).

South Centre, 'The WTO dispute settlement system: issues to be considered in the Dsu negotiation', Trade Analysis No. SC/TADP/TA/DS/1, October 2005.

Special session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Report by the Chairman, TN/DS/9, (6 June 2003).

Working Procedures for Appellate Review, (WT/AB/WP/4, 1 May 2003).

World Trade Organisation, Dispute Settlement Reports, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Volume 5, 1998).

WTO Secretariat Publication, A Handbook on the WTO Dispute Settlement System, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004).

Bernasconi-Osterwalder, Nathalie (ed), Environment and Trade: A Guide to WTO Jurisprudence, (Earthscan Publications, 2005).

Boisson, Laurence (ed), International Organization and International Dispute Settlement: Trends and Prospects, (USA, Transnational, 2002).

Bossche, Peter Van Den, The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization: Text, Cases and Materials, (Cambridge University Press, Second Edition, 2008).

Byttebier, Koen and Van der Borght, Kim (eds), WTO Obligations and Opportunities: Challenges of Implementation, (Cameron May, London, 2007).

Cameron, James & Campbell, Karen (eds), Dispute Resolution in the World Trade Organization, (London, Cameron May Ltd, 1998).

Deese, David A., World Trade Politics: Power, Principles, and Leaderships, (Routledge, London, 2008).

Evans, Malcolm, International Law, (First Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003).

Gao, Henry and Lewis, Donald (eds), China's Participation in the WTO, (Cameron May, London, 2005).

Georgiev, Dencho and Van Der Borght, Kim (eds), Reform and development of the WTO dispute settlement system, (Cameron May, London, 2006).

Hartzenberg, Trudi (ed), WTO Dispute Settlement System: An African Perspective, (Cameron May, 2008).

Howse, Robert, The WTO System: Law, Politics and Legitimacy: Law Politics and Legitimacy, (Cameron May, London, 2007).

Jackson, John H., Sovereignty, the WO and Changing Fundamentals of International Law, (Cambridge University Press, 2006).

Kessie, E., 'the "Early Harvest Negotiation" in 2003', in F.Ortino and E.U. Petersmann (eds), the WTO Dispute settlement System 1995-2003, (Kluwe Law International, Netherland, 2004).

Matsushita, Mitsuo, The World Trade Organization Law, Practice and Policy, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003).

Mitchell, Andrew, Challenges and Prospects for the WTO, (Cameron May, London, 2004).

Odell, John S., Negotiating Trade: Developing Countries in the WTO and NAFT, (Cambridge University Press, 2006).

Ortino, F. and Petersmann, E. U. (eds), The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995-2003, (Kluwer Law International, Netherlands, 2004).

Palmeter, David and Mavroidis, Petros C., Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure, (Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004).

Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich (ed), The GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System, (London, Kluwer Law International, 1997).

Sampson, Gary P., Trade, Environment and the WTO: the Post Seattle Agenda, (Johns Hopkins University Press, Washington, 2000).

Slotboom, Marco, A Comparison of WTO and EC Law: Do Different Objectives and Purposes Matter for Treaty Interpretation, (London, Cameron May, 2006).

Taniguchi, Yasuhei , Yanovich, Alan and Bohanes, Jan (eds), The WTO in the Twenty-first Century: Dispute Settlement, Negotiations, and Regionalism in Asia, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007).

Voon, Tania, Cultural Products and the World Trade Organization, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007).

Wallace, Rebecca, International Law, (Fifth Edition, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2005).

Wallace, Rebecca, International Law, (Fourth Edition, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2002).

Weiss, Fried] (eds), Improving WTO dispute Settlement system Procedures, (Cameron May, London, 2000).

Weston, Ann and Delich, Valentina, 'Settling disputes', in Diana Tussie (ed), Trade Negotiations in Latin America: Problems and Prospects, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2003).

Wolfrum, Riidiger, Stoll, Peter-Tobias and Kaiser, Karen (eds), WTO Institutions and Dispute Settlement, (Martinus Nijhoff, 2006).

Yerxa, Rufus and Wilson, Bruce (eds), Key Issues in the WTO Dispute Settlement: the First Ten Years, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005). Zimmermann, Thomas A., Negotiating the Review of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, (Cameron May, London, 2006).

Adede, A. O., 'Law of the Sea: The Scope of the Third-Party, Compulsory Procedures for Settlement of Disputes', (1977), 71 (2) The American Journal of International Law 305.

Alavi, Amin, 'African Countries and WTO's Dispute settlement Mechanism', (2007), 5(1) Development Policy Review 25.

Antonis, Antoniadis, 'Enhanced Third Party Rights in the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding', (2002), 29(3) Legal Issues of Economic Integration 285.

Appleton, Arthur E., 'Amicus Curiae Submission in the Carbon Steel Case', (2000), 3(4) Journal of International Economic Law 691.

Arend, Katrin, 'Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the settlement of disputes (Dsu): Article 10', in Riidiger Wolfrum Peter-Tobias Stoll and Karen Kaiser, WTO Institutions and Dispute Settlement, (Martinus Nijhoff, 2006).

Bacchus, James, 'Shining light on WTO dispute settlement system', (2004), available online at http://www.worldtradelaw.net/articles/bacchusopendoors.pdf.

Busch, Marc L. & Reinhardt, Eric, Three's a Crowd: Third Parties and WTO Dispute Settlement', (2006), available at http://www.georgetown.edu/users/mlb66/Third%20Parties%20January% 202006.pdf.

Busch, Marc L. and Reinhardt, Eric, The Evolution of GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement', (2003), available at http://www.georgetown.edu/users/mlb66/TPR2003_Busch_Reinhardt.pdf.

Carmody, Chi, 'Of Substantial Interest: Third Parties under GATT', (1999), 18 Michigan Journal of International Law 615.

Cass, Deborah Z., 'The Constitutionalization of International Trade Law: Judicial Norm-Generation as the Engine of Constitutional Development in International Trade', (2001), 12(1) Journal of International Economic Law 29.

Chaytor, Beatrice, 'Dispute Settlement under the GATT/WTO: The experience of Developing Nations', in James Cameron & Karen Campbell (eds), Dispute Resolution in the World Trade Organization, (London, Cameron May Ltd, 1998).

Chinkin, Christine and Mackenzie, Ruth, 'Intergovernmental Organizations as "Friends of The Court'", in Laurence Boisson (ed), International Organization and International Dispute Settlement: Trends and Prospects (USA, Transnational, 2002).

Chinkin, Christine, "Intervention Before the International Court of Justice", in Weiss, Fricdl (ed), Improving WTO dispute Settlement system Procedures (Cameron May, London, 2000).

Clement, Ng'ong'ola, 'African Member States and the Negotiations on Dispute Settlement Reform in the WTO', Tralac Working Paper No. 11 (2006), available online at https://www.givengain.com/ unique/tralac/pdf/20060202_ng'ong'olawp11.pdf.

Covelli, Nick, 'Member Intervention in World Trade Organisation Dispute Settlement Proceedings after the EC-Sardines: The Rules, Jurisprudence, and Controversy' (2003), 37(3) Journal of World Trade 673.

Covelli, Nick, 'Public International Law and Third Party Participation in WTO Panel' (1999), 33(2) Journal of World Trade 125.

Cross, Karen Halverson, "King Cotton, developing countries and the 'peace clause': the WTO's US Cotton Subsidies decision", (2006), 9 (1) Journal of International Economic Law 1.

Danvivathana, Pornchai, 'Case Study on Thailand's Experience in the WTO Dispute Settlement System' (2006), ICTED paper, available online at http://www.ictsd.org/dlogue/2006-01-25/ Pornchai.pdf.

Davis, Christina L, "Do the WTO Rules Create a Level Playing Field: Lessons form the Experience of Peru and Vietnam", in John S. Odell, Negotiating Trade: Developing Countries in the WTO and NAFT (Cambridge University Press, 2006).

Debevoise, Whitney, 'Access to Documents and Panel and Appellate Body Sessions: Practice and Suggestions for Greater Transparency' (1998), 32 The International Lawyer 817.

Ehlermann, C. D., 'Process of Clarification and improvement of the Dsu', in F. Ortino and E. U. Petersmann (eds), The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995-2003 (Kluwer Law International, Netherlands, 2004).

Evans, David and Pereira, Celso De Tarso, 'Dsu Review: a view from the inside', in Rufus Yerxa and Bruce Wilson (eds), Key Issues in the WTO Dispute Settlement: the First Ten Years (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005).

Evans, David and Pereira, Celso De Tarso, 'Dsu Review: a view from the inside', in Rufus Yerxa and Bruce Wilson (eds), Key Issues in the WTO Dispute Settlement: the First Ten Years (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005).

Footer, Mary E, 'Developing Countries' Practice in the Matter of WTO Dispute Settlement' (2001), 35(1) Journal of World Trade 55.

Footer, Mary, 'Developing country practice in the Matter of WTO Dispute Settlement' (2001), 35(1) Journal of World Trade 55.

Footer, Mary, 'Some Aspects of Third Party Intervention in GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement Proceedings', in Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann (ed), The GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System (London, Kluwer Law International, 1997).

Gaffney, John P., 'Due Process in the World Trade Organization: The Need for Procedural Justice in the Dispute Settlement System' (1999), 14 American University International Law Review 1173.

Gao, Henry S., 'Aggressive Legalism: The East Asian Experience and Lessons for China', in Henry Gao and Donald Lewis (eds), China's Participation in the WTO (Cameron May, London, 2005).

Goh, Gavin and Witbreuk, Trudy, The WTO Dispute Settlement System, 2001, available at http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/disputes/wto_disputes-papers-dispute_settlement.doc.

Gross, Adam, 'Can Sub-Saharan African Countries Defend their Trade and Development Interests Effectively in the WTO?' (2006), 18 European Journal of Development Research 368.

Gu, Jin, 'China and the WTO Dispute Settlement Three Years On' (2005), available online at http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/iaps/GuJing%20paper.pdf.

Howse, Robert, 'Membership and its Privileges: the WTO, Civil Society, and the Amicus Brief Controversy' (2003), 9(4) European Law Journal 496.

Lacarte-Muro, Julio & Gappah, Petina, 'Developing Countries and the WTO Legal and Dispute Settlement System: A View from the Bench' (2000), 3(3) Journal of International Economic Law 395.

Latif, Muhammad Ijaz, 'The WTO Dispute Settlement System: Analyses and Implication for Pakistan' (2007), 42 Journal of Asian and African Studies 447.

Leitner, Kara and Lester, Simon, 'WTO dispute settlement 1995-2007: a statistical analysis' (2008), 11(1) Journal of International Economic Law 179.

Lim, C. L., 'The Amicus Brief Issue at the WTO', (2005), 4(1) Chinese Journal of International Law 85.

Mahmoud, Tamer Nagy, 'The WTO Dispute Settlement System: an International Perspective' (2001), available online at http://www.sit-edu-geneva.ch/Tam.wto.htm.

Manduna, Calvin, 'Daring to Dispute: Are there shifting trends in African participation in WTO dispute settlement?', Tralac Trade Brief No. 3 (2005).

Marta, Maria, 'Evaluating the Effectiveness of the GATT Dispute Settlement System' (1992), 16(2) World Competition 81.

Mataitoga, Isikeli, The World Trade Organisation [WTO] Dispute Settlement Mechanism: a Developing Country Perspective', available online at http://documents.ag.gov.fj/wto DisputeResolution-mataitoga.pdf.

Matsebula, Michael S., 'European Community's Subsidies on Sugar: Observations on African Participation as a Third Party in the Challenge at the WTO', in Trudi Hartzenberg (ed), WTO Dispute Settlement System: An African Perspective (Cameron May, 2008).

McRae, Donald, 'What is The Future of WTO Dispute Settlement?' (2004), 7(1) Journal of International Economic Law 3.

Mercurio, Bryan, 'The Australian contribution to the jurisprudence of the WTO dispute settlement process' (2003), available at http://www.gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/news/docs/australia_WTO.pdf.

Michelle Ratton Sanchez, 'Brief observations on the mechanisms for NGO participation in the WTO' (2006), available online at http://socialsciences.scielo.org/scielo.php?pid=S1806-64452006000 100004&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en.

Mitchell, Andrew D., 'A legal principle of special and differential treatment for WTO disputes' (2006), 5(3) World Trade Review 445.

Monnier, Pierre, Working procedures: 'Recent Changes and Prospective Developments', in Dencho Georgiev and Kirn Van Der Borght (eds), Reform and development of the WTO dispute settlement system (Cameron May, London, 2006).

Mosoti, Victor, 'Does Africa Need The WTO Dispute Settlement System?' in Gregory Shaffer, Victor Mosoti and Asif Qureshi, Towards A Development-Supportive Dispute Settlement System in the WTO (ICTSD, 2003).

Narayanan, S., 'Dispute Settlement Understanding of the WTO: need for improvement and clarification', Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, Working Paper No. 117, 2003, available online at http://www.icrier.org/pdf/wp117.pdf.

Pratap, Ravindra, 'India and Dsu Reform Negotiation: A Critical Appraisal', in Koen Byttebier and Kim Van der Borght (eds), WTO Obligations and Opportunities: Challenges of Implementation (Cameron May, London, 2007).

Qin, Julia Ya, 'Chain, Indian, and the Law of the World Trade Organisation' (2008), 3(1) Asian Journal of Comparative Law 1.

Qureshi, Asif H., 'Participation of Developing Countries in the WTO Dispute Settlement System' (2003), 47(2) Journal of African Law 174.

Rao, Pemmaraju Sreenivasa, 'Multiple international judicial forums: a reflection of the growing strength of international law or its fragmentation? in Symposium: Diversity or cacophony? New sources of norms in international law' (2004), 25(4) Michigan Journal of International Law 929.

Rasas, Allan, 'Joinder of Parties and Third Parties Intervention in WTO Dispute Settlement', in Friedl Weiss (ed), improving WTO dispute Settlement system Procedures (Cameron May, London, 2000).

Serdy, Andrew, 'See You in Port: Australia and New Zealand as third party in the dispute between Chile and EC over Chile denial of port access to Spanish vessels fishing for sword fish on the high seas' (2002), 3 Melbourne Journal on international law 79.

Shaffer, Gregory, 'How to Make the WTO Dispute Settlement System Work for Developing Countries', in Gregory Shaffer, Victor Mosoti, and Asif Qureshi (eds), Towards a Development-Supportive Dispute Settlement System in the WTO (ICTSD, 2003).

Shaffert, Sanchez, Ratton and Rosenberg, 'The Trials of Winning at the WTO: What Lies Behind Brazil's Success' (2008), 41 Cornell International Law Journal 384.

Slotboom, Marco M., 'Participation of NGOS before the WTO and EC tribunals: which court is the better friend?' (2006), 5(1) World Trade Review 69.

Smith, James McCall, 'WTO dispute settlement: the politics of procedure in Appellate Body rulings' (2003), 2(1) World Trade Review 65.

Smith, James, 'Inequality in international trade? Developing countries and institutional change in WTO dispute settlement' (2004), 11(3) Review of International Political Economy 542.

Smith, James, 'Inequality in international trade? Developing countries and institutional change in WTO dispute settlement' (2004), 11(3) Review of International Political Economy 542.

Stewart and Karpel, 'Review of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (Dsu)' (2000), 31 Law and Policy in International Business 593, available at http://www.law.georgetown.edu/journals/ lpib/svmp00/documents/stewart.pdf.

Tanakan, Maki, 'Bridging the Gap between Northern NGOS and Southern Sovereigns in the TradeEnvironment Debate: The Pursuit of Democratic Dispute Settlements in the WTO under the Rio Principles' (2003), 30 Ecology Law Quarterly 113.

Taniguchi, Yasuhei, 'The WTO's tenth Anniversary', in Yasuhei Taniguchi, Alan Yanovich and Jan Bohanes (eds), The WTO in the Twenty-first Century: Dispute Settlement, Negotiations, and Regionalism in Asia (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007).

Van Den Bossche, Peter, 'The Making of the 'World Trade Court': the origins and development of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization', in Rufus Yerxa and Bruce Wilson (eds), Key Issues in the WTO Dispute Settlement: the First Ten Years (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005).

Yenkong, Ngangjoh N., 'Third Party Rights and the Concept of Legal Interest in World Trade Organization Dispute settlement: Extending Participatory Rights to Enforcement Rights' (2004), 38(5) Journal of World Trade 757.

Zonnekeyn, Geert A., The Appellate Body's Communication on Amicus Curiae Briefs in the Asbestos Case. An Echternach Procession?' (2001), 35(3) Journal of World Trade 553.

Zunckel, Milton, 'An African Awakening in US Upland Cotton: Lessons from LDCS', in Trudi Hartzenberg (ed), WTO Dispute Settlement: An African Perspective (Cameron May, 2008).

Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, Vol. 6, number 33, released on 2 October 2002.

Discussion paper from the European Communities, Subject: Review of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (Dsu), Brussels, 21 October 1998, available online at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/ fass/law/intlaw/ibuslaw/docs/wt-eu-dsrev.htm.

Website http://www.itlos.org/.

http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/analytic_index_e/dsu_04_e.htm#fntext357.

ICOH online document, African Countries and the WTO Dispute Settlement System, available online at http://www.icoh2009.co.za/unique/tralac/pdf/African_Countries_and_the_WTO_Dispute_ Settlement_System.rtf.

Unctad online document, World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement: Appellate Review, No. UNCTAD/EDM/Misc.232/Add.17 (2003), available online at http://www.unctad.org/ en/docs/edmmisc232add17_en.pdf#search='Module%203.2%20in%20this%20Course%20deals %20with%20the%20panel%20process%20of%20the%20WTO%20dispute'.

Website http://www.wto.org/wto/english/tratop ̲e/dispu_e/disp_settlement_cbt_e/c6s3p2_e.htm.

Website http://www.wto.org/english/res ̲e/booksp_e/analytic_index ̲e/ ̲dsu ̲04 ̲e.htm#fntext.357. Website www.wto.org.