Global trade jurisprudence espouse a constitutional vision of world trade, and trend of laissez faire and promise for ever-blooming global village. But the ideals of distributive justice in WTO Dispute Settlement Systems dampened the spirits of less developed countries. The interpretative methodology and the judicious and normative acumen of the WTO adjudicators is often test-checked on the critique of the decisions of the Panels and Appellate Bodies of WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism, calling in question the legislative nobility of Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) and the executive earnestness of dispute settlement process. In settlement of trade disputes, two theories (1) “pragmatists” who argue for a “diplomatic” approach that stresses conciliation and problem-solving over legal precision, and (2) “legalists” or “rules-oriented” proponents who hold that legally binding rules will produce more certainty, predictability and fairness for all GATT/WTO member states, compete for dominance. This paper analyzes the operation of these theories in WTO dispute settlement process.

The emergence of World Trade Organization (WTO) kindled a new ray of hope of global trade jurisprudence—academicians espousing a constitutional vision of world trade, trade world trending a haven of laissez faire and politicians projecting a promising ever-blooming global village. No doubt, the constitutional caricature of global trade law is primarily built up on the text of the WTO Covered Agreements, but it is also buttressed exceedingly by precedence and norms that are generated through adjudication by the panels and the standing WTO Appellate Body. As a natural corollary, the interpretative methodology and the judicious and normative acumen of the WTO adjudicators is often test-checked on the critique of the decisions of the panels and Appellate Bodies of WTO dispute settlement mechanism, calling into question the legislative nobility of Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) and the executive earnestness of dispute settlement process. Considering the pace of dispute resolutions, both qualitatively and quantitatively, between the Pre and Post General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994, it should be acknowledged that the resolution resonance of disputes amongst the WTO member-states is appreciably remarkable, though seldom slips in the economic equanimity are disheartening.

Law Review Journal, World Trade Organization (WTO), Global trade jurisprudence, Constitutional vision of world trade, Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU).