Symposium Posts

The introduction of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 was considered a historic milestone for the rules-based trade order instituted in the aftermath of World War II. In particular, the Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM), a rules-based dispute settlement system designed to ensure fair resolution of trade disputes among WTO members, was hailed as a "crown jewel" of the new system. Although not devoid of criticism, the two-tier system of the DSM had a relatively excellent start to life. Considered one of the most active international dispute mechanisms, especially since the turn of the millennium, the DSM has handled 621 disputes brought to the organisation, with over 350 rulings issued since its inception in 1995. However, the system's success has waned in recent years, effectively "grinding to a halt" with the U.S. spearheading its sabotage. Although the US was a major architect for its introduction in 1995, it opposed the appointment of new Appellate Body members, through successive US administrations and there are now no Appellate Body members since 2019. The demise of the Appellate Body created an impasse in the WTO that is yet to be resolved despite several efforts from WTO members. A primary criticism of the current system by the U.S. is that the Appellate Body has overstepped its limits and created new rules not envisaged by the WTO, an approach that the U.S. maintains does not support its interests. In this analysis, we argue that the proposed reforms to the WTO's DSM by the U.S. are self-serving, aligning with a consistent pattern of hegemonic powers shifting the goalposts and changing the rules when they face adverse consequences—the "bite"—of a regime they erstwhile championed.

Dispute settlement at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is in urgent need of reform. For nearly two decades, the USA had accused the Appellate Body of judicial overreach and action against the institution escalated under both the Obama and Trump administrations. In November 2022, the quasi-judicial system that has long been referred to as the ‘jewel in the crown’ of the WTO lost its appellate function as the term of its final Member, Dr Hong Zhao, expired. With the US refusal to reappoint members to the Appellate Body, the WTO’s dispute settlement system has been slowly asphyxiated. The WTO’s two-tier dispute settlement system was designed to ensure that Members had access to transparent, independent and timely decision-making.

The Centre for International Legal Studies of Jindal Global Law School and Kabarak University Press, in association with the African Society for International Law (AfSIL) commenced the two-part panel series around the 2023 climate change advisory opinion requests over a virtual conference held on 13 June 2023. The conversation took place between convenors Professor Rashmi Raman and Humphrey Sipalla, moderator Isabelle Rouche, and an expert panel comprising professor of international law at the University of Geneva, Makane Moïse Mbengue, Kenyan lawyer and professor of public international law at Queen Mary University of London, Phoebe Okowa, former member of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (“ITLOS”) and professor at Jindal Global Law School, Gudmundur Eirikkson, and international human rights law Attorney Ms. Patricia Tarre Moser (hereinafter, the “Panel”).

In the final post of the symposium on Judge Cançado Trindade, the guest editors interview judge Brant, from the International Court of Justice, to talk about the impact of Cançado’s scholarship in Brazil and in international law.

This blog illustrates how excessive trust in and unaccountability of technological systems runs against digital transformation aims and argues that as an uncanny fixation on gains to be realised from technology becomes a mainstay, certain workings of technological development should not be overlooked.

This piece considers how the Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (MLETR) can serve as a model for the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) Protocol on Digital Trade with respect to Electronic Transferable Record (ETRs).

In this post, the author analyzes three individual opinions of judge Cançado Trindade as a judge of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to assess the impact of his legal thought on the fight against impunity, the rights of Indigenous Peoples and social justice.

This article consider the concept of digital and data sovereignty in Africa. It focuses on how the development of the digital economy can be effectively established in the African context, in light of Africa’s reliance on partnerships with third countries for internet access, and reliance on multinational service providers for access to consumer services with the digital economy.

In this post, the author reflects on judge Cançado Trindade’s last separate opinion to an Order concerning the Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), of September 2020. This opinion provides an example of his views on the role of International Law and his believe that jus gentium must be at the service of the people. As a former judicial fellow of the International Court of Justice, the author presents a personal and powerful testimony of judge Cançado Trindade.

In this post, the author highlights the main contributions of judge Cançado Trindade in academia and as a judge. The author highlights his concerns about putting a person at the centre of International Law and how, in his separate opinions at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the International Court of Justice, he advocated for the humanization of International Law.