How can international law react to the proliferation of regional trade groups: Who is better placed to regulate international trade disputes?

This research identifies and considers how the dispute settlement system within international trade law could be developed in considering the contemporary needs of individual states, groups of states and the world to ensure greater consistency in resolution techniques when regional and unilateral trade rules conflict. It will do this by investigating and comparing the successes and failures of the WTO and regional trade groups in dispute settlement resolutions. Judicial decisions will be discussed, as well as surrounding commentary. The relative submission of states to the judgements of the WTO compared to regional groups will also be considered. The results of this investigation will identify whether in fact there should be a greater role for regional groups in resolving and implementing dispute settlement mechanisms. A significant point to address is whether one size can fit all. For example, universal world governance through the WTO. The current system is a top down model; however rules can be formulated at different levels – such as by individual states, groups of states and the WTO. Can one body – such as the WTO, adequately regulate each and every country that is a party to it - or is this insufficient? Can the WTO reasonably be expected to be able to understand and accommodate every commodity of states and groups of states, or should power be relinquished to those states and groups of states? States, and therefore international law is influential – therefore it must follow some sort of boundary or constitution. This research will seek to address the emerging theme of regionalism and where jurisdiction should be held. At what level? And by whom? These are not simple or easy questions to answer. Furthermore, jurisdiction is important – states are entitled to have some sort of consistency and clarity in decision making. They should be able to rely upon outcomes