Multilevel Judicial Governance between Global and Regional Economic Integration. Systems: Institutional and Substantive Aspects

The Brazilian Tyres case that was adjudicated by both MERCOSUR and WTO dispute settlement bodies illustrates the issues raised by multilevel judicial governance. The relationship between regional and global trading systems has become increasingly complex, raising the question whether Article XXIV GATT is still sufficient. Similarly, the way Article XX GATT is applied to balance trade and non-trade issues is increasingly disputed. Underlying these issues are more fundamental aspects of delivering justice while at the same time preserving the world trading system. In his contribution Lavranos takes the view that the WTO Appellate Body failed to show sufficient respect to the MERCOSUR dispute settlement body decision. More specifically, Lavranos argues that trade interests were wrongly given primacy over the health and environmental concerns of Brazil. Mathis’ paper discusses in more detail Article XXIV GATT and the question whether this could serve as an exception for Brazil being a member of MERCOSUR to give precedence over its GATT obligations. Mathis also analyzes Article XX GATT in this regard, concluding that Brazil finally is presented with the option to comply with its own regional law and compensate its WTO partners accordingly, or to comply with the WTO ruling and disregard its own regional law. Abbott’s indicates some of the lessons to be drawn from past experience in applying Art.XXIV during the 1970s and 1980s, as well as some problems associated with Art.XX, and looks ahead to an important future debate – potentially – on trade and non-trade factors: the measures that may be taken in association with measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to control the effects of global warming and climate change. Finally, Petersmann’s outlook criticizes Lavranos critique on the Appellate Body by arguing that at the end of day justice was delivered according to the present WTO rules. In sum, this collection of very different views on multilevel judicial governance offer a tour d’horizon, which hopefully stimulates further discussion and analysis