CYIL vol. 9 (2018)

VIKTORIIA LAPA CYIL 9 ȍ2018Ȏ feature had an impact on the dispute settlement procedures and it has to be said that it was evident during the Czechoslovakian complaint which was actually the third case in the history of the GATT. 26 Second, the disputes were resolved by diplomats. In the early years basically they were the delegates who had negotiated the GATT themselves. The diplomats thought they everybody would understand what they meant under those provisions and there was no problem of neutrality. 27 Some critics argued that GATT stood for “Gentlemen’s Agreement of Talk and Talk”. 28 The panel proceedings had not been developed yet in 1949 since the first “Panel on complaints” was established in 1952. 29 Third, the Agreement institutional defects contributed to the fact that the dispute settlement under GATT had little legalism in it. 30 The GATT formal dispute resolution under Article XXIII 31 was not yet developed and the legal reasoning of the decisions was not present in 1949 either. Panel proceedings under the GATT began to be structured as a series of legal arguments only in 1960. 32 Last but not least, two other important features of the GATT dispute settlement system , such as the consent of the parties to the dispute to begin the process and to accept the results were playing to the detriment of the rule of law and the use of the system by economically weak states. 33 Indeed, the struggle between Czechoslovakia and the US was not looking neutral at all. 34 As was mentioned before, the matter was influenced by the struggle against the Soviet regime as posing threat to the international security. In his response to the Czechoslovakian complaint the US delegate was appealing to all GATT Contracting Parties and claimed that the they will feel a more secure future for their countries because of the US making use of the security exceptions. 35 Therefore, it is hard to say that the Contracting Parties of the GATT MARCEAU, Gabrielle and others. ‘Introduction and Overview’ in Gabrielle Marceau (ed), AZEVEDO, Roberto. A History of Law and Lawyers in the GATT/WTO (Cambridge University Press 2015). accessed 9 August 2018. p. 3. 26 Although during this case the extensive discussion took place not only between the disputants but among all GATT contracting parties which is different from previous two cases. See SCHRODER, Christina. ‘Early Dispute Settlement in the GATT’ in Gabrielle Marceau and others (eds), A History of Law and Lawyers in the GATT/WTO (Cambridge University Press 2015). accessed 9 August 2018. p. 142. 27 HUDEC, Robert E. ‘The Role of the GATT Secretariat in the Evolution of the WTO Dispute Settlement Procedure’ in BHAGWATI, Jagdish and HIRSCH, Mathias (eds.). The Uruguay Round and Beyond: Essays in Honour of Arthur Dunkel (Springer-Verlag 1998). 28 KENNEDY, Kevin C. ‘The GATT-WTO System at Fifty’ (1997) 16 Wisconsin International Law Journal 421. p. 442. 29 Marceau and others (n 25). p. 13. 30 SUNGJOON CHO , ‘GATT Non-Violation Issues in the WTO Framework: Are They the Achilles’ Heel of the Dispute Settlement Process?’ (1998) 39 Harvard International Law Journal 311. p. 315. 31 It was perceived as “unfriendly step”. See Marceau and others (n 25). p. 12. 32 PORGES, Amelia. ‘The New Dispute Settlement: From the GATT to the WTO’ (1995) 8 Leiden Journal of International Law 115. p. 116. 33 WEILER, J.H.H. ‘The Rule of Lawyers and the Ethos of Diplomats Reflections on the Internal and External Legitimacy of WTO Dispute Settlement’ [2001] Journal of World Trade 191. p. 192. 34 Hudec (n 27). p. 106, footnote 6. 35 Contracting Parties Third Session, ‘Reply by the Vice Chairman of the United States Delegation, Mr. John W. Evans, to the Speech by the Head of the Czechoslovak Delegation under Item 14 on the Agenda, GATT, CP.3/38’.

304