CYIL vol. 9 (2018)

CYIL 9 ȍ2018Ȏ THE CZECHOSLOVAKIAN CASE OF 1949 IN THE GATT: LUCK IN MISFORTUNE? to adoption by the Dispute Settlement Body. The adoption is automatic unless there is a consensus not to adopt 69 – so-called reversed consensus which is different from the process under GATT when the party that lost the dispute could have blocked the adoption of the Panel report. 70 The political climate among its Members is completely different from what it had been during the infant years of the GATT years as it was in 1949 as well. First and foremost, in 2018 the US does not have the same support from the Members States it had in 1949. Suffice it to say the recent objection of the major US trading partners against its possible tariffs on imported autos and parts. 71 So, it seems that even in a hypothetical case the WTO Member States would not vote in support of the US under present circumstances. Moreover, the rise of China altered the balance in the world trade system. These changes, plus blockade of the negotiations in WTO, in turn, encouraged other countries to look for bilateral treaties, opposite to multilateralism for which the GATT was aiming at. 72 In other words, the political climate and changes in the global relations had an influence on the world trade system. Against this background, the WTO rules seem to be outdated: starting from the urge to provide more deference to the national authorities by the Panels, 73 creating rules for new supply chains, 74 dealing with new values inside the WTO 75 and struggling with the inability of the system to cope with new global challenges. 76 It has become obvious that a mere existence of these problems, is a sign that the WTO as a crown, borrowing the words of P.Mavroidis, “needs some shining to say the least.” 77 It is not the aim of this article to rehearse all problems of the WTO, albeit one problem, seems to be pertinent to a peculiar case of interpreting the WTO security exception. request the establishment of a panel which ‘shall be established at the latest the second time the matter appears on the agenda of the DSB, unless by consensus the WTO Members decide not to do so”. See ‘Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, Annex 2 to the WTO Agreement’ . 69 TRACHTMAN, Joel P. ‘Domain of WTO Dispute Resolution, The’ (1999) 40 Harvard International Law Journal 333. p. 336 70 JACKSON, John H. ‘Designing and Implementing Effective Dispute Settlement Procedures: WTO Dispute Settlement, Appraisal and Prospects’ in Anne OKrueger and Chonira Aturupane (eds), TheWTO as an international organization (University of Chicago Press 1998). p. 167. 71 Reuters Staff, ‘Over 40 Countries Object at WTO to U.S. Car Tariff Plan’ Reuters (3 July 2018) . 72 On threats of regionalism to multilateralism see, for example, Pascal Lamy, ‘Is Trade Multilateralism Being Threatened by Regionalism?’ (2014) 54 Adelphi Series 61. 73 JACKSON, John H. ‘Dispute Settlement and the WTO – Emerging Problems’ (1998) 1 Journal of International Economic Law 329. 74 BALDWIN, Richard. ‘WTO 2.0: Governance of 21st Century Trade’ (2014) 9 The Review of International Organizations 261. 75 ANDERSEN, H. ‘Protection of Non-Trade Values in WTO Appellate Body Jurisprudence: Exceptions, Economic Arguments, and Eluding Questions’ (2015) 18 Journal of International Economic Law 383. p. 383. 76 CRAWFORD, James. ‘ “Back to Square One” If WTO Appeals Body Fails: Judge James Crawford’ Financial Review (3 August 2018). 77 MAVROIDIS, Petros C. ‘Raiders of the Lost Jewel (in the Crown)’ (2015) 14 Journal of International Trade Law and Policy 106. p. 110.

309