This paper examines the effectiveness of dispute resolution pertaining to anti-dumping and anti-subsidy rules, as
outlined in the World Trade Organisation agreement. The paper delves into the weaknesses in the current dispute
resolution mechanism and addresses the need for amendment. It establishes a need to install a Dispute
Resolution Centre under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation, and a World Trade Court to legally
resolve the immense and ongoing trade conflicts between interested parties and large international companies.
Keywords: anti-dumping, WTO agreement, anti-subsidy law, dispute resolution DSU, dispute resolution centre
DRC, international trade court ITC

Introduction
This paper examines the Understanding of Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU)1
to demonstrate the effectiveness and weaknesses of these procedures in practice. It will also include additional
proposals that could be used to resolve legal disputes between parties in cases of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy.
The DSU is described and legislated for in the WTO agreement,2 which has many articles relating to the
procedures for dispute resolution in cases of international trade conflict between contracting parties or
companies: “The WTO has a remarkable system to settle disputes between WTO Members concerning their
rights and obligations under the WTO agreement”.3 There are several options available for resolving legal
disputes between parties under the WTO.4 Yet, the dispute settlement system has not yet been utilised
successfully to resolve conflicts in a straightforward manner, affording advantages to all parties; indeed, Article
3.7 of the DSU mandates that “the aim of the dispute settlement mechanisms is to secure a positive solution to a
dispute”.5
It can also be seen that the majority of contracting parties prefer to resolve legal matters relating to the WTO by
initiating judicial processes at the national level, as seen in Paper 3;6 resulting in a high number of cases between its contracting parties in relation to anti-dumping.7 However, the DSU prefers to resolve legal matters
between the contracting parties out of court:
…the DSU prefers parties not to go to court, but to settle their dispute amicably out of court.
Accordingly, each dispute settlement process must start with consultations (or an attempt to have
consultations) between the parties to the dispute.8
The chief factors involved in these alternative dispute resolutions will be discussed in this paper. Introducing
alternative methods to resolve disputes could have a directly positive effect on all parties, enabling them to
resolve legal conflicts involving international trade relations between nations quickly and smoothly.
This paper will address the topics of dispute resolution relative to anti-dumping and anti-subsidy under the WTO
agreement, as it is essential to effect dispute resolution is swiftly when legal matters arise between parties. It will
consider the weaknesses present in current dispute resolution mechanisms, in order to avoid these weaknesses in
future, and support development. The next stage will be to introduce alternative means of dispute resolution,
offering a full explanation of all relevant articles and explaining why contracting parties currently avoid using
dispute resolution mechanisms. It will also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of employing alternative
resolutions and ways of developing legislation in order to utilise these articles more effectively, rather than using
traditional judicial approaches to resolve WTO conflicts between parties. Such approaches also offer new ideas
for resolving disputes between parties, establishing new centres for dispute resolution under the WTO (DRC)
and in International Trade Court (ITC) to gain more control and further reduce incidents leading to disputes.

Read More Here.