INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR LEGAL RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

All research articles published INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR LEGAL RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS are fully open access. i.e. immediately freely available to read, download and share. Articles are published under the terms of a Creative Commons license which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Disclaimer:

The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR LEGAL RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS or its members. The designations employed in this publication and the presentation of material therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR LEGAL RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

[1] William J. Davey, “The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism”, (2003) (Research paper No 03-08, University of Illinois, College of Law).

[1] Magda Shahin, “WTO Dispute Settlement for a middle-income developing country: the situation of Egypt” in Gregory Shaffer, Manfred Elsig. (eds.), The Law and Politics of WTO Dispute Settlement, 275-276 (oxford University press, California, Irvine, ed. 2016).

[1] Gregory Shaffer “The challenges of WTO law – strategies for developing country adaptation” World Trade Review 177 (2006).

[1] James HeadenPfitzer and Sheila Sabune, “Burden of Proof in WTO Dispute Settlement: Contemplating Preponderance of the Evidence” 9 International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, p.5-6(2009).

[1] Ross Becfroft, The Standard of Review in WTO Dispute Settlement: Critique and Contention, (Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., ed. 2012).

[1] Stefan Zleptnig, “The Standard of Review in WTO Law: An Analysis of Law, Legitimacy and the Distribution of Legal and Political Authority” Vol. 6 European Integration online Papers (EIoP), p.6,13. (2002). Available online,

http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2002-017a.htm, visited on 10^th Oct, 17

[1] Matthias Oesch, “Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution”, 6 J. INT'L ECON. L. P.637-39 (2003)

[1] De nova has a literal English translation of ‘ Anew’. See Concise Law Dictionary, Sweet and Maxwell, (2005)

[1] William Wade, Administrative Law, 309-10(Oxford University Press, 10^th ed. 2009)

[1] See Appellate Body Report , Japan-Alcoholic Beverage II, 13-14.

[1] The function of panels is to assist the DSB in discharging its responsibilities under this understanding and the covered agreements. Accordingly, a panel should make an objective assessment of the matter before it, including an objective assessment of the facts of the case and the applicability of and conformity with the relevant covered agreements and make such other findings as well to assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in the covered agreement.

[1] Holgar Spamann, “Standard of Review for World Trade Organisation Panels in Trade Remedy Cases: A Critical Analysis”, 38(3) Journal of World Trade, p. 540(2004)

[1] Catherine Button, The Power to Protect: Trade Health and Uncertainty in the WTO, p.168, (Hart publishing, 2004)

[1] Panel Report, United States-Measure Affecting Import of Woven Wool Shirt and Blouses from India, WT/DS33/R, adopted 23 May 1997, as upheld by Appellate Body Report WT/DS33/AB/R, DSR 1997:I, 343.

[1]See, Appellate Body Report Japan-Agricultural product II, WT/DS7/R, adopted 19^th March 1999, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS7/AB/R, DSR 1999:I, 315.

[1] See,Appellate Body Report, United States-Anti Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel products from Japan, WT/DS184/AB/R adopted 23 August 2001, DSR2001: X, 4697.

[1] See, Appellate Body Report US-Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan. WT/DS192/AB/R, adopted 5^th nov 2001: XII, 6027.

[1] See, Appellate Body Report, Argentina-Safeguard Measures on Import of Footwear Footwear(EC), WT/DS121/AB/R, adopted 12^th Jan 2000, DSR2000:I,515.

[1] See, Appellate Body Report, United States-Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities, WT/DS166/AB/R, adopted 19^th Jan 2001, DSR2001:II 717.

[1] See, Appellate Body Report, United States-Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews, WT/DS322/R, DSR2007:I,3.

[1] See, Article 11 of Dispute Settlement Understanding, which provides that the function of the panel is to assist the Dispute Settlement Body in discharging it responsibility under this understanding. Panel should make an objective assessment of the matter before it, including an objective assessment of the fact of the case and the applicability of the conformity with the relevant covered agreements, and make other such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendation or in giving the ruling provided in the covered agreement.

complaint has been brought shall be asked to present its point of view. The DSU also permits the parties to settle their disputes at any stage during panel or Appellate Body proceedings, and complaints may withdraw complaint at any time.

[1] Holgar Spamann, “Standard of Review for World Trade Organisation Panels in Trade Remedy Cases: A Critical Analysis”, 38(3) Journal of World Trade, p. 551(2004)

[1] See Appellate Body Report, EC-Hormones (Para 133.)

[1] Andrew D. Mitchell, ‘Good Faith in WTO Dispute Settlement’, 7(2) Melbourne Journal of International Law, 339 (2006).

[1] Ross .Becroft, ‘The Standard of Review Strikes Back: the US-Korea DRAMS Appeal’ 9(1) Journal of International Economic Law, p. 207(2006)

[1] Matthias Oesch, Standard of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution, p.42(Oxford University Press, 2003).

[1] D.M. McRae, “The WTO in International Law: Tradition Continued or New Frontier?” 3(27) Journal of International Economic Law, pp. 32-33 (2000).

[1] A. Das and J. Raghuram, ‘One Too Many: Significant Contributions of India to the WTO Dispute Settlement Jurisprudence’, in A. Das and J.J. Nedumpara (eds.), WTO Dispute Settlement at Twenty,75 (Springer Nature, Singapore, 2016).

[1] John J. Barceló III, ‘Burden of Proof, Prima Facie Case and Presumption in WTO Dispute Settlement’, Cornell Law Faculty Publications. Paper 119, (2009).

[1] H. Richard, Gaskin, Burdens of Proof in Modern Discourse, p.4 (Yale, 1992).

[1] D. Petko Kantchevski, The Differences Between the Panel Procedures of the GATT and the WTO: The Role of GATT and WTO Panels in Trade Dispute Settlement, 3 BYU Int’l L. & Mgmt. Rev. 79, 97 (2006).

[1] Appellate Body Report on United States—Measures Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses

[1] See Appellate Body Report, Japan – Apples, para. 166; and Appellate Body Report, Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes, para. 82.

[1] See, Appellate Body Report, United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology For Calculating Dumping Margins (“Zeroing”), WT/DS294/AB/R (18 April 2006) Para. 220.

[1] Tushnet, Mark. 2014. Advanced Introduction to Comparative Constitutional Law. Chapter-2.

[1] There was an average of 2.29 deferral by law clauses found in the Constitutions with deferrals being comparatively more common in Africa and South Asia than anywhere else (infra footnote 4)

[1] Dixon, Rosalind & Ginsburg, Tom. (2011). Deciding Not to Decide: Deferral in Constitutional Design. International Journal of Constitutional Law. 9. 10.1093/icon/mor041.

[1] Article 6 (3) of The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973

[1] Article 6 (2) of The Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh 1972

[1] Article 3 and Article 169 of The Constitution of India 1949

[1] Article 105 (4) of Constitution of The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka 1978

[1] Article 87 (2) of Constitution of The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka 1978

[1] Articles 15 to 23 of the Constitution of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, Articles 14 to 35 of the Constitution of India 1949, Articles 17 to 25 of the Constitution of Nepal 2015, Articles 36 to 45 of The Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh 1972, Article 15 of the Constitution of The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka 1978

[1] Article 19 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 & Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India 1949.

[1] Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India and Ors 1984 AIR 802

[1] A Asgeirsdottir, M.C. Steinwand, Dispute settlement mechanisms and maritime boundary settlement, Rev. Ind. Organ 10 (2015) 119-143

[1] Aceris Law, law of the sea dispute settlement mechanism, International Arbitration Attorney Network, (2015)

[1]ITLOS, 2012, Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal

[1] Haroon Habib, Bangladesh wins maritime dispute with India, The Hindu, July 9, 2014

[1] ICJ, 2021, Maritime Delimitation in the Indian ocean, Somalia v. Kenya

[1] ICJ, Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean sea and the Pacific ocean, 2018

[1] Sheldon Harris., Japanese biological warfare research on humans: a case study of microbiology and ethics, 666(1), Ann N Y Acad Sci ,21, 24-25 (1992) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1992.tb38021.x

[1] Seeley, T. D., Nowicke, J. W., Meselson, M., Guillemin, J., & Akratanakul, P, Yellow rain, 253(3), Scientific American,128-137 (1985) https://www.jstor.org/stable/24967794

[1] Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases and of Biological Methods of Warfare, 1925

[1] UN Digital Library, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/593995?ln=en (last visited March 28, 2022)

[1] UN Office for Disarmament Affairs, https://www.un.org/disarmament/news/bwc_2011/ (last visited March 28, 2022)

[1] UNODA Meetings Place, https://meetings.unoda.org/meeting/bwc-revcon-2016/ (last visited March 28, 2022)

[1] V. P. Menon, The Story of the Integration: of the Indian Princely States, (Calcutta 1956).

[1] Nafisur Rahaman Sufi, Kashmir's Bid for Freedom, (Muzaffarabad 1956, Publication of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government, 1956).

[1] Meher Chand Mahajan., Accession of Kashmir to India: The Inside Story, (Sholapur 1950).

[1] M. Zafrulla Khan, The Kashmir Dispute, (Karachi 1950).

[1] LOSING SIGHT IN KASHMIR – THE IMPACT OF PELLET-FIRING SHOTGUNS, Amnesty International, INDIA.

[1] John Cherian, International reaction to abrogation of Article 370: Muted response, FRONTLINE, Sep 27, 2019.

IJLRA	N. Raj Kumar ; Kamble Shivadayal . "Design of Fault Tolerance Parallel FFT’s Using Xilinx 14.5v" Iconic Research And Engineering Journals Volume 5 Issue 8 2022 Page 1-6
IEEE	N. Raj Kumar ; Kamble Shivadayal . "Design of Fault Tolerance Parallel FFT’s Using Xilinx 14.5v" Iconic Research And Engineering Journals, 5(8)

Dispute Settlement Mechanism Of WTO: A Study Of Constitutional Constraints (By Kailash Kumar Sharma)

Keeping It For A Later Day: The Use Of “By Law” Clauses In South Asian Constitutions (By Vineet Kumar & Preetam Bharti)

Covid – 19 Vis-A-Vis Labour Laws In India: Pro-Make In India Or Anti- Human Rights? (By Deboleena Dutta)

PRIVACY OF RAPE VICTIMS: INADEQUATE PROTECTION FROM THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM (Authored By SHERIN FARHANA EV & M Shamima Parveen (Assistant Professor)

Metaverse Gaming And Its Legal Aspects (By Krishna K.G)

Maritime Boundary disputes and its impact among the neighboring states (By Srividya.S)

Rights and Liabilities of Mortgager and Mortgagee (By Falgu Mukati)

Biological Weapons: The past, the present and the future (By Samayeta Bal)

Tussle Between Copyright And Education In India (By Trishla Parihar)

"The Amnesias of International Law in Kashmir Conflict: Perspectives & Narratives" (By Jeezan Riyaz)

LAW JOURNAL

IMPORTANT LINKS

ETHICS & POLICY

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation 2