|
|
Previous |Next |Title |Contents
In this paper, I have attempted to show that the question of whether the GATT should have direct effect is very complex. The GATT is a Constitutional agreement like the Treaty. However, it adopts a different set of economic goals than the Treaty. The GATT is also an international agreement. However, it establishes a regulatory structure which is different from that established by the other international agreements of the Community.
It is also far from obvious that the GATT is intended to protect individuals rights. The agreement seems to be specifically designed to manage trade relations between sovereign entities. Thus, perhaps the concept of direct effect which exists for the Treaty and the other international agreements should not apply to the GATT. After all, one may still respect the rule of GATT law and individual rights domestically without granting direct effect to the agreement prior to a WTO ruling.
On the other hand, it is true that the effects of the GATT are ultimately felt by individuals. The GATT does contain clear and precise obligations to which the GATT members have agreed. The GATT also has established a dispute resolution system to resolve conflicts between the contracting parties in a rule based manner. Thus, there is reason for believing that individuals should be able to claim rights under the GATT after a WTO determination of the Community's obligations under the GATT.
In the end, the reader must decide whether direct effect for the GATT is appropriate. That is, should the ECJ grant direct effect to the GATT because no other country has done so or should it deny direct effect because this would deny the Community of its rights under the GATT. Direct effect is a complex question which must be approached in a complex manner. I do not claim to have resolved the dispute, but do hope to have further illuminated the issues.
Previous |Next |Title |Contents