[nmh]

Oh and don't forget, the WTO authorized themselves the ability to sue first world nations (us) on behalf of the third world countries we so 'abuse' and created an international court in addition to the international criminal court to do it. They can now sue us in this court and US taxpayer dollars will pay for the litigation against us.

Really? And are you on something illegal? I think you've gone off the deep end on this one.

Since we did not vote on this, and had no say in the creation of this court, it doesn't matter to them. Nor to the "free traders" who try to focus on a small, Constitutionally supported thing like tariffs, while the big things, like the loss of sovereignty and the creation of international courts for trade related matters, gets little or no discussion.

The U.S. is still a sovereign country and not answering to some international court or international agreements of any kind. You do have one paranoid imagination though. Ever consider writing sci-fi?

I can't think of anything more UN-american than so-called citizen advocation the wholesale transfer of our soveriegnty to a bunch of socialists. I can't think of a person with lower moral character than one who would support the WTO knowing it is an unConstitutional body, and knowing its goal is to destroy American borders, sovereignty and culture. Not one public debate has been held on this topic with the citizens, and not one citizen has been allowed a vote on the matter.

This is so sick how does one respond? It's actually you who is advocating socialism and all the rest You accuse me of. Then again, I've been coming to the conclusion that those in your condition are not the brightest light bulbs out there ... and why you are so frustrated. You want to be enslaved to menial jobs and the same routine for the rest of your life even though it is not realistic. You are your own worst enemy along with CHANGE.

[ninenot]

NMH, I think you are WORSE than an accountant--I now think you are a PRC plant.

Splains perfectly why you hate the RC Church AND Americans who are interested in America First.

Also explains why you dont have an FR about page. FR doesn't provide PRC flags...

[hedgetrimmer]

the WTO authorized themselves the ability to sue first world nations (us) on behalf of the third world countries we so 'abuse' and created an international court in addition to the international criminal court to do it.

You were on the thread the other day where this information was posted, but its so easy for you to forget anything that doesn't support your worldview.

The official opening of the Advisory Centre for WTO Law today is a (small) historic moment in its own right. But it is also part of a larger development: a growth of the judicial settlement of disputes reflected in a growth in the number of international judicial institutions.

Many new international rules, laid down in multilateral agreements, have been created over the last two decades. Many new international courts and tribunals have been instituted with a view to facilitating the application and enforcement of those rules. I will just mention the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the various War Crimes Tribunals, for the former Yugoslavia and Central Africa, and the International Criminal Court. The Panels and Appellate Body of the WTO's Dispute Settlement Understanding are part of that development, and probably the most prolific part, with some 240 complaints lodged and some 56 final judgments rendered in six years.

It is, therefore, fitting that, today, the official opening of the Advisory Centre for WTO Law marks the start of a true legal aid centre on an international scale. Individuals appearing as defendants before War Crimes Tribunals have always been able to call upon pro bono legal aid. The International Court of Justice has a small fund out of which costs of legal assistance can be paid for countries who need such help. But today marks the first time a true legal aid centre has been established within the international legal system, with a view to combating the unequal possibilities of access to international justice as between States. States have banded together and have created a multilateral treaty supported by a substantial guarantee fund, which makes subsidization and the provision of high quality legal aid to States which need such help possible.

The seeds of this system can already be found in the DSU. Article 27, paragraph 2, provides for “additional legal advice and assistance” (additional, that is over and above the normal assistance to all Members) “in respect of dispute settlement to developing country Members”. The Secretariat shall accordingly make available “a qualified legal expert from the WTO technical cooperation services” to any developing country. However, such assistance could not go beyond a certain point because the Secretariat had to preserve its impartiality, according to this provision. It was inconceivable that one part of the Secretariat would help a developing country litigate a case, whilst another part of the Secretariat would help the Panel write the report on that case.

--SPEECHES — DG MIKE MOORE



*** It’s doubtful that the Senate would have approved this dramatic transfer of national sovereignty had it been proposed in a formal treaty. Additionally, the Republican-led Congress that acquired power in January 1995 included scores of freshmen skeptical of international bodies like the WTO. The drive to entangle our nation in the WTO may have been doomed but for the willingness of Republican House leader Newt Gingrich to cooperate with like-minded Democratic internationalists in convening a special lame-duck session of Congress to approve the agreement.

To his credit, Gingrich candidly described the consequences of congressional approval of the WTO. "[W]e need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States, at a practical level, significant authority to a new organization. This is a transformational moment," admitted Gingrich during congressional hearings in late 1994. "I would feel better if the people who favor this would just be honest about the scale of change." Comparing the WTO agreement with the 1991 Maastricht treaty, which created the European Union, Gingrich predicted that "twenty years from now we will look back on this as a very important defining moment. This is not just another trade agreement. This is adopting something which twice, once in the 1940s and once in the 1950s, the U.S. Congress rejected. I am not even saying we should reject it; I, in fact, lean toward it. But I think we have to be very careful, because it is a very big transfer of power."

The power ceded by Congress to the WTO placed our nation’s economic future in the hands of unelected globalist bureaucrats.

[hedgetrimmer]

The U.S. is still a sovereign country and not answering to some international court or international agreements of any kind.

We don't answer to the

International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea?

the WTO's Dispute Settlement Understanding ?



The WTO’s procedure for resolving trade quarrels under the Dispute Settlement Understanding is vital for enforcing the rules and therefore for ensuring that trade flows smoothly.

A dispute arises when a member government believes another member government is violating an agreement or a commitment that it has made in the WTO. The authors of these agreements are the member governments themselves — the agreements are the outcome of negotiations among members. Ultimate responsibility for settling disputes also lies with member governments, through the Dispute Settlement Body.

** You are telling me that the US has never been called before this body and never participated in any of its decisions?

[hedgetrimmer]

The U.S. is still a sovereign country and not answering to some international court or international agreements of any kind

Dispute body adopts rulings on US steel safeguards and Japan’s measures on apples

The Dispute Settlement Body, on 10 December 2003, adopted the panel and Appellate Body reports on US definitive safeguard measures on imports of certain steel products and Japanese measures affecting the importation of apples. Summary of the meeting

Appellate Body issues report on steel dispute

The Appellate Body, on 10 November 2003, issued its report on the complaints brought to the WTO by Brazil, China, the European Communities, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland against United States — Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products. It upheld most of the Panel's conclusions that the US measures were inconsistent with the WTO Safeguards Agreement and the GATT 1994 but reversed some findings regarding tin mill products and stainless steel wire which did not affect the overall result.

> Download the Appellate Body Report in Word format (187 pages; 722KB), in pdf format (187 pages; 1041KB)

> All documentation on the case DS248
> All documentation on the case DS249
> All documentation on the case DS251
> All documentation on the case DS252
> All documentation on the case DS253
> All documentation on the case DS254
> All documentation on the case DS258
> All documentation on the case DS259
> More on Dispute Settlement

Appellate Body issues report on US-Japan apple dispute

The Appellate Body, on 26 November 2003, issued a report upholding the findings of a panel that Japan's quarantine restrictions on imports of apples from the United States are inconsistent with certain provisions of the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.
> Download the Appellate Body Report in Word format (101
pages; 413KB), in pdf format (101 pages; 294KB)
> All documentation on the case DS245
> More on Appellate Body
> More on Dispute Settlement


http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news03_e/news03_e.htm

[superloser]

What is your *Constitutional* solution to this?

Mine is tariffs. What's yours? Let them eat cake? Worked out well in France a couple hundred years ago, didn't it?

[hedgetrimmer]

Oh nmh,

I just found this on the thomas website, a bill to enforce a WTO dispute settlement body decision. Who says the WTO doesn't have any effect on us or our laws?

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1952


4) On January 28, 2000, a panel of the World Trade Organization determined that Mexico's antidumping order on high fructose corn syrup imported from the United States violated Mexico's commitments under the Uruguay Round Agreements.

(5) On February 24, 2000, the Dispute Settlement Body adopted the report of the panel.

(6) On April 10, 2000, the United States and Mexico agreed to a September 22, 2000, deadline for Mexico to come into compliance with the panel report as adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body.

(7) On September 20, 2000, just 2 days prior to the date Mexico had agreed to come into compliance with the panel report, Mexico issued a revised antidumping threat determination in an obvious attempt to evade its commitment to come into compliance with the panel report adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body.

(8) On June 22, 2001, a panel, convened pursuant to Article 21.5 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding, found that Mexico's revised antidumping threat determination failed to bring Mexico into compliance with its commitments under the World Trade Organization.

(9) On October 22, 2001, the Appellate Body affirmed the ruling of the Article 21.5 panel and recommended that Mexico come into compliance with its obligations under the World Trade Organization.

(10) On November 21, 2001, the Dispute Settlement Body adopted the Appellate Body ruling that affirmed the findings of the Article 21.5 panel.

(11) On January 1, 2002, in a transparent attempt to evade the determinations of the Dispute Settlement Body regarding Mexico's antidumping order on high fructose corn syrup, and in an affront to the rules-based system of the World Trade Organization, Mexico imposed a de facto discriminatory 20 percent tax on soft drinks containing high fructose corn syrup, the intent and effect of which is to continue Mexico's antidumping order on United States high fructose corn syrup by other means by restricting access to the Mexican market.

***

Looks like the WTO has a heavy heavy hand in the legislation our so called representatives produce.