Skip Navigation


Journal of International Economic Law Advance Access originally published online on August 17, 2006
Journal of International Economic Law 2006 9(3):615-656; doi:10.1093/jiel/jgl020
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
9/3/615    most recent
jgl020v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Grando, M. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of International Economic Law Vol. 9 No. 3 © Oxford University Press 2006, all rights reserved

Allocating the Burden of Proof in WTO Disputes: A Critical Analysis

Michelle T. Grando*

* SJD candidate, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, and fellow of the Institute of International Economic Law, Georgetown University Law Center, e-mail: michelle.grando{at}utoronto.ca.

This article argues that the World Trade Organization (WTO) jurisprudence on the allocation of the burden of proof is in a confused state. Panels and the Appellate Body have failed to produce a consistent line of cases, which can be used as a predictable model to solve future cases. Furthermore, the jurisprudence has also created artificial differences between similar provisions, raising questions about the relevance of the criteria employed to distinguish provisions that must be proved by the defendant from those that must be proved by the complainant. The analysis undertaken in this article suggests that it may be time to reflect upon the basic question of why the burden of proof should be allocated to a given party. The article explores alternatives and suggests courses of action.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.