Acta Universitatis Carolinae Iuridica (dále jen AUCI) je hlavním časopisem Právnické fakulty UK. Vychází od roku 1954, patří tak mezi tradiční právnické časopisy teoretického zaměření.
Jako obecný právnický časopis přináší delší studie i kratší články o jakýchkoli relevantních otázkách v právní teorii i mezinárodním, evropském a vnitrostátním právu. AUCI také publikuje materiály vztahující se k aktuálním otázkám legislativy. AUCI je recenzovaný časopis a přijímá příspěvky od českých i zahraničních autorů. Příspěvky zahraničních autorů jsou zveřejňovány v původním jazyku – slovenštině, angličtině, němčině, francouzštině.
AUCI je teoretický časopis pro otázky státu a práva. Jeho vydavatelem je Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Právnická fakulta, prostřednictvím nakladatelství Karolinum. Vychází čtyřikrát ročně, termíny vydání časopisu naleznete zde.
Články uveřejněné v časopise AUCI procházejí nezávislým recenzním řízením (peer review), které je oboustranně anonymní. Posuzovatelé z daného oboru vyjadřují své stanovisko k vědecké kvalitě příspěvku a vhodnosti publikace v časopisu. V případě připomínek je stanovisko zasíláno zpět autorovi s možností přepracování textu (blíže viz Pokyny pro autory – Průběh recenzního řízení).
Časopis AUCI (ISSN 0323-0619) je evidován v České národní bibliografii (vedena Národní knihovnou ČR) a v Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals (veden American Association of Law Libraries). AUCI má přiděleno evidenční číslo periodického tisku e. č. MK E 18585.
V r. 2021 byl jako první časopis Právnické fakulty Univerzity Karlovy zařazen do prestižní mezinárodní databáze Scopus. Tato databáze společnosti Elsevier je největší abstraktovou a citační databází recenzované literatury na světě. Od zařazení do elitní databáze Scopus si redakce časopisu slibuje nejen zvýšení čtenosti časopisu, ale také nárůst zájmu o publikaci příspěvků jak českých, tak zahraničních autorů.
AUCI je tzv. časopisem otevřeným a veškerý jeho obsah je zveřejňován jak na webu fakulty, tak na webových stránkách nakladatelství Karolinum. Přístup k němu je bezplatný. Domovská stránka časopisu AUCI je na webových stránkách Nakladatelství Karolinum.
Časopis AUCI využívá licenci Creative Commons: CC BY 4.0.
Dlouhodobou archivaci digitálního obsahu časopisu zajišťuje Portico.
AUC IURIDICA, Vol 72 No 2 (2026), 143–173
ArticleLegal Effects and Enforcement Limits of the WTO Dispute Settlement Rulings in the European Union
Marika Turava
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14712/23366478.2026.97
zveřejněno: 29. 05. 2026
Abstract
In the global regime of international trade law, the dispute settlement system of the World Trade Organization plays a central role in ensuring compliance with multilateral trade rules. Nonetheless, the legal effects of WTO dispute settlement rulings within domestic legal orders remain inherently limited. This article examines the interaction between WTO law and EU law, focusing on the enforcement limits of WTO rulings, as well as the structural tension between external trade obligations and the autonomy of the EU legal order. The article explores the normative framework of the WTO dispute settlement system and analyzes the scope of trade-restrictive remedies as envisaged by the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU). The article also examines the EU Customs Union as an exception under Article XXIV GATT and its legal implications for WTO compliance. In addition, the article explores the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of EU concerning the direct and indirect effect of WTO law. Moreover, it evaluates the consequences of the limited enforceability of WTO rulings in the context of trade protectionism and regionalism, focusing on the ongoing crisis of the Appellate Body of WTO.
klíčová slova: international trade law; World Trade Organization (WTO); dispute settlement body; protectionism; regional trade agreement; EU Customs Union; enforcement
reference (95)
1. ANDRADE JUNQUEIRA, C. A. The Interpretive Technique of the WTO Appellate Body. In: AMARAL JÚNIOR, A. et al. (eds.). The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism [online]. Cham: Springer, 2019, pp. 203-213 [cit. 2026-03-16]. CrossRef
2. Appellate Body Report, WTO, Canada - Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry, 31/05/2000 (WT/DS139/AB/R; WT/DS142/AB/R).
3. Appellate Body Report, WTO, European Communities - EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R; WT/DS48/AB/R, 16/01/1998.
4. Appellate Body Report, WTO, European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, 09/09/1997 (WT/DS27/AB/R).
5. Appellate Body Report, WTO, Mexico - Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages, WT/DS308/AB/R, 06/03/2006.
6. Appellate Body Report, WTO, Peru - Additional Duty on Imports of Certain Agricultural Products, 20/07/2015 (WT/DS457/AB/R).
7. Appellate Body Report, WTO, Turkey - Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products, 22/10/1999 (WT/DS34/AB/R).
8. Appellate Body Report, WTO, United States - Import Measures on Certain Products from the European Communities, 11/12/2000 (WT/DS165/AB/R).
9. BALDWIN, R. - CARPENTER, T. Regionalism: Moving from Fragmentation Towards Coherence. In: COTTIER, T. - DELIMATSIS, P. (eds.). The Prospects of International Trade Regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011, pp. 136-165. CrossRef
10. BOWN, C. P. - HOEKMAN, B. M. Developing Countries and Enforcement of Trade Agreements: Why Dispute Settlement Is Not Enough. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4450. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2016 [cit. 2026-03-16]. Available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/885521468158709803.
11. CHATHÁIN, C. N. The European Community and the Member States in the Dispute Settlement Understanding of the WTO: United or Divided? European Law Journal [online]. 1999, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 461-478 [cit. 2026-03-16]. CrossRef
12. COTTIER, T. - OESCH, M. Die Unmittelbare Anwendbarkeit von GATT/WTO-Recht in der Schweiz. Swiss Review of International and European Law. 2004, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 121-154.
13. COTTIER, T. - SCHEFER, K. N. The Relationship Between World Trade Organization Law, National and Regional Law. Journal of International Economic Law. 1998, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 83-122. CrossRef
14. Council Regulation (EC) No 673/2005 of 25 April 2005 Establishing Additional Customs Duties on Imports of Certain Products Originating in the United States of America.
15. Council Regulation (EC) No 2193/2003 of 8 December 2003 Establishing Additional Customs Duties on Imports of Certain Products Originating in the United States of America.
16. Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ), Grand Chamber, Judgment of 1 March 2005, Léon Van Parys NV v. Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau (BIRB), Case No. C-377/02, ECLI:EU:C:2005:121.
17. Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ), Grand Chamber, Judgment of 9 September 2008, Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio (FIAMM) and others v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, Joined Cases C-120/06 P and C-121/06 P, ECLI:EU:C:2008:476.
18. Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ), Grand Chamber, Judgment of 18 July 2013, Daiichi Sankyo Co Ltd. and Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH ("Sanofi-Aventis") v. DEMO Anonimos Viomikhaniki kai Emporiki Etairia Farmakon, European Court of Justice, Case No. C-414/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:520.
19. Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ), Judgment of 15 July 1964, Flaminio Costa v. E.N.E.L., Case No. 6/64, ECLI:EU:C:1964:66.
20. Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ), Judgment of 12 December 1972, International Fruit Company NV and others v. Produktschap voor Groenten en Fruit, Joined cases 21-24/72, ECLI:EU:C:1972:115.
21. Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ), Judgment of 23 April 1986, Parti écologiste "Les Verts" v. European Parliament, Case No. 294/83, ECLI:EU:C:1986:166.
22. Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ), Judgment of 22 June 1989, EEC Seed Crushers' and Oil Processors' Federation (FEDIOL) v. Commission of the European Communities, Case No. 70/87, ECLI:EU:C:1989:254.
23. Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ), Judgment of 7 May 1991, Nakajima All Precision Co. Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities, Case No. C-69/89, ECLI:EU:C:1991:186.
24. Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ), Judgment of 5 October 1994, Federal Republic of Germany v. Council of the European Union, Case No. C-280/93, ECLI:EU:C:1994:367.
25. Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ), Judgment of 23 November 1999, Portuguese Republic v. Council of the European Union, Case No. C-149/96, ECLI:EU:C:1999:574.
26. Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ), Judgment of 14 December 2000, Parfums Christian Dior SA vs. Tuk Consultancy BV, Joined Cases C-300/98 and C-392/98, ECLI:EU:C:2000:688.
27. Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ), Judgment of 30 September 2003, Biret International SA v. Council of the European Union, Case No. C-93/02 P, ECLI:EU:C:2003:517.
28. Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), Judgment of 16 July 2015, European Commission v. Rusal Armenal ZAO, Case No. C-21/14 P, ECLI:EU:C:2015:494.
29. Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ), Opinion 1/94 of 15 November 1994 on Competence of the Community to Conclude International Agreements Concerning Services and the Protection of Intellectual Property - Article 228 (6) of the EC Treaty, ECLI:EU:C:1994:384.
30. Court of Justice of the European Communities, Opinion 1/91 of 14 December 1991 on Delivered Pursuant to the Second Subparagraph of Article 228(1) of the Treaty, ECLI:EU:C:1991:490.
31. FABRI, H. R. Is There a Case - Legally and Politically - for Direct Effect of WTO Obligations? The European Journal of International Law [online]. 2014, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 151-173 [cit. 2026-03-16]. CrossRef
32. GARG, S. Monist vs. Dualist Theory of International Law. International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation [online]. 2023, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 60-64 [cit. 2026-03-16].
33. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1994).
34. GEORGOPOULOS, A. - MAVROIDIS. P. C. The WTO DSU 2.0: How Can We Go Back to the Future? In: BUCHAN, R. - FRANCHINI, D. - TSAGOURIAS, N. (eds.). The Changing Character of International Dispute Settlement: Challenges and Prospects [online]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023, pp. 282-316 [cit. 2026-03-16]. CrossRef
35. GOLDSTEIN, J. - MARTIN, L. L. Legalization, Trade Liberalization, and Domestic Politics: A Cautionary Note. International Organization. 2000, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 603-632. CrossRef
36. GRAAFSMA, F. The Revised Enforcement Regulation (No 2021/167) and Some Possible Effects on EU Trade Disputes. Global Trade and Customs Journal. 2022, Vol. 17, No. 7/8, pp. 289-299. CrossRef
37. HELISKOSKI, J. Opinion 1/94. In: Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law. Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, 2007. In: Oxford Public International Law [online]. [cit. 2026-03-16]. Available at: https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1696. CrossRef
38. HERRMANN, C. - STREINZ, T. Die EU als Mitglied der WTO. In: VON ARNAULD, A. - BUNGENBERG, M. (eds.). Europäische Außenbeziehungen [online]. Enzyklopädie Europarecht, Band 12. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2022, pp. 853-960 [cit. 2026-03-16]. CrossRef
39. HILF, M. The ECJ's Opinion 1/94 on the WTO - No Surprise, but Wise? European Journal of International Law [online]. 1995, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 245-259 [cit. 2026-03-16]. CrossRef
40. HILPOLD, P. - SENTI, R. WTO: System und Funktionsweise der Welthandelsordnung. 3. Aufl. Baden Baden, Zürich, Wien: Nomos, Schulthess, facultas, 2025. CrossRef
41. HOEKMAN, B. M. - MAVROIDIS, P. C. WTO Dispute Settlement, Transparency and Surveillance. The World Economy. 2000, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 527-542. CrossRef
42. KLABBERS, J. A. M. The Reception of International Law in The EU Legal Order. In: SCHÜTZE, R. - TRIDIMAS, T. (eds). Oxford Principles of European Union Law: Volume I [online]. Oxford University Press, 2018, pp. 1208-1233 [cit. 2026-03-16]. CrossRef
43. KLOEWER, B. The Spaghetti Bowl of Preferential Trade Agreements and the Declining Relevance of the WTO. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy [online]. 2016, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 429-440 [cit. 2026-03-16]. Available at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=djilp.
44. LAMY, P. The Place of the WTO and Its Law in the International Legal Order. European Journal of International Law [online]. 2006, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 969-984 [cit. 2026-03-16]. CrossRef
45. LEE, J. - WITTGENSTEIN, T. Weak vs. Strong Ties: Explaining Early Settlement in WTO Disputes. ILE Working Paper Series, No. 7. Hamburg: University of Hamburg, 2017.
46. LENAERTS, K. L'autonomie de l'ordre juridique de l'Union. In: BARRETT, G. - RAGEADE, J. P. - WALLIS, D. - WEIL, H. (eds.). The Future of Legal Europe: Will We Trust in It? Cham: Springer, 2021, pp. 551-570.
47. LOESEWITZ, M. Das WTO Dispute Settlement System in der Krise. In: TIETJE, C. - KRAFT, G. - KUMPAN, C. (eds.). Beiträge zum Transnationalen Wirtschaftsrecht No. 165 [online]. Halle: Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Institut für Wirtschaftsrecht, Forschungsstelle für Transnationales Wirtschaftsrecht, 2019 [cit. 2026-03-16].
48. Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (1 January 1995).
49. MARCEAU, G. Z. The Primacy of the WTO Dispute Settlement System. Questions of International Law [online]. 2015, Vol. 23, pp. 3-13 [cit. 2026-03-16]. Available at: https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:96218.
50. MARCEAU, G. Z. - HAMAOUI, J. A. Implementation of Recommendations and Rulings in the WTO System. In: BOISSON DE CHAZOURNES, L. et al. (eds.). Diplomatic and Judicial Means of Dispute Settlement [online]. Leiden: Nijhoff, 2013, pp. 187-211 [cit. 2026-03-16]. Available at: https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:36882. CrossRef
51. MATSUSHITA, M. Basic Principles of the WTO and the Role of Competition Policy. Washington University Global Studies Law Review [online]. 2004, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 363-385 [cit. 2026-03-16]. Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies/vol3/iss2/10/.
52. MATSUSHITA, M. - SCHOENBAUM, T. J. - MAVROIDIS, P. C. - HAHN, M. The World Trade Organization: Law, Practice, and Policy. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. CrossRef
53. MCDOUGALL, R. Crisis in the WTO Restoring the WTO Dispute Settlement Function. CIGI Papers No. 194. Centre for International Governance Innovation, 2018.
54. MCRAE, D. MFN in the GATT and the WTO. Asian Journal of WTO and International Health Law and Policy [online]. 2012, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 1-24 [cit. 2026-03-16]. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2117781.
55. MENDEZ, M. The Legal Effects of EU Agreements [online]. Oxford University Press, 2013 [cit. 2026-03-16]. CrossRef
56. MESQUITA, P. E. Litigation and Negotiation in the WTO. Is Litigation the Continuation of Negotiation by other Means? In: AMARAL JÚNIOR, A. et al. (eds.). The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism [online]. Cham: Springer, 2019, pp. 163-176 [cit. 2026-03-16]. CrossRef
57. Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement Pursuant to Article 25 of the DSU, WTO, 30 April 2020 (JOB/DSB/1/Add.12).
58. O'CONNOR, B. Remedies in the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement System - The Bananas and Hormones Case. Journal of World Trade. 2004, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 245-266. CrossRef
59. OLIVEIRA, M. A. International Trade Agreements Before Domestic Courts: Lessons from the Brazilian Experience [online]. SIEL Working Paper No. 2014/04. Society of International Economic Law, 2014 [cit. 2026-03-16]. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2448445.
60. Panel Report, WTO, EC - Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, WT/DS290/R, 15/03/2005.
61. Panel Report, WTO, EC - Selected Customs Matters, WT/DS315/R, 16/06/2006.
62. Panel Report, WTO, European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, 22 May 1997 (WT/DS27/RW/USA).
63. Panel Report, WTO, United States - Import Measures on Certain Products from the European Communities, 17/07/2000 (WT/DS165/R).
64. Panel Report, WTO, United States - Sections 301-310 of the Trade Act 1974, 22/12/1999 (WT/DS152/R).
65. PAUWELYN, J. The WTO's Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA): What's New? World Trade Review [online]. 2023, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 693-701 [cit. 2026-03-16]. CrossRef
66. PETERSMANN, E. U. Dispute Settlement System of the World Trade Organization and the Evolution of the GATT Dispute Settlement System Since 1948. Common Market Law Review [online]. 1994, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 1157-1244 [cit. 2026-03-16]. CrossRef
67. POMFRET, R. 'Regionalism' and the Global Trade System. The World Economy [online]. 2021, Vol. 44, No. 9, pp. 2496-2514 [cit. 2026-03-16]. CrossRef
68. Regulation (EU) 2021/167 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL Of 10 February 2021 Amending Regulation (EU) No. 654/2014 Concerning the Exercise of the Union's Rights for the Application and Enforcement of International Trade Rules.
69. Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 Laying Down the Rules and General Principles Concerning Mechanisms for Control by Member States of the Commission's Exercise of Implementing Powers.
70. Regulation (EU) No 654/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 Concerning the Exercise of the Union's Rights for the Application and Enforcement of International Trade Rules and Amending Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 Laying Down Community Procedures in the Field of the Common Commercial Policy in Order to Ensure the Exercise of the Community's Rights Under International Trade Rules, in Particular Those Established Under the Auspices of the World Trade Organization.
71. REICH, A. From Diplomacy to Law: The Juridicization of International Trade Relations. Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business [online]. 1996, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 775-849 [cit. 2026-03-16]. Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njilb/vol17/iss1/23/.
72. REICH, A. The Effectiveness of the WTO Dispute Settlement System: A Statistical Analysis [online]. EUI Department of Law Research Paper No. 2017/11, Bar Ilan University Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 18-01. 2017 [cit. 2026-03-16].
73. ROSAS, A. EU External Relations: Exclusive Competence Revisited. Fordham International Law Journal. 2015, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 1073-1096.
74. SACERDOTI, G. - BORLINI, L. Systemic Changes in the Politicization of the International Trade Relations and the Decline of the Multilateral Trading System. German Law Journal [online]. 2023, Vol. 24, Special Issue 1, pp. 17-44 [cit. 2026-03-16]. CrossRef
75. SHIN, W. - AHN, D. Trade Gains from Legal Rulings in the WTO Dispute Settlement System. World Trade Review [online]. 2019, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 1-31 [cit. 2026-03-16]. CrossRef
76. SCHLEMBACH, C. Welthandel und Globalisierung Ausgehandelt? - Wie offen ist die Weltgesellschaft? Paderborn: Brill Fink, 2024. CrossRef
77. SPADANO, L. E. F. A. Cross-Agreement Retaliation in the WTO Dispute Settlement System: An Important Enforcement Mechanism for Developing Countries? World Trade Review [online]. 2008, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 511-545 [cit. 2026-03-16]. CrossRef
78. SUNGJOON, C. Defragmenting World Trade. Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business [online]. 2006, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 39-88 [cit. 2026-03-16]. Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njilb/vol27/iss1/6/.
79. THÜRER, D. Völkerrecht und Landesrecht. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für internationales und europäisches Recht. 1999, Jhrg. 9, Nr. 3, pp. 217-224.
80. Treaty Establishing the European Community.
81. Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
82. Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU).
83. Understanding on the Interpretation of Art. XXIV of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.
84. VAN DEN BOSSCHE, P. - ZDOUC, W. The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization. 5th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. CrossRef
85. VIDIGAL, G. Living Without the Appellate Body: Multilateral, Bilateral and Plurilateral Solutions to the WTO Dispute Settlement Crisis. Journal of World Investment & Trade [online]. 2019, Vol. 20, pp. 862-890 [cit. 2026-03-16]. CrossRef
86. WEEDE, E. Protektionismus statt Freihandel gefährdet unsere Zukunft. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft [online]. 2017, Jhrg. 68, Nr. 1, pp. 91-102 [cit. 2026-03-16]. CrossRef
87. WEISS, W. - OHLER, C. - BUNGENBERG, M. Welthandelsrecht. 3. Aufl. München: C. H. Beck, 2022. CrossRef
88. WEIß, W. - FURCULITA, C. The Amended Trade Enforcement Regulation: Addressing Dispute Settlement Blockages. Open Strategic Autonomy in EU Trade Policy: Assessing the Turn to Stronger Enforcement and More Robust Interest Representation, Cambridge Studies in European Law and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024, pp. 165-197. CrossRef
89. WEIß, W. - FURCULITA, C. The EU in Search for Stronger Enforcement Rules: Assessing the Proposed Amendments to Trade Enforcement Regulation 654/2014. Journal of International Economic Law [online]. 2020, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 865-884 [cit. 2026-03-16]. CrossRef
90. World Trade Report: Factors Shaping the Future of World Trade. World Trade Organization, 2013.
91. World Trade Report: The WTO and Preferential Trade Agreements: From Co-Existence to Coherence. World Trade Organization, 2011.
92. WTO. RTAs in force. In: Regional Trade Agreements: Database [online]. [cit. 2026-03-10]. Available at: https://rtais.wto.org/UI/PublicAllRTAList.aspx.
93. YOUNG, A. R. Supplying Compliance with Trade Rules: Explaining the EU's Responses to Adverse WTO Rulings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021. CrossRef
94. ZHOU, W. - CROCHET, V. Confronting Fragmentation: A Quest for a Plurilateral Appellate Mechanism Under the WTO. Journal of World Investment &Trade [online]. 2025, Vol. 26, pp. 275-300 [cit. 2026-03-16]. CrossRef
95. ZIMMERMANN, T. A. Negotiating the Review of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding [online]. MPRA Paper No. 4498. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, 2006 [cit. 2026-03-16]. Available at: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/4498/.
Legal Effects and Enforcement Limits of the WTO Dispute Settlement Rulings in the European Union is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
157 x 230 mm
vychází: 4 x ročně
cena tištěného čísla: 65 Kč
ISSN: 0323-0619
E-ISSN: 2336-6478
