A Legal Notion of Adverse Inference in WTO Case Law

• Authors: Markiyan Malskyy

Abstracts

EN

Gathering evidence is of utmost importance in any legal proceeding. However, sometimes, one of the parties may hide specific evidence, which complicates the adjudicators’ reaching of a fair conclusion. For such cases, judges or arbitrators can use several tools, one of which is adverse inference. An adverse inference is a negative conclusion that may be drawn from a party’s failure to provide some evidence without a valid excuse for non-production. By drawing it, adjudicators assume this evidence would harm the party’s interests. At the same time, adverse inference is quite a radical tool because it may strongly impact the final decision. Because of this, adjudicators are sometimes cautious about using it. This paper analyzes the notion of adverse inference in the context of the dispute resolution mechanism available in the WTO. In particular, three cases were summarized in which the Appellate Body made interesting findings regarding the application of adverse inference. As a result of the work, conclusions from these cases are made that can be used by lawyers in future WTO disputes, as well as in other international and national dispute resolution fora.

Keywords

EN

adverse inference; WTO; fact-finding; dispute resolution

• Publisher: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek
• Journal: Polish Political Science Yearbook
• Year: 2024
• Issue: 1(53)
• Pages: 5-15

Dates

published

2024

Contributors

author

Markiyan Malskyy

• University of Warsaw (Poland)

• https://orcid.org/0000000324352097

References

• Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. 1 January 1995.
• Andrews, N. (1994). Principles of Civil Procedure. Sweet & Maxwell Limited.
• Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft. WT/DS70/R. Adopted 14 April 1999; WT/DS70/AB/R. Adopted 20 August 1999.
• IBA Rules on Taking Evidence in International Arbitration. Article 9. 17 December 2020. International Bar Association.
• Jackson, J. (2020). The jurisprudence of the GATT & the WTO. Cambridge University Press.
• Kinnear, M., & McLachlan, C. (2015). ICSID Review. Foreign Investment Law Journal, 30(3).
• Markiyan, M., & Oesch M. (2007). Elegantia juris of “adverse inference” in the WTO and other dispute settlement fora: ad impossibilia lex non cogit.
• Redfern, A. (2004). Interim Measures. In L. Newman, & R. Hill (Eds.), The Leading Arbitrators’ Guide to International Arbitration (pp. 367–404). JurisNet, LLC.
• Sandifer, D. V. (1939). Evidence before International Tribunals. The Fountain Press.
• Sharpe, J. K. (2006). Drawing Adverse Inferences from the Non-production of Evidence. Arbitration International, 22(4). LCIA.
• Understanding on rules and procedures governing the settlement of disputes. Annex 2 of the WTO Agreement. 1 January 1995.
• United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities. WT/DS166/R. Adopted 31 July 2000; WT/DS166/AB/R. Adopted 22 December 2000.
• United States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (Second Complaint). WT/ DS353/R. Adopted 31 March 2011; WT/DS353/AB/R. Adopted 12 March 2012.
• Wickelgren, A. L. (2010). A Right to Silence for Civil Defendants? The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 26(1), 92–114.

Identifiers

DOI

10.15804/ppsy202401

Biblioteka Nauki

31343175