Effectiveness and legitimacy of Amicus Curiae submission before WTO judiciary organs.





‘Amicus curiae’ is a latin term that means a ‘friend of the court’. In essence, this term encapsulates “[a] person who is not a party to a lawsuit but who petitions the court or is requested by the court to file a brief in the action because that person has a strong interest in the subject matter’’. This presents a non-party with the opportunity to submit its views regarding the outcome of a particular dispute regarding a broad range of issues (e.g. the appraisal of the merits in light of contemporary developments, the submission of factual elements etc.). These submissions have been present also during the predecessor of the current institutionalized WTO, namely the GATT system, albeit never being considered by those panels. However, there was gradual a shift in the panels’ position regarding the engagement with amicus curiae submissions. In this regard, the first amicus curiae submission in the US - Gasoline case was rejected by the WTO panel of that case. It was only the US - Shrimp case that paved the way for amicus curiae to find their way into the WTO adjudicative system. This was followed by a great polarization regarding the legitimacy of engaging with submission of non-state actors in an inherently inter-governmental system. This paper, therefore, sustains that the amicus curiae submissions facilitate effectiveness if exercised within the constraints of legitimacy (as conceptualized within the ambit of the WTO), by framing the analysis through doctrinal discussions as well as empirical evidence that is derived from other research that is appropriately referenced.


amicus curiae, GATT system, WTO judiciary organs,


Download data is not yet available.


  1. Ahn, D. (2021), Why Reform is Needed: WTO ‘Public Body’ Jurisprudence. Glob Policy, 12

  2. Andrew T. Guzman, 'Global Governance and the WTO' (2004) 45 Harv Int'l LJ 303

  3. Ala’i Padideh(2000) Judicial Lobbying at the WTO: The Debate over the Use of Amicus Curiae Briefs and the U.S. Experience The World Trade Organization, Globalization, and the Future of International Trade: Essay, Fordham International Law Journal 24(1)

  4. Carrubba, C. J., Matthew, G., and C. Hankla (2008),‘Judicial Behavior under Political Constraints:Evidence from the European Court of Justice’,American Political Science Review, 102(4)

  5. David Palmeter, 'The WTO as a Legal System' (2000) 24 Fordham Int'l LJ 44

  6. Donald McRae, 'What Is the Future of WTO Dispute Settlement?' (2004) 7 J Int'l Econ L3

  7. Garner B. A., Black’s Law Dictionary, West Group, St. Paul, Minn. (7th ed. 1999)

  8. Jackson, J. (1997). The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding—Misunderstandings on the Nature of Legal Obligation. American Journal of International Law, 91(1)

  9. JH Jackson (1998), Dispute settlement and the WTO, Journal of International Economic Law, 1(3)

  10. Jose ́E. Alvarez, Foreword, and Robert Howse, ‘From Politics to Technocracy and Back Again: The Fate of theMultilateral Trading Regime’, 96 AJIL (2002)

  11. Kelemen, D. (2001),‘The Limits of Judicial Power: Trade–Environment Disputes in the GATT/WTO and the EU’,Comparative Political Studies, 34(6)

  12. Laurence Boisson de Chazournes ‘Transparency and Amicus Curiae Briefs’ The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 5(2)

  13. Marceau, G., Stilwell, M. (2001) ‘Practical Suggestions for Amicus Curiae Briefs before WTO Adjudicating Bodies’, Journal of international economic law 4(1)

  14. M Hilf (2001), Power, rules and principles - which orientation for WTO/GATT law?, Journal of International Economic Law, 4(1)

  15. McCall Smith, J. (2003),‘WTO Dispute Settlement: The Politics of Procedure in Appellate Body Rulings’,World Trade Review, 2(1)

  16. Musaraj, A. (2019). Technocracy and the questionable moral philosophy of management. A Southeast Europe inside.. Academicus International Scientific Journal, 19, 37-48. https://doi.org/10.7336/academicus.2019.19.03

  17. PC Mavroidis (2000), Remedies in the WTO legal system: between a rock and a hard place, European Journal of International Law, 11(4)

  18. Perola Ntastin, Submission of Amicus Curiae before WTO Judiciary Organs: An Evaluation of a Contested Practice - Effectiveness and Legitimacy, Erasmus University Rotterdam p. 2-4.

  19. William W. Park, “The Four Musketeers of Arbitral Duty” inArbitration of International Business Disputes,Studies in Law and Practice, Oxford (2nd ed., 2012)

  20. Shaffer, G. C. (2001),‘The World Trade Organization under Challenge: Democracy and the Law and Politics of the WTO’s Treatment of Trade and Environment Matters’,Harvard EnvironmentalLaw Review,25(1)

  21. Steinberg, R. H. (2004),‘Judicial Lawmaking at the WTO: Discursive, Constitutional, and PoliticalConstraints’, American Journal of International Law, 98(2)

  22. Squatrito T. (2018), Amicus Curiae Briefs in the WTO DSM: Good or Bad News for Non-State ActorInvolvement? World Trade Review, 17(1)

  23. Van den Bossche, Werner Zdouc, The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization, Cambridge University Press (5th ed., 2021)

  24. Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products, available at https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/dispu_settlement_e.pdf, p. 33, accessed on 8 April, 2022.

  25. US - Stainless Steel (Mexico) (WT/DS344/AB/R) 20 May 2008

  26. US–Lead and Bismuth II (WTO/DS138/AB/R) 10 May 2000

  27. United States — Import prohibition of certain shrimp and shrimp products (WT/DS58/AB/R) 12 October 1998




How to Cite

Konomi, R., Gjipali, D. and Perola, N. (2023) “Effectiveness and legitimacy of Amicus Curiae submission before WTO judiciary organs”., Academicus International Scientific Journal. Vlora, Albania, 14(28), pp. 110–120. doi: 10.7336/academicus.2023.28.06.