Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-12-Speech-2-211"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020312.10.2-211"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I agree that it is a very good idea, Mr Purvis. The international legal system, and that of the WTO is rather slow although it is in fact not much slower than our national legal systems when dealing with this type of case, but ‘summary’ type proceedings, which you refer to as injunctions, might be appropriate.
I have two comments to make in response to this point. First of all, it is a good idea. Secondly, as it happens, the WTO disputes settlement procedure is still in its infancy. It is barely five years old, which, for legal proceedings, is still very young, especially for France and we are, for the time being, working on improving other parts of the procedure. I acknowledge, however, that this is a question that we must ask ourselves when the time arises.
However, this type of procedure does not provide a response to an objection raised, which is how do we go about ensuring that injunctions or summary proceedings of this sort are observed? If they are breached, do we have recourse to trade measures? I do not think that the use of law enforcement authorities provided for in Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter is applicable in this case. And as soon as this ceases to be the case and that there is no, if I may say so, State authority in command of a police force, you come back to the problem of sanctions.
The idea is a good one, but we must still answer the question of knowing how to implement this, if not through sanctions and compensation pay-outs, which brings us back to the previous problem."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples