The Pacific Alliance Dispute Settlement Mechanism: One More for the Heap

  • José Manuel Álvarez Zárate
  • Diana María Beltrán Vargas
Part of the United Nations University Series on Regionalism book series (UNSR, volume 16)


The present chapter focuses on the question of whether the Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) included in the Pacific Alliance (PA), which comprises Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru, offers better and more effective guarantees, in the case of treaty breaches, than DSMs in other agreements between PA members. In other words, this chapter compares the PA’s DSM with the DSMs included in the bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) previously signed between its members, as well as with the World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU). This question arises because, despite the availability of multiple bilateral forums to solve commercial disputes, they appear useless. Experience has shown that States have preferred to appear before the WTO system, which has demonstrated a certain level of effectiveness that the bilateral DSUs had not. In this regard, this chapter will firstly focus on the relevant features of the PA’s DSM and compare them with the DSU. Secondly it will look at how the PA’s DSM interacts with the multilateral Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), in light of the importance of trade liberalization. Finally, conclusions are drawn regarding its relevance, taking into account the many overlapping international court systems in place, and how this situation could affect the implementation of the PA commercial Agreement by creating uncertainty among its members.


Pacific Alliance Dispute settlement WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) 



  1. Additional Protocol to the Economic Complementation Agreement N°24 (Colombia and Chile Free Trade Agreement) entry into force May 8th 2009.Google Scholar
  2. Additional Protocol to the Pacific Alliance Framework Agreement, entry into force May 1st 2016.Google Scholar
  3. Economic Complementation Agreement N°33 (Colombia, Mexico and Venezuela Free Trade Agreement), entry into force January 1st 1995.Google Scholar
  4. Economic Complementation Agreement N°41 (Mexico and Chile Free Trade Agreement), entry into force August 1st 1999.Google Scholar
  5. Free Trade Agreement between Chile and Peru, entry into force March 1st 2009Google Scholar
  6. Pacific Alliance Framework Agreement, signed on June 6 2012.Google Scholar
  7. Trade Integration Agreement between Mexico and Peru, entry into force February 1st 2012.Google Scholar
  8. Treaty Creating the Court of Justice of the Cartagena Agreement, entry into force on May 28 1979. Modified on May 28 of 1996.Google Scholar


  1. Bertola, L., & Ocampo José, A. (2013). The economic development of Latin America since independence. Oxford: Oxford Uniersity Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bhagwati, J. (2008). Termites in the trading system: How preferential agreements undermine free trade. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Lester, S., et al. (2012). World trade law. Portland: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Matsushita, M., et al. (2015). The World Trade Organization. Law, practice, and policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. O’Keefe, T. (2008). Latin American and Caribbean trade agreements: Keys to a prosperous community of the Americas. London: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  6. Trebilcock, M., Robert, H., & Antonia, E. (2013). The regulation of international trade. London: Routledege.Google Scholar

Official Publications

  1. Álvarez, J. (2005). Recomendaciones de Bogotá para la negociación de un tratado de libre comercio con Estados Unidos: asuntos constitucionales, institucionales, solución de diferencias, inversión y competencia (Alcaldía de Bogotá).Google Scholar
  2. Crawford, J., & Fiorentino, R. (2005). The changing landscape of regional trade agreements (Discussion Paper N° 8).Google Scholar
  3. World Trade Organization. World Trade Report 2011. The WTO and preferential trade agreements: From co-existence to coherence. Google Scholar
  5. WTO. “Doha WTO MINISTERIAL 2001: MINISTERIAL DECLARATION” (WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1). 20 November 2001Google Scholar

Book Chapters

  1. Aksar, Y. (2014). Towards global dispute settlement mechanisms in international economic law. In Y. Aksar (Ed.), Implementing international economic law (pp. 187–191). Leiden: BRILL.Google Scholar
  2. Baldwin, R., & Freund, C. (2011). Preferential trade agreements and multilateral liberalization. In J.-P. Chauffour & J.-C. Maur (Eds.), Preferential trade agreement policies for development (pp. 121–141). Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  3. Baldwin, R. (2012). Preferential trading arrangements. In M. Daunton, A. Narlikar, & R. M. Stern (Eds.)., (eds.) The oxford handbook on the world trade organization (pp. 632–654). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Davey, W. (2006). Dispute settlement in the WTO and RTAs: A comment. In L. Bartels & F. Ortino (Eds.), Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO Legal System (pp. 343–358). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Elsig, M., et al. (2012). Dispute settlement mechanism. In M. Daunton, A. Narlikar, & R. M. Stern (Eds.), The Oxford handbook on the World Trade Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Kwak, K., & Marceau, G. (2006). Overlaps and conflicts of jurisdiction between the World Trade Organization and regional trade agreements. In L. Bartels & F. Ortino (Eds.), Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO Legal System (pp. 465–524). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Whalley, J. (1998). Why do countries seek regional trade agreements? In J. Frankel (Ed.), The regionalization of the world economy (pp. 63–90). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Journal Articles

  1. Barbee, I., & Lester, S. (2014). The TPP and the future of trade agreements. Latin American Journal of International Trade Law, 2, 207–225.Google Scholar
  2. Brewster, R. (2006). Rule-based dispute resolution in international trade law. Virginia Law Review, 92, 251–288.Google Scholar
  3. Busch, M. (2007). Overlapping institutions, forum shopping, and dispute settlement in international trade. International Organization, 61, 735–761. Scholar
  4. Caichiolo, C. (2016). International law and dispute settlement mechanism. Meridiano, 47(17), 1–10. Scholar
  5. Creamer, C., & Godzirinska, Z. (2016). (De)Legitimization at the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 49, 275–321.Google Scholar
  6. Davis, C. (2009). Overlapping institutions in trade policy. Perspectives On Politics, 7, 25–31. Scholar
  7. Gao, H., & Lim, C. L. (2008). Saving the WTO from the risk of irrelevance: The WTO dispute settlement mechanism as a ‘common good’ for RTA disputes. Journal of International Economic Law, 11, 899–925. Scholar
  8. Guzman, A. (2002). The cost of credibility: Explaining resistance to interstate dispute resolution mechanisms. The Journal of Legal Studies, 31, 303–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hayter, R., & Edenhoffer, K. (2014). Trade disputes, dispute settlement mechanisms, and local development. The Professional Geographer, 66, 631–640. Scholar
  10. Holbein, J., & Carpentier, G. (1993). Trade agreements and dispute settlement mechanisms in the western hemisphere. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 25, 531–569.Google Scholar
  11. Jo, H., & Namgung, H. (2012). Dispute settlement mechanisms in preferential trade agreements: Democracy, boilerplates, and the multilateral trade regime. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 56, 1041–1068. Scholar
  12. Jovanovic, M., & Damnajovic, J. (2015). Saving multilateralism in a higgledy-piggledy trading system. Journal of Economic Integration, 30, 29–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Keohane, R., & Others. (2000). Legalized dispute resolution: Interstate and transnational. International Organization, 54, 457–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kono, D. (2007). Making anarchy work: International legal institutions and trade cooperation. Journal of Politics, 69, 746–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Koremenos, B. (2007). If only half of international agreements have dispute resolution provisions, which half needs explaining? The Journal of Legal Studies, 36, 189–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Vazquez López, R. (2011). Integración económica en América Latina: la visión teórica de la CEPAL confrontada con la evolución del proyecto en la región. Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science, 16, 107–118.Google Scholar

Other Print Sources

  1. Bown, C. (2016). Mega-Regional Trade Agreements and the future of the WTO. Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).Google Scholar
  2. Bown, C., & Others. (2014). What do we know about Preferential Trade Agreements and temporary trade barriers? (Policy Research Working Paper- World Bank 6898).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chauffour, J.-P., & Maur, J.-C. (2010). Beyond market access. The new normal of Preferential Trade Agreements. (Policy Research Working Paper-World Bank 5454).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crawford, J.-A., & Laird, S. (2000). Regional trade agreements and the WTO. Nottingham: Centre for Research in Economic Development and International Trade, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
  5. Culot, H. (2008). OMC et accords régionaux: les relations entre les mécanismes de règlement des différends (Working Papers Series 2008/5). Université Catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar


  1. Foreign Trade Information System, Organization of American States. April 29 2016.
  2. The Pacific Alliance. May 29 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • José Manuel Álvarez Zárate
    • 1
  • Diana María Beltrán Vargas
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidad ExternadoBogotáColombia

Personalised recommendations