The issue of the admissibility of disputes before wto panels in conflicts related with free trade agreements

País: Colombia The issue that this paper will address was born from the proliferation of free trade agreements in the late twentieth century. Traditionally, it had been understood that the jurisdiction of the Dispute Settlement Body (Hereafter “DSB”) of the World Trade Organization (Hereafter “WTO”) is compulsory and exclusive. However, with the rise of free trade agreements (Hereafter “FTAs”) with dispute settlement forums, beyond the "spaghetti bowl" problem, the overlapping of jurisdictions has arisen a conflict amongst the jurisdictions of the DSB and the dispute settlement mechanisms of the free trade agreements. Given the lack of a solution to this problem in the covered agreements, international doctrine began to propose a myriad of possible solutions to the overlapping of jurisdictions. These proposals led to a new doctrinal debate: the application of non-WTO rules, such as the ones contained in an FTA, to WTO law disputes. Different panels and the WTO Appellate Body have been able to set a precedent in resolving various disputes arising in the framework of a free trade agreement, but there has not been a clear position that can be applied to all cases, either because of the lack of arguments of the defendants or because of the ease of solving the cases on the basis of criteria other than jurisdiction or admissibility. The approach to this issue is not peaceful, since in one way or another it is required to balance the sovereignty of states to bear on new treaty obligations, even over WTO law, versus the supremacy of WTO law, as the multilateral organization par excellence, over free trade agreements. However, as the WTO tribunals have ruled in cases were an overlapping of jurisdictions exists, this paper will analyze the thesis of the “legal impediments”, as a way to preclude the panel to exercise its jurisdiction. Moreover, this paper will analyze the case proposed in the ELSA Moot Court competition 2016-2017[1], as it is the ideal scenario to debate the different arguments that can lead a panel to decide whether to decline the exercise of its validly established jurisdiction, due to a admissibility objection.