Law Tutors Blog | Law Tutors Online | London Law Tutor Ltd.

When envisaged at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, the aim of the World Trade Organisation was to liberalise trade in a manner that would facilitate reliance between the signatories to an extent that would prevent future warfare as had been experienced in the years preceding the Conference. [1] Part of this reliance came in the form of trade agreements that ensured that countries would not create barriers to trade that would inhibit the liberalisation efforts that had taken place and create a difference of competition. However, the question arises as to what mechanisms the WTO had in place to enforce the agreements against a breaching country. The two prominent mechanisms through which enforcement is sought to be achieved are retaliation and compensation; the basis for both being found under Article 22 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding.  To deal firstly with the matter of retaliation. The idea behind retaliation is that a country which has been on the rec

When it comes to the expropriation of property and the relative remedies that are to be available to foreign parties, two conflicting theories have arisen. The first of these theories was formulated by Cordell Hull and later came to be known as the Hull Formula. A holistically different and opposing theory to the Hull theory being the Calvo Doctrine. The aim of this essay is to determine whether the Hull formula was able to find a place in private international law or was triumphed by the Calvo Doctrine.  The crux of the Hull Formula established that when property is expropriated there should be a prompt, adequate and effective” [1] level of compensation awarded to the owner of the property. On the other hand, the Calvo Doctrine, named after the Argentine jurist Carlos Calvo, holds that as opposed to having an international standard by which compensation should be paid, compensation for expropriation should be in line with that which is available in the subject co