English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The European Court of Justice has long been criticized for consistently holding that the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) does not have direct effect. The end of the GATT Uruguay Round prompted a renewed analysis of direct effect by Kees Jan Kuilwik. In his book, The European Court of Justice and the GATT Dilemma, Kuilwijk argues that the continued denial of direct effect to the GATT 94 not only proves that the ECJ has protectionist motives but also that it is unconcerned with individual rights. In addition to updating the traditional critique of the Court's doctrine, Kuilwijk's book illustrates the tendency of that critique to fail to acknowledge the full complexity of the direct effect question. Thus, a more measured and thorough exploration of the legal, political and economic issues involved in analysing the issue of direct effect may prove useful. This paper attempts such an analysis. Its purpose is not to advocate a particular position but merely to illustrate the gaps in the traditional critique.

The European Court of Justice and Direct Effect for the GATT: A Question Worth Revisiting