Comparison of Dispute Settlement Mechanisms between the ASEAN and the MERCOSUR

Abstract

The Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), the world’s fourth-largest trading bloc, represents an intriguing yet under-researched case of a regional organization which has made significant advances in regional integration in the past decades, legalization being a central dimension of its integration process. In 2002, the MERCOSUR’s dispute settlement system was substantially revised by its four member states. Up until then, disputes among member states had been resolved by diplomatic negotiations and ad hoc tribunals with limited independence from the member-state governments. The reforms mark a significant advance in the legalization of this regional organization: a standing court with a more independent judiciary and improved access to the court’s jurisdiction was established. In order to account for the shift towards more legalization of the MERCOSUR. On the other hand, the other institution´s legal system compared with the MERCOSUR Dispute Settlement Mechanism, is the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) which is one of those arrangements made by South-East Asian countries to have trade and economic development on aggressive lines through regional preferential trading mode. The ASEAN has not only created an alternative structure for trade governance within the closed circuit but also instituted a sophisticated sui generis dispute settlement mechanism to deal with controversies arising in relation to areas covered under the agreement. This research presents a rational institutional explanation and develops an analysis about stages in the dispute settlement mechanism, the creation of both legal frameworks for disputes (when), a descriptive explanation about the phases in controversies (which), and the institutional form that legal decisions are taken and solved in case to arise any kind of dispute between States (how).