The Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization has been non- functional since 2019, primarily due to the ongoing veto of the United States on the appointment of the adjudicators for this Body. Consequently, some of the WTO members proposed the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) under the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) Article 25. The MPIA is an interim mechanism for mandatory appeal reviews among MPIA members until the Appellate Body comes into functionality. This paper examines whether Article 25 arbitration, especially under the MPIA arrangement, is a legally valid and alternative to the Appellate Body or merely a temporary measure. Through doctrinal legal research and a case study approach, this paper examines the DS583(EU-Turkey) case, which is the first full application of Article 25 appeal arbitration. The dispute shows the scope and limitations of the interim appeal mechanism. While the arbitration award could be binding and effective in enforcement, its legitimacy was the result of voluntary cooperation and not within the WTO framework. While DSU Article 25 is procedurally flexible and can lead to potential legal decisions, is not systemic in consistency, legally predictable, and extensively participated in to be a full institutional replacement for the Appellate Body. The MPIA, however, has been an important tool for continuing the appeal function for participating members and facilitating procedural innovation. This paper recommends broader measures of MPIA that use institutionalized processes, greater transparency, and more certain standards of enforcement. At the same time, it emphasizes continuing the need to reform and re-establish the WTO Appellate Body for maintaining the predictability, inclusiveness and rule-based integrity of the international trading system.
Ananta Proshad Chakraborty (Sat,) studied this question.