timetable prescribed under the agreement than it has under the WTO. If it does, the process will be considerably speedier than at the WTO.
Detailed provisions governing key procedural phases of TPP proceedings may assist in ensuring that the tight deadlines laid down in the agreement, as described in Figure 2, are met.
Institutional Support
The institutional support that exists for the WTO DSM, including a professional secretariat and standing Appellate Body, is a key feature underpinning the relative predictability and success of the WTO DSM. Where a complainant has a choice of forum, this may provide a reason for selecting WTO dispute settlement over the TPP DSM, particularly where claims are based on an “orthodox” understanding of disputed provisions.
Unlike the WTO system in which panels are assisted by a team of secretariat lawyers, the individuals appointed to TPP panels will be expected to shoulder a considerable burden in delivering their reports themselves. TPP panels are to be supported by national administrative offices, and, although there is no explicit provision for administrative costs and panelist fees in the TPP, these will likely need to be borne by the disputing parties. In this way, TPP dispute settlement may be relatively more costly than WTO dispute settlement, since the WTO general budget provides for secretariat costs and honoraria for panelists.
Clearly, the TPP framework will be the only framework available for resolving disputes involving rights and obligations that are additional to those provided for under the WTO agreements. Furthermore, complainants with novel or unorthodox claims, or those who wish to re-litigate issues already addressed in the WTO context, may favor the new TPP forum. The TPP drafters,