Gabrielle Marceau might have retired from the World Trade Organization (WTO). But it is unlikely that she will ever truly leave the Organization, or that it will ever truly leave her. She has had enormous influence in the Organization and no doubt will continue to exercise considerable influence for many years to come. Indeed, those of us in the international economic law field most definitely hope that she does.

Gabrielle contributed over 30 years of dedicated service as a member of the WTO Secretariat.<fnref n="1" /> She served in many different roles, including as a senior dispute settlement lawyer, as a legal adviser in the Director-General’s office,<fnref n="2" /> as a frequent instructor in technical assistance missions around the globe, and as a researcher in the Economic Research and Statistics Division. She is unique in this impressive achievement: no one else can claim such a broad and extensive WTO career. Gabrielle’s contribution has established her as one of the most significant Secretariat staff members of the WTO’s first 30 years. It is fitting that this book honours Gabrielle’s tremendous public service in the field of international trade law.

Although Gabrielle is probably best known for her prolific career assisting WTO panels in resolving disputes between WTO members, her initial tasks on joining the WTO Secretariat in September 1994 centered on non-dispute legal work. This was rather fortuitous, as her early work in the Secretariat no doubt contributed significantly to her becoming one of today’s leading experts in General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)/WTO institutional law. This early and highly important contribution made by Gabrielle might be less known than her dispute settlement work, but it is an important part of the legacy she leaves with us as she retires from the WTO. For this reason, I chose to focus this tribute on her early WTO career.

Gabrielle’s first assignments in the Legal Affairs Division involved the type of work that would have been the envy of every treaty lawyer at the time: providing legal advice on the institutional transition from the GATT to the WTO.<fnref n="3" /> The establishment of the new international organization involved a variety of complicated questions, including whether the *GATT 1947* and the *GATT 1994*—two legally distinct instruments with the former to be included in the latter—should or could co-exist, whether WTO members should formally withdraw from the *GATT 1947*, and what their obligations would be if they did not withdraw upon becoming WTO members. It was not known at the time whether all *GATT 1947* parties would join the WTO, or that they would all join the WTO at the same time, taking into account different domestic ratification timelines. Moreover, it was expected that non-*GATT 1947* parties would join the WTO. Members needed clarity about their legal obligations taking into account the different legal relationships that could arise during the transition period. Although the *Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties*<fnref n="4" /> (*VCLT*) addresses the legal relationship among parties to successive treaties covering the same subject matter but with different memberships, some WTO members were not prepared to risk differing interpretations of their obligations under the *VCLT* rules. Under the circumstances, the Legal Affairs Division was tasked with drafting a number of explicit “decisions” to address various transition matters.

These included a legal instrument providing for a “transitional co-existence” of the *GATT 1947* and the *WTO Agreement* for one year: it stated that “the stability of multilateral relations would […] be furthered if the *GATT 1947* and the *WTO Agreement* were to co-exist for a limited period of time,” but stipulated that legal obligations of WTO members would not extend to those not yet members of the WTO notwithstanding the provisions of the *GATT 1947*.<fnref n="5" /> This meant that the MFN principle would not apply to non-WTO members. Another instrument addressed the “avoidance of procedural and institutional duplication.”<fnref n="6" /> It required bodies established under the *GATT 1947* and the *WTO Agreement* to coordinate their activities so that committee work would not be duplicated and so that WTO members who were also parties to the *GATT 1947*would not have to notify and consult on measures and policies twice.<fnref n="7" /> It was also necessary to clarify which dispute settlement rules (i.e., the new WTO system or the rules under the *GATT 1947*) would apply during the transition period. Article 3.11 of the *WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding* (*DSU*) specifies that WTO dispute settlement rules, including quasi-automatic adoption of panel reports and the right to appeal panel reports, would not be available to disputes that were initiated before the *WTO Agreement* came into force.<fnref n="8" /> More mundane matters such as the transfer of assets, liabilities, records, budget issues, and staff contracts were also spelled out in a specific decision.<fnref n="9" />

During this early period of Gabrielle’s career, she was also involved with the development of practices and procedures related to dispute settlement and the workings of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). Together with colleagues in the Council Division<fnref n="10" /> and in consultation with a number of governments, Gabrielle drafted rules dealing with practical matters such as how and where to notify a request for consultations initiating a dispute settlement process, where to lodge a communication with the DSB Chair, how to deal with *DSU* deadlines that fall on non-working days, which date is to be understood as the “date of circulation” of dispute settlement documents, and requiring that documents could be distributed to members only once they were available in the three official languages of the WTO (English, French and Spanish).<fnref n="11" /> This experience no doubt informed Gabrielle’s work many years later when, starting in 2010, Gabrielle assisted Alejandro Jara,<fnref n="12" /> then Deputy Director-General of the WTO, with what was known informally as the “Jara Process”, Jara’s informal consultations with WTO members, former panelists, trade law practitioners and other experts seeking to identify efficiency gains in the WTO dispute settlement panel process. Ideas brought forward by those consulted included agreed page limits for executive summaries of legal submissions, time limits for oral argument, expeditious consultation with experts in SPS disputes, and sending questions to litigants in advance of panel meetings. Some of the ideas were implemented on an ad hoc basis subject to the agreement of the disputing parties.<fnref n="13" />

Another early project for Gabrielle was assisting with the development of rules of conduct for those working in WTO dispute settlement. No system of dispute resolution will succeed unless participants have confidence that the adjudication will be carried out in an impartial manner, independent of outside influence. Fairness, absence of bias and avoidance of conflicts of interest on the part of adjudicators is paramount to ensuring the integrity of a dispute settlement mechanism. Confidentiality of proceedings was also a key element of the WTO system.

Gabrielle served as Secretary to the negotiating group chaired by then-New Zealand Ambassador Wade Armstrong that was mandated by the DSB to agree on a final text of rules of conduct for dispute settlement participants. It was a demanding assignment that lasted two years. Gabrielle had a “front row seat” to the energetic debates among WTO members on the how the rules should apply and to whom. Her advice assisted Ambassador Armstrong and the negotiators to find agreement on a way forward in a number of instances.<fnref n="14" />

The *Rules of Conduct for the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes*<fnref n="15" /> (*Rules of Conduct*) were adopted by consensus in the DSB on 3 December 1996.<fnref n="16" /> The Rules apply to panelists, Appellate Body members, experts, arbitrators, and WTO Secretariat staff.<fnref n="17" /> They set forth the “Governing Principle” that each person covered by the Rules “shall be independent and impartial, shall avoid direct or indirect conflicts of interest and shall respect the confidentiality of proceedings”.<fnref n="18" /> They include a requirement of self-disclosure of “any information that could reasonably be expected to be known to them at the time which […] is likely to affect or give rise to justifiable doubts as to their independence or impartiality.”<fnref n="19" /> They also set out the process for challenging a “material violation” of the obligations of independence, impartiality or confidentiality, such as when there is an alleged failure to disclose a conflict of interest.<fnref n="20" />

The WTO dispute settlement system has been criticized over the years—sometimes quite fervently. But it has not been for lack of integrity. Nor has the disapproval been that adjudicators have been biased or impartial. The *Rules of Conduct* have thus proved effective, due in no small measure to the legal guidance provided by Gabrielle in their development.

This tribute focuses on Gabrielle’s non-dispute work and is not intended to diminish the value of her dispute-related work, which was, of course, remarkable. The WTO dispute mechanism was new in 1995, and Gabrielle was among the first Secretariat lawyers to work within the system. During her 30 plus years at the WTO, she assisted ministers, ambassadors, negotiators, private practitioners, economists, and other experts who served as panelists in WTO dispute settlement proceedings.

Gabrielle also became a leading expert in WTO law and earned a world-wide reputation as a thought leader through her numerous published articles and papers delving into a wide spectrum of WTO subjects. Her writing and teaching inspired scholars and students alike. Indeed, I recall a number Legal Affairs Division interns who were keen to work alongside the famous WTO professor.

I congratulate Gabrielle for her extraordinary achievements during her 30 plus years of dedicated service to the WTO. Her unique contribution in non-dispute work enriched the Organization. Her prolific work as a dispute settlement lawyer and her extensive publications will continue to influence scholars and practitioners for years to come.

<footnote n="1">Gabrielle joined the Legal Affairs Division on 11 September 1994. She retired from the WTO on 28 February 2025. See ITI, “Dr Gabrielle Marceau”, online: <internationaltradeinstitute.com> [perma.cc/XZ4Q-S7H7].</footnote>

<footnote n="2">She served in the office of former Director-General Pascal Lamy from September 2005 to January 2010, when she returned to the Legal Affairs Division.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">Gabrielle worked closely with Frieder Roessler, then Director of the Legal Affairs Division, on these matters. Mr. Roessler served in the *GATT*/WTO from 1973 to 1994.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">*Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,*23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331, arts 30, 59, 70.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">WTO, *Transitional Co-Existence of the GATT 1947 and the WTO Agreement,*WTO Doc PC/W/17, 6SS/W/3 (1994), online: <wto.org> [perma.cc/N4FR-6VPZ].</footnote>

<footnote n="6">WTO, *Transnational Arrangements, Avoidance of Procedural and Institutional Duplication*, WTO Doc PC/11, L/7582 (13 December 1994), online: <wto.org> [perma.cc/323A-STER].</footnote>

<footnote n="7">*Ibid* at para 4.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">WTO, *Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes*, WTO Doc. WT/DSB/RC/1 (3 December 1996), art 3.11.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">WTO, *Transitional Arrangements: Transfer Agreement Between GATT 1947, ICITO and the WTO*, WTO Doc PC/W/12, 6SS/W/1 (7 December 1994).</footnote>

<footnote n="10">Warren Lavorel (then-Deputy Director-General of the WTO), Paulo Barthel-Rosa (then-Director of the Council Division) and Bozena Mueller-Holyst (Secretary of the Dispute Settlement Body since 1995).</footnote>

<footnote n="11">Gabrielle Marceau, “From GATT to the WTO, The expanding duties of the Legal Affairs Division in non-panel matters” in Gabrielle Marceau, ed, *A History of Law and Lawyers in the GATT/WTO* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015) 244 [*From GATT to the WTO*].</footnote>

<footnote n="12">Alejandro Jara served as Deputy Director-General of the WTO from 2005 to 2013.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">See WTO, “Secretariat’s informal consultations concerning the panel process”, online: <wto.org> [perma.cc/7CSJ-4AX6].</footnote>

<footnote n="14">*From GATT to the WTO*, *supra*note 11.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">WTO, *Rules of Conduct for the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlements of Disputes*, WTO Doc WT/DSB/RC/W/1, (11 December 1996) online: <wto.org> [perma.cc/X23W-JND3] [*Rules of Conduct*].</footnote>

<footnote n="16">WTO, *Minutes of Meeting*, WTO Doc WT/DSB/M/27, (15 January 1997) at para 1, online: <docs.wto.org> [perma.cc/7YW4-H9VW].</footnote>

<footnote n="17">They also applied to the now defunct Textile Monitoring Body.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">*Rules of Conduct*,*supra* note 15, rule II.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">See *ibid*, rule VI.1.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">See *ibid*, rule VIII. These procedures are confidential, so it is not clear how often they have been invoked. To my knowledge, however, there have been a handful of such cases at most.</footnote>