The collapse of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body (AB) has raised fundamental questions about how appellate mechanisms in international dispute settlement should be institutionally designed. While existing scholarship has primarily focused on the political causes of the crisis, less attention has been paid to the structural lessons the experience offers for the design of future appellate systems, particularly in the context of ongoing reform discussions within United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group III. This article addresses that gap by examining farewell speeches delivered by departing WTO AB members as a form of institutional testimony that reveals the internal pressures within the dispute settlement system. The analysis identifies three structural dynamics that contributed to the AB’s paralysis: mandate ambiguity that generated competing narratives of adjudicative authority; the transformation of procedural rules into sites of accountability contestation once political confidence eroded; and the structural fragility created by consensus-based institutional design. Building on these insights, the article developsa graduated accountability framework for the design of the proposed UNCITRAL appellate mechanism. The framework distinguishes three complementary layers of accountability – interpretive, institutional, and constitutional – through which disagreement can be managed across successive stages before escalating into systemic confrontation. The article argues that sustainable appellate adjudication requires not only judicial independence but also an institutional architecture capable of distributing accountability across multiple layers of dialogue, oversight, and structural safeguards.
Global Trade and Customs Journal