www.wto.disp.settlement

Objective: To identify international trade disputes that are either stalled and ripe for mediation, or that involve complex technical/logistical issues which could be solved by a service Cocoo could provide under a public contract (e.g., with a government trade department).

WTO Search Facility Rules & Application

The WTO’s dispute data is accessible via several tools on their official website and through specialized legal databases. The key is to use their structured search and filtering capabilities, as they do not rely on simple text operators alone.

Available Search Options & Rules:

• Search Template: The primary tool. It allows filtering by:
  • Dispute number: (e.g., DS544) for targeting specific known cases.
  • WTO member: (Complainant, Respondent, or Third Party) for tracking a specific country’s trade conflicts.
  • WTO agreement: (e.g., GATT, GATS, TRIPS) for focusing on specific areas of trade law.
  • Subject: (e.g., “steel,” “renewable energy,” “intellectual property”) for industry-specific searches.
  • Date: For narrowing results to recent or historical disputes.
• Browsing Options: The site allows you to browse all disputes chronologically, by Member, by Agreement, or by Subject. This is useful for high-level analysis.
• Document Search: The “Dispute Documents Database” allows full-text keyword searching within official documents (panel reports, submissions, etc.). This is where our keyword portfolio becomes powerful.
• Implicit Operators: Selecting multiple filters (e.g., a country AND a subject) acts as a logical AND operator, narrowing the results. Browsing lists and then searching within them is a way to create a focused workflow.

Applying the 4-Step Model to the WTO:

• Step 1: Scoping & Keyword Strategy

  • Case Example: We believe a trade friction exists in the global “agricultural technology” sector.
  • Keyword Portfolio:
    • Broad: “agriculture,” “sanitary,” “phytosanitary,” “SPS.”
    • Technical: “gene editing,” “hydroponics,” “precision fermentation.”
    • Stakeholders: Names of major agricultural exporting countries (e.g., “Brazil,” “Netherlands,” “United States”).
    • Outcome: “mutual recognition,” “technical assistance,” “settlement,” “arbitration.”

• Step 2: Execution & Evidence Gathering

  1. Broad Search: Use the By Subject browser to look at all disputes under “Agriculture.”
  2. Filtered Search: Use the Search Template. Set Subject: to “Agriculture” and add a Member country (e.g., Brazil as complainant). Review the list of disputes.
  3. Document Keyword Search: Take the dispute numbers (DS###) from the previous step. Go to the “Dispute Documents Database.” Search within the documents of these cases for our technical keywords like "gene editing" or outcome keywords like "technical assistance". This helps us find the precise point of contention.
  4. Identify Stalled Disputes: Look for cases with a long “In Consultations” status or where a panel report has been appealed but no Appellate Body report exists (due to the current impasse). These are prime targets for mediation.

• Step 3: Analysis & Opportunity Identification

  • Mediation Opportunity: We find a dispute between two countries over novel food products that has been “In Consultations” for over two years. The parties’ public statements show they are far apart. This is an opportunity to propose Cocoo as a neutral mediator to facilitate technical dialogue.
  • Contract Opportunity: We find a panel report that criticizes a country’s import inspection process for being outdated. The government’s response acknowledges the need for modernization. This is an opportunity for Cocoo to propose a low-value unsolicited project to design a new digital-first inspection workflow, positioning us for a larger tender later.

• Step 4: Leveraging for Positioning

  • We draft a proposal to the relevant government trade ministries of the two countries in the stalled dispute. The proposal references the specific dispute (DS###) and the technical sticking points identified in our research, outlining a clear mediation framework.

Platform Application 2: UK Parliament Petitions Website

Objective: To identify public policy issues where there is significant citizen engagement but a weak or absent government solution. This signals an opportunity for Cocoo to act as a public-private mediator or to propose a pilot project to address the petitioners’ concerns.

Petitions Search Facility Rules & Application

The Petitions website’s power lies in its transparent filtering system and the implicit data it provides about public sentiment.

Available Search Options & Rules:

• Simple Search Bar: The primary interface. While it seems basic, it can be combined with advanced operators common to such databases.
• Advanced Operators (Inferred best practice):
  • "phrase searching": Using quotation marks to find exact phrases (e.g., "social care funding") is crucial for reducing noise.
  • AND / OR / NOT: Boolean operators to combine or exclude terms (e.g., cycling AND safety NOT helmet).
  • * (wildcard): To capture variations of a word (e.g., transport* would find “transport,” “transportation,” etc.).
• Status Filters (Most Important Feature): The website’s most powerful tool is the ability to filter by status. This is our primary strategic lever.
  • All petitions
  • Open petitions
  • Closed petitions
  • Rejected petitions (Opportunity Goldmine)
  • Awaiting government response
  • Government responses
  • Awaiting a debate
  • Debated in Parliament

Applying the 4-Step Model to UK Petitions:

• Step 1: Scoping & Keyword Strategy

  • Case Example: We are looking for opportunities in the “local infrastructure and community services” space.
  • Keyword Portfolio:
    • Broad: “parking,” “library,” “youth centre,” “public transport,” “waste collection.”
    • Specific: “dropped kerbs,” “community fridge,” “school crossing,” “FixMyStreet.”
    • Outcome: “council,” “funding,” “pilot,” “review,” “feasibility study.”

• Step 2: Execution & Evidence Gathering

  1. Search High-Signature Petitions: Search for your keywords and filter by “Debated in Parliament” or “Government responses.” Read the government’s response. A vague or non-committal response to a popular petition signals an unresolved issue.
  2. Search Rejected Petitions: This is a key step. Filter by Rejected petitions and search for your keywords. The reason for rejection is often “This is the responsibility of the local council” or “This is about a private dispute.” These are perfect, targeted opportunities for Cocoo to approach a specific local council or group of stakeholders with a mediation or project proposal.
  3. Search Open Petitions: Look for petitions with a moderate but growing number of signatures in a niche area. This allows us to get ahead of the curve and prepare a proposal before the issue becomes mainstream.

• Step 3: Analysis & Opportunity Identification

  • Mediation Opportunity: We find a Rejected petition about a dispute between local residents and a commercial developer over public access rights. The reason for rejection is that it’s a “private matter.” This is a clear signal for a third-party mediator. Cocoo can approach both parties.
  • Contract Opportunity: We find a petition with 120,000 signatures asking for better tracking of local council road repairs. The government response is positive but non-specific: “The Government encourages local authorities to adopt innovative solutions.” This is a direct invitation. Cocoo can develop a low-cost pilot proposal for a “Road Repair Transparency App” and submit it to the Department for Transport and several key local councils.

• Step 4: Leveraging for Positioning

  • We draft an unsolicited proposal to a specific local council. The opening paragraph cites “Petition #654321 on the Parliament website, which was signed by 5,000 of your local residents,” demonstrating that our proposal is not random but a direct response to a demonstrated public need. This immediately establishes our credibility and relevance.