1. The Dawn of the ACWL

The ACWL was inaugurated in July 2001. While the ACWL is today a well-established, well-known entity, it was initially quite experimental. In 2001, it was by no means certain that this new international organization would succeed. Thanks to the vision, guidance, and hard work of Frieder, the ACWL transformed itself from a novelty into a key player in international trade. I was at the ACWL in these early, heady years.

Frieder was the natural choice to lead the new Centre. He was widely respected and admired by all who came into contact with him, whether from least-developed, developing, or developed countries. He was a man whose reputation literally preceded him. Indeed, I first heard of Frieder about five years before I actually met him. In 1996, I was on a flight back from consultations in Washington when a senior Canadian trade negotiator (who had been posted to Geneva during the Uruguay Round) told me about this GATT official who assisted delegates. Whenever he was asked, Frieder provided his views on the possible legal consequences of each proposed text. She expressed her admiration of how he did so – calmly, professionally, never over-promising or pandering to what the delegates wanted to hear. I remembered this conversation clearly, and looked forward to meeting Frieder – which I finally did when I was interviewed for a position at the ACWL.

I was one of the first lawyers to join the Centre in December 2001. Frieder had initially been alone in the office and was looking forward to his hand-picked team of six lawyers joining him in the new offices of the ACWL. Frieder once told me that in all his previous jobs, he had inherited some existing staff, and often old and mis-matched furniture. At the ACWL, it would be quite different. Frieder was happy that he was able to interview and hand-pick the lawyers he wanted to work with. He said that he was equally pleased to be able to ask the ACWL's first office manager, Natacha Zofka, to choose all new, modern Swiss furniture for the office! As soon as I joined, I realized that the Centre was in terra incognita and that Frieder was in the process of developing foundational guidelines for the day-to-day operations of the ACWL. Unbeknownst to us at the time, we would continue using these guidelines (and the furniture!) for decades to come.

One of Frieder's earliest and most important policies was to enhance the professional development of all the lawyers – whether senior or junior. I discovered this in my first few weeks at the ACWL. Frieder asked me to prepare a legal opinion that had been requested by one of the ACWL's developing country Members. After Frieder reviewed my draft and provided me with helpful edits and comments, I asked him whether he wished to send the final legal opinion to the client, as he was the Director. Frieder said that as I was the lawyer who drafted the opinion, I should be the one to send it. This is a tradition that continues in the ACWL to this day – the principal lawyer drafting the legal opinion (after review by management) sends the final product to the client. This enormously increases the credibility of our staff lawyers, as they have direct interaction with our clients. It was Frieder's confidence in us that enabled all the staff lawyers to take on and deliver increasingly more complex assignments over time.

Frieder had the same approach when it came to having meetings with our clients. He never took a meeting alone. He always asked one of the staff lawyers to join him so that we would be involved in a matter that could eventually turn into a legal opinion or a dispute from the beginning. This also enhanced our own credibility with the clients.

At the Inauguration Ceremony of the ACWL in July 2001, Frieder noted that the Centre would offer three main services: legal advice, support in WTO dispute settlement proceedings, and training of government officials. He said that that we would not duplicate the training in the field of international trade law provided by other international organizations, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the International Trade Centre (ITC), or the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). Instead, he decided that the ACWL should direct its training at delegates who were posted to their Permanent Missions in Geneva. These delegates are those responsible for a wide range of WTO Councils and Committees, including – but by no means limited to – WTO dispute settlement. Training these delegates significantly enhanced their ability to function at a high level on a wide range of WTO issues throughout their time in Geneva. Many delegates told us that being posted to the WTO can be extremely challenging, given the steep learning curve they faced as they entered this complex new system. Frieder helped them navigate this environment with clear explanations of the origins, architecture, and functioning of WTO rules. This was also a means of promoting our expertise and services at a time when the ACWL was not yet a well-known entity. Frieder's decision to target Geneva-based officials was also good from a practical and budgetary perspective, as it greatly reduced the financial and administrative costs associated with the ACWL's training activities.

Frieder structured the annual training course into a three-year cycle, covering (i) basic principles of WTO law; (ii) the covered agreements; and (iii) dispute settlement. This three-year cycle mirrored the duration of the posting term of many delegates, so it meant they could attend all three years of the training course. And they did. The course was seen as invaluable by the delegates, and attendance remained consistently high throughout the cycle.

Frieder's approach to the training course was a reflection of his deep abiding interest in all aspects of WTO law, and his enthusiasm for the subject was quite infectious. One of the things that I remember most fondly about Frieder was his willingness (indeed – his happiness) to engage in in-depth discussions about fundamental concepts in WTO law. It was a joy to listen to him teach each week of our annual training course. He had a lot of experience teaching at Georgetown University, but, every time he taught a session at the ACWL, his enthusiasm was such that it was as if he was conveying his ideas on the topic for the first time. Frieder was always structured and methodical when he taught. The delegates particularly appreciated his ability to explain complex issues in trade law in a straightforward and readily comprehensible manner. We usually had two lawyers teaching at every 90-minute training session. Sometimes, Frieder would be teamed up with a very junior lawyer who was assigned to teach a particular topic, such as national treatment. Frieder would always sit beside the lawyer politely and never interrupt them. If he did disagree with something they had said, he would always explain his position in a respectful and collegial manner. Frieder would sometimes disagree but was never disagreeable!

I was fortunate enough to spend a lot of time talking to Frieder about technical (some might say arcane!) WTO legal issues. Through these discussions, I was able to think through and clarify some fundamental points. This significantly enhanced my understanding of WTO law and my ability to present the arguments most effectively to a WTO panel or the Appellate Body.

For example, some of the early cases we worked on together involved tariffs. In preparing for the panel hearings, we spent many hours discussing the nature of tariff bindings, what constituted an ‘other duty or charge’, and the clarifications brought about by the Understanding on Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994. My favourite discussions concerned ‘floating’ initial negotiating rights (INRs)! Debating these concepts with Frieder was often quite challenging, particularly in the early stages of my career at the ACWL. Frieder would continually but politely challenge the parameters of my arguments, always drilling down deeper to see if they would hold up to scrutiny. I soon realized that if I could convince Frieder, then convincing the panel would be no problem!

In the early days of the ACWL, Frieder naturally took the lead in the advocacy of these cases. However, as our professional development grew, he increasing let the younger lawyers play a more active role at the hearings. Once, again, it was Frieder's confidence in us that both enabled us to develop into better lawyers and eventually to strengthen the ACWL.

Frieder was particularly good at drafting. Every word he wrote for legal opinions or submissions was well chosen and perfectly crafted. He was also excellent at reviewing our drafts, enhancing both the clarity of the writing and the quality of the analysis. He invariably directed us back to the fundamentals. For example, whenever we drafted a legal opinion, Frieder would regularly suggest that we refer to a GATT panel report. At first, we were hesitant, as we were all enamoured with the new world of the WTO, and especially the Appellate Body reports. But when we did look up the GATT cases, they were always relevant and on-point. There was a lot of wisdom in those old GATT panel reports.

Frieder was a gifted mentor, combining strong substantive guidance with gentle and respectful encouragement in our ongoing professional development. He took seriously his responsibility to develop a new generation of WTO lawyers, and he excelled at this task. The ACWL lawyers flourished under his leadership.

Another benefit of working with Frieder was that he knew everybody, and he regularly brought senior members of the profession to the ACWL to share their views with all the staff lawyers. This included esteemed academics such as John Jackson, as well as Appellate Body members like Claus-Dieter Ehlermann. This gave ACWL lawyers unparalleled access to people who were instrumental in shaping WTO law. It also enabled the Centre to invite these renowned international trade lawyers to speak at annual luncheons hosted by the ACWL, which enabled the Ambassadors and officials from our developing country Members and the LDCs to interact with these experienced professionals.

2. Frieder's Integrated Approach to Analysing Issues

Frieder examined issues from an integrated legal, economic, and policy perspective. His approach to these issues was quite unique, given the varying silos in which most analyses are conducted. Trade lawyers, in particular, tend to focus almost exclusively on the text and the jurisprudence. Frieder refused to limit himself in this way, recognizing that a broader perspective was needed. This was critical in understanding the motivations of governments when they adopt trade measures.

For example, Frieder noted that a government seeking to protect a domestic industry from import competition had a menu of available options, such as subsidies, import tariffs, import quotas, safeguards, or voluntary export restraints (VERs). He argued that the WTO consistency of each proposed measure was only one of the many factors that would be considered by a government, which also weighed matters such as its broader economic objectives, its specific industrial policies, domestic legal pressures, and the prospects for success. He argued that the economic cost of protecting the domestic industry would vary with the policy instrument chosen.

Frieder noted that the principal fiscal means available to governments is the import tariff. Import tariffs do not interfere with market mechanisms. By contrast, import quotas and VERs do interfere with the competitive process by promoting the cartelization of the domestic and foreign industry. He pointed out that a government can also restrain imports through administrative means. For example, it has the choice between a global quota and a quota allocated among exporting countries. The points that Frieder made are still valid in today's multilateral trading environment.

These are just examples of Frieder's broader point that governments take into consideration a wide range of factors in determining what measures to adopt in order to protect their domestic industry. His insistence that we consider these issues in a broader perspective enhanced our effectiveness as lawyers, and made us better equipped to challenge or defend such measures.