Sausage-Making at the WTO

doi:10.1017/9781108966122.004

3 - Sausage-Making at the WTO

Looking Behind the Curtain of Dispute Settlement Procedures Over Time

from Part I - Current Challenges in International Trade Dispute Settlement

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 August 2021

Krzysztof Pelc

Edited by

Manfred Elsig ,

Rodrigo Polanco and

Peter van den Bossche

Show author details

Manfred Elsig: Affiliation:
Universität Bern, Switzerland
Rodrigo Polanco: Affiliation:
Universität Bern, Switzerland
Peter van den Bossche: Affiliation:
Universität Bern, Switzerland

Book contents

Get access

Summary

There often exists a gap between public perceptions about how the proverbial sausage is made, and the reality of sausage-making. Just as often, sausage-makers have an incentive to preserve this gap between facts and perception. This chapter considers the analogous incentives of the various sausage-makers in international judicial settings, with a focus on the World Trade Organization (WTO). I show how recent empirical advances can offer an unprecedented glimpse into the sausage-making of international adjudication.

Type: Chapter
Information: International Economic Dispute Settlement
Demise or Transformation?
, pp. 47 - 67

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108966122.004 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baetens, F. (Ed.), 2019. Legitimacy of Unseen Actors in International Adjudication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Blustein, P. 2017. “China Inc. in the WTO Dock, Tales from a System under Fire,” Centre for International Governance Innovation Papers No. 157.Google Scholar

Brutger, R. and Morse, J. 2015. “Balancing Law and Politics: Judicial Incentives in WTO Dispute Settlement,” Review of International Organizations 10(2): 179–205.Google Scholar

Busch, M. L. and Pelc, K. 2010. “The Politics of Judicial Economy at the World Trade Organization,” International Organization 64(2): 257–79.Google Scholar

Busch, M. L. and Pelc, P. 2019. “Words Matter: How International Courts Handle Political Controversy,” International Studies Quarterly 63(2): 464–76.Google Scholar

Busch, M. L., Reinhardt, E. and Shaffer, G. 2009. “Does Legal Capacity Matter? A Survey of WTO Members,” World Trade Review 8(4): 559–77.Google Scholar

Charlotin, D. 2019. “Identifying the Voices of Unseen Actors in Investor-State Dispute Settlement.” In Baetens, F. (Ed.), Legitimacy of Unseen Actors in International Adjudication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 392–426.Google Scholar

Creamer, C. D. and Godzimirska, Z. 2019. “Trust in the Court: The Role of the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights,” European Journal of International Law 30(2): 665–87.Google Scholar

Daku, M. and Pelc, P. 2017. “Who Holds Influence over WTO Jurisprudence?” Journal of International Economic Law 20(2): 233–55.Google Scholar

Davis, C. L. and Bermeo, S. B. 2009. “Who Files? Developing Country Participation in GATT/WTO Adjudication,” The Journal of Politics 71(3): 1033–49.Google Scholar

Douglas, Z. 2013. “The Secretary to the Arbitral Tribunal.” In Berger, B. and Schneider, M. (Eds.), Inside the Black Box: How Arbitral Tribunals Operate and Reach Their Decisions, ASA Special Series, No. 42, pp. 87–92.Google Scholar

Dunoff, J. and Pollack, M. 2017. “The Judicial Trilemma,” American Journal of International Law 111(2): 225–76.Google Scholar

Elsig, M. 2011. “Principal–Agent Theory and the World Trade Organization: Complex Agency and ‘Missing Delegation’,” European Journal of International Relations 17(3): 495–517.Google Scholar

Ferejohn, J. 2002. “Judicializing Politics, Politicizing Law,” Law and Contemporary Problems 65(3): 41–68.Google Scholar

Johannesson, L. and Mavroidis, P. 2017. “The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995–2016: A Data Set and Its Descriptive Statistics,” Journal of World Trade 51(3): 357–408.Google Scholar

Johns, L. and Pelc, K. 2016. “Fear of Crowds in WTO Disputes: Why Don’t More Countries Participate?” Journal of Politics 78(1): 88–104.Google Scholar

Lowenfeld, A. 1994. “Remedies along with Rights: Institutional Reform in the New GATT,” American Journal of International Law 88(3): 477–88.Google Scholar

Marceau, G. (Ed.), 2015. A History of Law and Lawyers in the GATT/WTO: The Development of the Rule of Law in the Multilateral Trading System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Nossek, S. and Pelc, K. 2020. “Do International Tribunals Time Their Rulings Strategically?” Working paper.Google Scholar

Owens, R. and Wedeking, J. 2011. “Justices and Legal Clarity: Analyzing the Complexity of US Supreme Court Opinions,” Law and Society Review 45(4): 1027–61.Google Scholar

Pauwelyn, J. and Pelc, K. 2020a. “Who Writes the Rulings of the World Trade Organization? A Critical Assessment of the Role of the Secretariat in WTO Dispute Settlement.” Working paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3458872.Google Scholar

Pauwelyn, J. and Pelc, K. 2020b. “Lifting the Veil of Anonymity in Dissenting Opinions: Implications for Institutional Design.” Working paper.Google Scholar

Pelc, K. 2014. “The Politics of Precedent in International Law: A Social Network Application,” American Political Science Review 108(3): 547–64.Google Scholar

Pelc, K. 2016. Making and Bending International Rules: The Design of Exceptions and Escape Clauses in Trade Law. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pelc, K. 2017. “Twenty Years of Third Party Participation at the WTO: What Have We Learned?” In Elsig, M., Hoekman, B. and Pauwelyn, J. (Eds.), Assessing the World Trade Organization: Fit for Purpose? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 203–22.Google Scholar

Petersmann, E.-U. 2015. “The Establishment of a GATT Office of Legal Affairs and the Limits of ‘Public Reason’ in the GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System.” In Marceau, G. (ed.), A History of Law and Lawyers in the GATT/WTO: The Development of the Rule of Law in the Multilateral Trading System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 182–207.Google Scholar

Porges, A. 2015. “The Legal Affairs Division and Law in the GATT and the Uruguay Round.” In Marceau, G. (Ed.), A History of Law and Lawyers in the GATT/WTO: The Development of the Rule of Law in the Multilateral Trading System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 223–35.Google Scholar

Roessler, F. 2015. “The Role of Law in International Trade Relations and the Establishment of the Legal Affairs Division of the GATT.” In Marceau, G. (Ed.), A History of Law and Lawyers in the GATT/WTO: The Development of the Rule of Law in the Multilateral Trading System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 161–74.Google Scholar

Shell, R. 1995. “Trade Legalism and International Relations Theory: An Analysis of the World Trade Organization,” Duke Law Journal 44(5): 830–927.Google Scholar

Sim, C. 2019. “The Essence of Adjudication: Legitimacy of Case Managers in International Arbitration.” In Baetens, F. (Ed.), Legitimacy of Unseen Actors in International Adjudication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 217–37.Google Scholar

Soave, T. 2019. “The Politics of Invisibility: Why Are International Judicial Bureaucrats Obscured from View?” In Baetens, F. (Ed.), Legitimacy of Unseen Actors in International Adjudication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 323–46.Google Scholar

Staton, J. and Romero, A. 2019. “Rational Remedies: The Role of Opinion Clarity in the Inter-American Human Rights System,” International Studies Quarterly 63(3): 477–91.Google Scholar

Book contents

3 - Sausage-Making at the WTO

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive