Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T06:38:57.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Creation of the Multilateral Trade Court: Design and ExperientialLearning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 July 2015

MANFRED ELSIG  and
JAPPE ECKHARDT
MANFRED ELSIG*
Affiliation:
World Trade Institute, University of Bern
JAPPE ECKHARDT*
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University
*
*Email: manfred.elsig@wti.org
**Email: jappe.eckhardt@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO)'s disputesettlement system (DSS) in 1995 remains one of the most puzzling outcomes ininternational politics and international law in the 1990s. We provide a newexplanation for this move to law. We argue that important contextual variablesof the negotiations have been largely overlooked by existing explanations,namely ‘experiential learning’. While negotiations tocreate institutions are characterized by uncertainty about distributionaleffects, negotiators will look for clues that moderate uncertainty. In thecontext of the Uruguay Round negotiations, a significant amount of informationwas drawn from actual practice and experience with the existing GeneralAgreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) dispute settlement system. In short,experience gained with judicial institutions and outcomes is important tounderstand the key results of the negotiations: a legalization leap, morespecifically a judicialization of the existing dispute settlement system. Wefocus on the two dominant actors in the negotiations (the United States and the(then) European Community) and provide evidence for our argument based on ananalysis of GATT cases in the 1980s, GATT documents, and in-depth interviewswith negotiators who participated in the negotiations.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 14 , Special Issue S1: Judicial Politics in International TradeRelations , July 2015 , pp. S13 - S32
Copyright
Copyright © Manfred Elsig and Jappe Eckhardt 2015 

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

Arnold, J. R. (1994), ‘Oilseeds Dispute and the Validity of Unilateralism in a Multilateral Context’, The Stanford Journal of International Law, 30: 187–220.Google Scholar
Bernauer, T., Elsig, M., and Pauwelyn, J. (2012), ‘The Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Analysis and Problems’, in Daunton, M., Narlikar, A., and Stern, R. M. (eds.), Oxford Handbook on the World Trade Organization, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 485–506.Google Scholar
Bown, C. P. (2004), ‘On the Economic Success of GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement’, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(3): 811–823.Google Scholar
Bown, C. P. (2005), ‘Participation in WTO Dispute Settlement: Complainants, Interested Parties, and Free Riders’, The World Bank Economic Review, 19(2): 287–310.Google Scholar
Busch, M. L. and Reinhardt, E. (2006), ‘Three's a Crowd: Third Parties and WTO Dispute Settlement’, World Politics, 58(3): 446–477.Google Scholar
Checkel, J. T. (2001), ‘Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change’, International Organization, 55(3): 553–588.Google Scholar
Cho, S. (1998), ‘GATT Non-Violation Issues in the WTO Framework: Are They the Achilles’ Heel of the Dispute Settlement Process?’, Harvard International Law Journal, 39(2): 311–356.Google Scholar
Copelovitch, M. S. and Putnam, T. L. (2014), ‘Design in Context: Existing International Agreements and New Cooperation’, International Organization, 68(2): 471–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Bièvre, D. and Poletti, A. (2015), ‘Judicial Politics in International Trade Relations’, World Trade Review, this issue.Google Scholar
Delios, A. and Henisz, W. J. (2003), ‘Political Hazards, Experience, and Sequential Entry Strategies: The International Expansion of Japanese firms, 1980–1998’, Strategic Management Journal, 24(11): 1153–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobbin, F., Simmons, B., and Garrett, G. (2007), ‘The Global Diffusion of Public Policies: Social Construction, Coercion, Competition, or Learning?’, Annual Review of Sociology, 33: 449–472.Google Scholar
Downie, C. (2012), ‘Toward an Understanding of State Behavior in Prolonged International Negotiations’, International Negotiation, 17(2): 295–320.Google Scholar
Eckhardt, J. and DeBièvre, D. (2015), ‘Boomerangs over Lac Léman: Transnational Lobbying and Foreign Venue Shopping in WTO Dispute Settlement’, World Trade Review, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Elkins, Z. and Simmons, B. (2005), ‘On Waves, Clusters, and Diffusion: A Conceptual Framework’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 598(1): 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsig, M. (2014), ‘Legalization Leap and International Institutions –The Design of the WTO's Dispute Settlement System’, Manuscript, University of Bern.Google Scholar
Elsig, M. and Stucki, P. (2012), ‘Low-income Developing Countries and WTO Litigation: Why Wake Up the Sleeping Dog?’, Review of International Political Economy, 19(2): 292–316.Google Scholar
GATT (1947), The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt47_01_e.htm.Google Scholar
Goldstein, J. and Gowa, J. (2002), ‘US National Power and the Post-War Trading Regime’, World Trade Review, 1(2): 153–170.Google Scholar
Goldstein, J. and Steinberg, R. (2008), ‘Negotiate or Litigate? Effects of WTO Judicial Delegation on US Trade Politics’, Law and Contemporary Problems, 71(1): 256–282.Google Scholar
Guzmann, A. and Simmons, B. (2002), ‘To settle or empanel? An Empirical Analysis of Litigation and Settlement at the World Trade Organization’, The Journal of Legal Studies, 31(1): 205–235.Google Scholar
Hay, C. and Wincott, D. (1998), ‘Structure, Agency and Historical Institutionalism’, Political Studies, 46(5): 951–957.Google Scholar
Hoekman, B., Horn, H., and Mavroidis, P. (2009), ‘Winners and Losers in the Panel Stage of the WTO Dispute Settlement System’, in Thomas, C. and Trachtman, J. P. (eds.), Developing Countries in the WTO Legal System, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 151–190.Google Scholar
Horn, H., Mavroidis, P., and Nordstrom, H. (1999), ‘Is the Use of the WTO Dispute Settlement System Biased?’, CEPR Discussion Paper No. 2340, London: The Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR).Google Scholar
Horn, H., Johannesson, L., and Mavroidis, P. (2011), ‘The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995–2010: Some Descriptive Statistics’, Journal of World Trade, 45(6): 1107–1138.Google Scholar
Hudec, R. E. (1993), Enforcing International Trade Law: The Evolution of the Modern GATT Legal System, Volume 7, Salem, NH: Butterworth Legal Publishers.Google Scholar
Hudec, R. E., Kennedy, D. L., and Sgarbossa, M. (1993), ‘Statistical Profile of GATT Dispute Settlement Cases: 1948–1989’, Minnesota Journal of Global Trade, 2(winter): 1–114.Google Scholar
Huth, P. and Russett, B. (1984), ‘What Makes Deterrence Work? Cases from 1900 to 1980’, World Politics, 36(4): 496–526.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. H. (1997), The World Trading System: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, R. O. (2001), ‘Governance in a Partially Globalized World’, American Political Science Review, 95(1): 1–13.Google Scholar
Kim, M. (2008), ‘Costly Procedures: Divergent Effects of Legalization in the GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures’, International Studies Quarterly, 52(3): 657–686.Google Scholar
Kolb, D. A. (1984), Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Koremenos, B. (2005), ‘Contracting Around International Uncertainty’, American Political Science Review, 99(4): 549–565.Google Scholar
Koremenos, B., Lipson, C., and Snidal, D. (2001), ‘The Rational Design of International Institutions’, International Organization, 55(4): 761–799.Google Scholar
Levy, J. S. (1994), ‘Learning and Foreign Policy: Sweeping a Conceptual Minefield’, International Organization, 48(2): 279–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelc, K. (2010), ‘Constraining Coercion? Legitimacy and Its Role in US Trade Policy, 1975–2000’, International Organization, 64(1): 65–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poletti, A., Bièvre, D. De, and Chatagnier, J. T. (2015), ‘Cooperation in the Shadow of WTO Law: Why Litigate When You Can Negotiate’, World Trade Review, this issue.Google Scholar
Powell, R. (1988), ‘Nuclear Brinkmanship with Two-sided Incomplete Information’, American Political Science Review, 82(1): 155–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, A. (2007), ‘The Power of Legalization: A Two-Level Explanation for US Support of WTO Dispute Settlement’, Paper presented at the ISA Annual Convention, Chicago.Google Scholar
Tomz, M. (2007), Reputation and International Cooperation: Sovereign Debt across Three Centuries, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tsang, E. W. (1999), ‘A Preliminary Typology of Learning in International Strategic Alliances’, Journal of World Business, 34(3): 211–229.Google Scholar
Rosendorff, B. P. (2005), ‘Stability and Rigidity: Politics and Design of the WTO's Dispute Settlement Procedure’, American Political Science Review, 99(3): 389–400.Google Scholar
Rosendorff, B. P. and Milner, H. V. (2001), ‘The Optimal Design of International Trade Institutions: Uncertainty and Escape’, International Organization, 55(4): 829–857.Google Scholar
Sattler, T. and Bernauer, T. (2011), ‘Gravitation or Discrimination? Determinants of Litigation in the World Trade Organization’, European Journal of Political Research, 50(2): 143–167.Google Scholar
Shaffer, G. (2003), Defending Interests: Public-Private Partnerships in WTO Litigation, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Shaffer, G., Elsig, M., and Puig, S. (forthcoming), ‘The Extensive (But Fragile) Authority of the WTO Appellate Body’, Law and Contemporary Problems.Google Scholar
Stewart, T. P. (1993), The GATT Uruguay Round: A Negotiating History (1986–1992), Volume 2, Deventer, Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.Google Scholar
Stone Sweet, A. (1997), ‘The New GATT – Dispute Resolution and the Judicialisation of the Trade Regime’, in Volcansek, M. L. (ed.), Law above Nations: Supranational Courts and the Legalization of Politics, University Press of Florida, pp. 118–141.Google Scholar